Don't you think the fact that an allegation has been made about Kavanaugh is more newsworthy and should be in the headline?
-
-
-
Not without knowing more about the allegation and the alleger
-
Wait, so you're reticent to report on the Kavanaugh allegations but ok with suggesting Feinstein is covering up those allegations?
-
I reported that other Democratic senators have asked Feinstein to share the letter and she has refused. I cast no judgment on her refusal, just reported that she has said no. FFS, it's like a 400 word story just read it
-
I clearly read it, which is why I was surprised to see the lede buried near the bottom.
-
ok, fair enough
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So instead of framing this as though there’s something pretty damning about Kavanaugh you chose to frame this in a way that makes...Feinstein look bad for most likely verifying information and getting more information?
-
The information in this letter must be verified if it’s serious allegations of sexual abuse, harassment or rape. Releasing unverified information could create enough blowback to damage Democrats credibility, create sympathy for Kavanaugh & obscure his pattern of corruption.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
One just has to look at the responses from some of your followers to understand just how crappy this piece of journalism is. Many are not reading beyond the headline & thus are missing the fact that the document may involve sexual misconduct.pic.twitter.com/rm0pTtU7a2
-
There may be legal &/or privacy reasons for the document to be withheld (not to mention investigatory diligence). You mention in the *last* paragraph that the woman who is the subject of the letter has legal representation. And yet this is what your followers take away:pic.twitter.com/nUvhoaxlc3
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Probably verification and permission from the OP to use it?
-
More likely the former than the latter. The OP would have given it to her to use.
-
You are probably right, but wasn’t the original letter sent to Eshoo? I’ve worked on the Hill for a while and we can’t make a letter public without permission. YMMV, but that’s been the policy for every office I’ve worked in and for something like this, I’d make sure first.
-
But this isn’t making a letter public, it’s sharing it with the JC.
-
Fair point, but how long would that remain confidential? Feinstein is maddeningly slow and methodical, but, if this is true, I’m inclined to give her and her staff the benefit of the doubt. It’s only Wednesday and the committee vote isn’t until next week.
-
If the duty to withhold attaches to the senator to whom it has been disclosed, why would Feinstein have any concern?
-
Good question. I’m not the committee counsel or on her staff, but this is more a political question than a legal one. What if she releases the letter and the charges are demonstrably false? OTOH, if true, this could sink him. I would make sure it was right before releasing it.
-
isn’t that on the person releasing it, too? I’m sure if you are on the JC you aren’t going to use the letter without verifying it first.
- 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.