Narrator voice: It was perjury.https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1046927419989549056 …
-
-
Replying to @briebriejoy
The thing is, proving perjury isn't even necessary here! Proving a pattern of deception should be politically sufficient -- and that way you don't have to establish intent. I almost think the perjury debate raises the "disqualification bar" needlessly high.
8 replies 2 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Fair point. But also, I think perjury is not that hard to prove.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes
Proving he knowingly lied about the meaning of context-contingent yearbook references could be hard. So why bother! Using that standard gives conservatives an "out" to avoid acknowledging the multiple false statements, which might not constitute perjury, but constitute deception.
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.