Even shorter she doesn’t believe he gets the same innocent until proven guilty because she doesn’t like his politics...seems fair.
-
-
-
She's asking for an investigation. In part bc he's a serial liar.
-
Dude..you don't want to go head-to-head with Marcy. I'm just warning you because you are about to be shellacked.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Important to stress this isn’t at all about guilt or innocence but whether he affirmatively proves he has the highest moral character, which he fails to do because of his tendency to dodge, run out the clock, & use partial truth. He wants the job, so this is his burden to meet.
-
Thank you. This is his burden to meet and, if he can’t or won’t, he must withdraw
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Presumption of innocence" He's not on trial. He's being vetted for a job and has been failing miserably. How he even responds to the allegations is relevant/important even IF innocence is determined. Its like a judge stuttering when asked if they've discussed cases w/other ppl
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tapper falsely framed that segment as a black and white issue to trap Hironimo> the Tim Russert model they all use. These dopes never do this to Republicans.
-
To reup the rules: Democrats are (rarely) invited on Sunday Showz, and only in order to delegitimize them. Republicans are always welcome, to spread whatever BS they want out there.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
He unequivocally lied under oath about the stolen documents he received from Maranda. Doesn't matter if some of those lies occurred in 2004 or 2006. Kavanaugh's credibility is nil. Plus, not on trial. Std is not BRD. In job interview std is enough evidence to be concerned.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
She was also trying to say that Kavanaugh has an agenda, that he used the law in two different cases in eays to reach his own desired outcome, which is inherently dishonest.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, you have a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial because everyone has the right to be free unless they do something wrong. You don't have a presumption of innocence in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing because being on SCOTUS is a (huge) privilege, not a right.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
No! There should be no presumption of innocence for a Supreme Court nominee. It should be exactly the opposite. We have a right to expect that Justices be able to prove that they are of good character.
-
This story has gained traction because it provides a window into Kavanaugh's view of women confirmed by his consistent rulings as a judge. This is why the radical right is so determined to get him confirmed. It's The Handmaid's Tale come to life. Brought to you by the GoP.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Pardon my rhetorical question, but how in the fart has this gone one second past the man perjuring himself? Lying under oath is a disqualifier for anyone. For a Supreme Court justice??? C'mon. We have to get politics under control in this country or democracy is doomed.
-
It’s surreal how we are essentially forced to say we are the greatest country in the world, but then these are the incredibly low standards we have for our highest positions of power.
End of conversation
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.