All the folks in my mentions: I’m not responding individually. Partisan counsel for committees write partisan “internal” memos all the time that are then obtained by journalists. They’re political documents aimed at moving the political needle, not legal documents. That’s all.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The point is that Mitchell is not working as a sex crimes prosecutor here. She’s working as a partisan lawyer for the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. That’s why she was hired, and that’s why she signed it using that title.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You know what jumps out at me most about this document? It's written to "All Republican Senators." Not "All Senators." You know, like you would write something that was objectively supposed to convince any Senator to credit or not credit her allegations.
-
Most Dems already announced they were voting no before these accusations arose. Why bother with them? More importantly, does your point make the issues she raised magically disappear?
-
It puts them in context. A lawyer writing a memo just for her clients to give them reasons to do XYZ doesn't have to spell out all the reasons not to. If it were aimed at everyone then it could be trusted to be more thorough, b/c she would know she needed to address concerns.
-
The fact that it's only addressed to one side begs the question "What did she leave out?" More importantly, it paints her as an ADVOCATE for the Republicans instead of as an honest unbiased factfinder, which is how they sold her.
-
She says in the memo that she is not political and that since she works in the legal field and not the political, her assessment is from a legal standpoint only. I guess liberals must have reading comprehension issues.
-
So basically if I said in my tweet that I am not political and that since I work in the legal field and not the political, my assessment is from a legal standpoint only, you'd have to accept it. Noted.
-
When you have the reputation and standing in your career that Mitchell has in hers, you will have a legitimate argument. Until then, you are just a political hack, as your tweets clearly demonstrate.
-
Awww, you're adorable. Bubye now.pic.twitter.com/5MVCA0BAqb
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In other words, you don’t like what the memo says because it doesn’t support your narrative.
-
No. It’s a memo paid for by one party to move their position forward. Nothing more. She wasn’t allowed to question Kavanaugh. That’s enough evidence there.
-
Her observations about Ford’s claims are based solely on Ford’s claims from her own testimony. It’s a fact that she doesn’t remember or claims not to remember any substantive details. She doesn’t even remember what she told the WA Post. Her story has more holes than Swiss cheese.
-
You mean she was honest, unlike Kavanaugh. Seems to be enough to believe her. Was enough to impeach Clinton, a case both Kavanaugh and
@LindseyGrahamSC worked on -
So the fact that she can’t substantiate her claims in any way prove her claims? No evidence needed? The accusation alone does it for you? Not in my America. We don’t destroy people on supposition. It’s despicable.
-
Innocent people don’t act the way he acts. Simple as that. Polygraph and FBI investigation should prove him innocent right? With no investigation guilt can not be proven or disproven. GOP and Kavanaugh want this decided without due process.
-
So now the fact that he’s angry at being smeared is being held against him. Due process? They held the accusation til the last minute. Delayed for another week to perpetuate the smear. Reopened the background investigation to delay another week and you still won’t be satisfied.
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation
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.
