Profile picture
Kimberley Strassel @KimStrassel
, 12 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
1) Breaking: So Debra Ramirez's attorney, John Clune, went on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 tonight. In interview, he accuses "game playing" by "majority party" with regards her testimony. But read the emails that have gone back and forth (I have), and that is downright false
2) First majority email goes Sunday, Sept 23, two days ago, hours from when New Yorker story runs, 7:43 pm. It goes to attorneys, notes story, asks when Ramirez is available for interview. Says it is "determined" to take statement and "investigate further."
3) At 10:30 pm, a Ramirez attny says will get back. But not till Monday, 3 PM, does Ramirez attny say she wants FBI. Says she might be open to be "interviewed in person"--though only "on appropriate terms (and unclear if by committee or FBI). Attnys suggest call . . next morning.
4) Few mins later,majority says thanks, but asks again if Ramirez has evidence/statements she is willing to provide to committee? Ramirez attnys defer to as-yet-undefinite call. Majority responds that before "next steps" (call), does Ramirez have evidence/testimony? (3rd ask)
5)That evening (still Monday), Ramirez attnys refer to New Yorker article as "evidence," again demand FBI investigation, say client won't talk before more "details of whatever process you are contemplating."
6) Majority instantly responds it "welcomes" any evidence in form of "email or letter" to chairman/ranking, or same from counsel, or statement to committee investigators. (4th ask)
7) Next morning (Tues., sept. 25) Ramirez attny ignores request again but says since he hasn't had "confirmation on this call" he is "now unavailable." Now suggests everyone talk end of day.
8) Majority responds, again, that before next steps (call), they need to know if Ramirez has evidence other than that in New Yorker article, and will she provide evidence/testimony to investigators? (5th ask) Again they would "welcome" that evidence, in any official form.
9) (Democrat staff now intervenes with email apologizing for Majority "preconditions." Offers to put Ramirez attnys in touch with FBI. And offers to get on evening call, undercutting majority request for information.)
10) A few hours later, Majority makes 6th request for information/statement. Then Mr. Clune goes on CNN to complain at length about Majority "game playing."
11)This is a serious accusation. No law enforcement would commence investigation without such statement--this is basic request, in line with any committee probe.Yet every polite request for basic on record statement is ignored, rebuffed, delayed, denied. GOP has bent backwards.
12) Finally, as you can read, claim by Clune that GOP "blew off scheduled call" (CNN headline) is flat out falsehood. Majority always said testimony/evidence first.Says something that an attny resorts to such deceptions. And that CNN wud report w/o checking.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Kimberley Strassel
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!