Shouldn't Ford be required to testify first in order to get her complete record and allow the presumed innocent accused the ability to reply to the entirety of the claim?
-
-
-
Isn't something investigated first before testimony?
-
Sure, if there is proper jurisdiction (ie...its not an FBI matter) and if there is actual evidence that would support an investigation. We have an accusation and a denial at this point, if she has more she should be compelled to disclose asap or there shouldn't even be a hearing.
-
It is an FBI matter. They do the background checks and security clearance investigations. This would be part of that purview. This hearing on Monday has not been arranged in good faith. Only 2 witnesses when there are as many as 6 available.
-
That is my point as well. What's the point of a hearing without an investigation? People need evidence to decide.
-
Dan doesn't want evidence he's already made up his mind. The hearing is a dog and pony show designed to harm her not get to the truth. It's going to be really ugly and another blight on the process. I hope this changes before Monday
-
To the contrary, what evidence? I'm simply affording Kavanaugh his right to be presumed innocent.
-
If this were a court of law all those who were at that party would be questioned. But it's not a court of law it's a kangaroo proceeding, why you in such a hurry? There is evidence enough to compel due diligence but you'd rather just have him appointed for life. Go away
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
We can expect to see stalling tactics. They want to drag this out until after the midterms.
-
Exactly. It was always about this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If Ford is unwilling to testify, then Kavanaugh is cleared of the charges. Same as any civil lawsuit. You can't just make an allegation and not show up!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Kavanaugh should just make a public statement on Monday if she does not show, a reminder to the public and press that she was invited. Zoom in on her empty seat for effect.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Of course they don’t, she has no interest in opening herself to perjury. They should testify in the AM and confirm in the PM.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why should she come? The damage has already been done.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s called stalling for time.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It doesn’t raise a question to me , I’d have shit to move around classes to assign to someone else child care to arrange flights to book
you know I don’t have rich people paying my gambling debts and shit ,Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.