Collins: Second Kavanaugh accuser should speak with Senate panel under oath
Source: The Hill
GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), a critical swing vote in the Supreme Court fight, said on Monday that she believed a woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct should speak with Senate staff under oath.
I believe that the committee investigators should reach out to Deborah Ramirez to question her under oath about what she is alleging happened, Collins told reporters, when asked what she made of the latest allegation against Kavanaugh.
Asked if she believed Ramirez should appear at a Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Thursday, Collins added that she didnt.
No because there hasnt even been an interview of her yet and I think that needs to take place first, Collins said.
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408176-collins-second-kavanaugh-accuser-should-speak-with-senate-panel-under-oath
She will still vote YES, this is just cover for her.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)thing she is doing. Im sick of hearing its over from the same people since July. Its their constant discouragement laziness that hurts the Dems. Why are only 17% of the callers men? Get off your asses this week!
dhol82
(9,353 posts)Collins will listen to the testimony and then vote republican.
femmedem
(8,201 posts)Every day more and more evidence against Kavenaugh appears. Yes, it might be cover for her, but it's also possible that the preponderance of evidence will make it politically impossible to confirm him.
It also might be cover of a different sort: it might give her cover to vote no without her Trump-supporting base accusing her of not giving Kavanaugh a fair shake.
4139
(1,893 posts)... not the committee.
Fake fairness and concern
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Much later...
idcdu
(170 posts)Sounds good to me.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Do not give her any ideas
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)told to.
bucolic_frolic
(43,148 posts)Susan Collins, where are you?
infullview
(981 posts)she's simply providing cover for her vote to confirm as soon as this lopsided testimony is over, and the GOP proclaims the result to be inconclusive.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)It's just as illegal to lie to Coongress under oath or not under oath so I was just reading it as threat that you will be attacked and your testimony questioned unreasonably.I know the public thinks that under oath means something special, but it doesn't I take it they are using their minions to find some way of besmirching her character as we speak. I can undertsand the average person not knowing this,but she a US Senator.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)It is clear that she does not
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)on the high court.
RainCaster
(10,870 posts)Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)It makes no difference if you are under oath or not. Knowingly lying to Congress is a crime.