Thursday, October 04, 2018

Kimberley Strassel on Twitter: "2) It was response to a Sept. 26 letter demanding withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination, based in part on Swetnick allegations. Grassley letter begins by noting that yesterday, Swetnick backtracked on basic allegations in interview with NBC news."

See the source imageKimberley Strassel on Twitter: "2) It was response to a Sept. 26 letter demanding withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination, based in part on Swetnick allegations. Grassley letter begins by noting that yesterday, Swetnick backtracked on basic allegations in interview with NBC news."
  1. 1) Since my mainstream colleagues are more interested in ice than facts, allow me to provide a few. Today, Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley sent letter to all 10 Ds on his committee.
    343 replies6,830 retweets14,013 likes

     
     

2) It was response to a Sept. 26 letter demanding withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination, based in part on Swetnick allegations. Grassley letter begins by noting that yesterday, Swetnick backtracked on basic allegations in interview with NBC news.
7:05 PM - 2 Oct 2018
11 replies1,439 retweets4,369 likes

 
 
    1. New conversation
    1.  Oct 2
      3) (It was in fact total collapse of her claims, tho he politely refrained from saying so.) Grassley notes he has enclosed another timeline of his actions to investigate all claims, including those that were "frivolous" but that he took up "out of respect for my colleagues."
      17 replies1,327 retweets4,226 likes

       
       
    2.  Oct 2
      4) That timeline makes clear the Committee reached out within minutes of Swetnick's attorney (Avenatti) Tweeting he had a client with allegations on Sept. 23; yet he refused to supply info/evidence. The next day Committee asks Avenatti again; again he declines.
      13 replies1,439 retweets4,234 likes

       
       
       

    3.  Oct 2
      5) Next day (Sept. 25), Committee asks Swetnick be made available for interview; Avenatti ignores request. It asks twice more that day. Also speaks to a "a friend" of Swetnick's, who says Swetnick had "never previously mentioned either Judge Kavanaugh or this alleged incident."
      14 replies1,359 retweets4,148 likes

       
       

    4.  Oct 2
      6) Same day, Commitee interviewed another person who had "had a dozen interactions with Ms. Swetnick over a period of four years, who has a negative view of Ms. Swetnick." Sept. 28 Committee then interviews ex-boyfriend of Swetnick's.
      8 replies1,259 retweets3,962 likes

       
       

    5.  Oct 2
      7) Oct. 1 investigates email from person who claims knowledge of Swetnick allegations; it also speaks with two employees at a company where Swetnick worked; it also speaks with an attorney for an ex-boyfriend of Swetnick. Oct. 2: Speaks to 4 MORE people who knew Swetnick.
      12 replies1,230 retweets3,908 likes

       
       

    6.  Oct 2
      8) Bottom line: Next time someone in the press repeats D claims that nobody is evaluating the Swetnick claims, just laugh. Given how absurd the claims are, that Judiciary is dealing with them at all is a a testament to its good faith effort to investigate.
      33 replies1,917 retweets5,718 likes

       
       
    7.  Oct 2
      9) Sidenote: To read the entire timeline of actions--dozens of interviews and emails, outreach, questions, all related to Ford, Rameriz and false claims--is to destroy those who claim that an FBI investigation was ever necessary. Senate Judiciary has been working hard..."
    8. Read all.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)