Christ almighty. His testimony in the previous paragraph is about how he attended parties with friends where they drank. Obviously by “like this” he could mean “where felonies happen” or where “Leland way present” all that wouldhttps://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1046530250627256321 …
-
-
Replying to @michaelbd
If he wanted to say he never attended gatherings where felonies happen, he could've said that. Instead he formulated a denial to make it seem as though the idea of him ever attending a gathering like the one Ford described is absurd. That can be reasonably construed as deceptive.
17 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Why rip it out of the context of the preceding paragraphs and then constrain it’s meaning to something obviously absurd?
3 replies 0 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd
The preceding paragraphs' context doesn't alter the meaning. There is no way to more fully reflect what he claimed in this statement. As a highly accomplished lawyer testifying under oath, he knows how finely things are parsed in these settings.pic.twitter.com/LPUrPnhggT
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Accusation: You stole green apples Testimony: “I’ve picked red apples all my life.... I’ve never stolen fruit like that described in this complaint” You: “But green apples are a lot like red apples, liar!”
2 replies 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @michaelbd
Specious. He made a specific claim intended to bolster his wider denial. This claim, even when rendered as charitably as possible, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. We’re talking about under-oath testimony from a federal judge, not creative nonfiction. The highest standards apply.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
His specific claim was “like the one” described by Ford. Since Leyland says she never met him or was at a party with him, we should conclude he’s telling the truth. And not that he meant, “I never got together with friends and drank beer” which he talked about doing at length
2 replies 0 retweets 24 likes
Leland actually said she “does not know” Kavanaugh and “has no recollection” of the gathering which may sound like a trivial distinction, but doesn’t preclude the possibility that she did in fact attend the gathering. Talented lawyers are wording these statements very precisely.
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.