Asked what she was basing it off of, she said: ”Information that I’ve received that’s pretty reliable and I asked him a clear question and he couldn’t give a clear answer.” Has she seen any documentation of this? “I can’t give you more than that.”
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
LOL...
@senorrinhatch reading off paper with like 3-5 words in 250 size font!#TermLimits -
Thats because he forgot his ghost glasses.
-
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@KamalaHarris . got documents...otherwise..she would not waste het time@hwmnylx69 -
These GOP are getting HAMMERED. BRB.pic.twitter.com/NrG37hDEUN
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more -
Mueller should interview
#BrettKavanaugh .. -
Release his taxes too!
-
exactly!!!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Junior Senators, Harris and Booker, are fighting tooth and nail to save our democracy, what are the senior Democrats doing? The Democratic leadership at the very top is super weak right now, no wonder we're in this mess today.
-
Harris/Booker 2020
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have little doubt, based on the language of the question, that this was a perjury trap. Any "conversation" with anyone working for a firm with over 400 employees? If there was something substantive to the back story, the question would be more specific.
-
Sen Harris was specific, she asked Kav if he had a conversation about the Mueller Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. That should be pretty easy to answer. He is using the 'i'm confused defense to avoid answering'. In other words, he did.
-
The question was specific in intent only. A conversation could be as innocuous as casual remarks made in passing to a secretary at a dinner party, without knowing for whom the other party worked for. It was intended to leave an impression on the public, which it apparently did.
-
If it was an innocent conversation then why not acknowledge it? Kavanaugh himself made a negative impression on the public by Not identifying nor explaining the conversation. He tried to play dodgeball as a (guilty) child does when asked: "DId you......?"
-
I am sure there was a conversation, but the question was specifically phrased by a very talented prosecutor to elicit a denial and lead to a gotcha moment. That is a perjury trap. There are many reasons not to be able to answer the question, only 1 not to ask more directly.
-
I doubt she would use a passing comment at a dinner party to a secretary - or even a paralegal or intern - for such a hypothetical perjury trap. She is too professional: if she has evidence she is willing to use, I think it would be an attorney.
-
There really is no such thing as a perjury trap. You either answer the question truthfully or you don't Period. You choose whether you want to lie or tell the truth.
-
I agree with you. I merely meant to say that a casual “did you see Maddow last night?!” From an employee and a banal reply is not what she meant: she knows what she is doing. There is no such thing as a perjury trap: professional jurists ask Qs people can answer truthfully or not
- 2 more replies
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.