Murkowksi says she is a NO but will vote “present” tomorrow since Steve Daines is out at his daughter’s wedding. It won’t change the outcome of the vote.
-
-
If there are in fact texts proving Kavanaugh was trying to coach witnesses about the Ramirez incident before he admitted to learning about the allegation in the New Yorker, proving perjury (and perhaps more), then it should immediately be the lead story
@CNN@MSNBC@nytimespic.twitter.com/sZouItWNm3
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If there are in fact texts proving Kavanaugh was trying to coach witnesses about the Ramirez incident before he admitted to learning about the allegation in the New Yorker, proving perjury, then there should be a microphone and a reporter in front of Flake and Collins immediatelypic.twitter.com/cU3bL854Oz
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@lisamurkowski If you are a "No" then VOTE NO, not "present". - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Murkowski said she would vote no and is now backing down. Daines can leave his daughter's wedding and vote or he can be marked absent. So yes, it could very well change the outcome.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ensuring women become 2nd class citizens for the foreseeable future.
-
*stay* second class citizens
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So why can’t the outcome of the vote be 50-49?
-
Because one senator is absent due to his daughter's wedding.
-
Yeah...I get that. Why does Murkowski feel like she has to vote present? Why can’t the final outcome be 50-49?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
She should not do that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ok I'm confused. Please explain. Why is there not 100??
-
Steve Daines of Montana is going to be at a wedding and won’t be present to vote.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So she is withholding her no vote so that if the Democrat changes his mind, Kavanaugh will still be confirmed. She might as well just go ahead & vote yes. Instead she wants to insure his confirmation & still be able to claim she voted no.
-
She’s extending a curtesy to a GOP yes vote who wants to miss the vote in order to attend his daughter’s wedding. His absence cancels out her abstention.
-
I understand how it is being spun as a "courtesy". Reality is to prevent his absence & her no vote from preventing Kavanaugh's confirmation. If she votes no, the other R senator is absent & the D changes his mind to vote no, Kavanaugh wouldn't be seated. It's not just courtesy.
-
She's protecting the nomination. That's why I state she should just go ahead & vote yes.
-
If she votes no, either the other senator misses the wedding or McConnell holds the vote open until he rushes back. Result would be the same. This is just a matter of personal curtesy that doesn’t impact the final result.
-
Which is protecting the outcome without having to extend the timeframe. lol
- 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.