FWIW, I think this tweet is misleading folks. I simply tried back the two signatories I spoke with on Friday. I asked the one I reached, who said she stood by it, to have other signatories call me. Already, five have called me to say they stand by the letter and Kavanaugh.https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1041676217815105536 …
-
-
Why not delete the
#FakeNews then? -
What "fake news"? I didn't tweet that original tweet. Talk to the author.
-
Your quoted tweet that has the TWO line in it. I love when you dolts bitch when you’re called out for your bullshit.
-
WTF are you talking about? I'm the person who is explaining why that tweet is misleading. Go away.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Did you ask any of these 65 women how well they knew Kavanaugh, if they ever dated him, if they ever attended a party with him, if they were ever alone with him, if they were ever around him when he was drunk, or if they ever heard any rumors about him that they chose to ignore?
-
Did you ask any women NOT cited by the GOP, who attended schools near Kavanaugh at the relevant time, if they knew him, if he ever behaved inappropriately toward them, if they recall him drinking to excess, if they ever heard any rumors about him being sexually violent, etc.?
-
Did you ask any of Kavanaugh’s male high school/college friends or acquaintances if they’re aware of him ever behaving inappropriately toward women, or if he bragged about sexual experiences that may not have been consensual, or if he drank to excess, or what his reputation was?
-
Reporters shouldn’t focus solely on women whom we already know to be GOP-selected as Kavanaugh supporters, esp since we also know there’s no way ALL 65 knew him well enough to attest to his spectacular moral character. Only Q for them: on what evidence did you form that opinion?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
https://twitter.com/Toddkron/status/1041682153212440580?s=19 … I beat you to it. Shame that 20k people lack reading comprehension skills.
-
I mean, congrats?
-
Well since we both came to the same exact conclusion, no reason to assume it was a dig. I think your tweet was very professional here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
7 of 65 isn't exactly great especially with it being a call me if you stand by it request. Think the best practice is contacting all of them, not asking somebody pro-Kavanaugh to do it. Would also be curious when signatures were gathered.
-
7 or 2, that's a far cry from 65...

-
Also, the reporter clearly stated that only 2 of the women he contacted spoke in support. He didn't claim to have called all 65, but rather most of them. Maybe he missed your 5?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Did you happen to ask them when Grassleys team contacted them for their signature? Otherwise, what’s the purpose?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But they had 65 of the women answer calls in one night to sign on kind of weird now only 7 are returning calls...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can you please ask the next woman who calls you (1) when was she asked to sign the letter, (2) by whom, and (3) was it disclosed to her before she signed that there could be an allegation of sexual assault made against Brett Kavanaugh?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Did you ask if any of them knew Ms. Ford? The letter signed by 65 is not material until more is known.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Misleading articles are particularly egregious when involves sexual assault allegations.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
decent of you to clarify … but … jeez, dude, how out of place do you feel at buzzfeed?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.