Yesterday I asked: If Johnson resigns for lying, where does that leave Sturgeon?
Some Nats replied that her QC friend had found her not guilty and the committee found technically that she hadn't "knowingly" misled Parliament. 1/
Some Nats replied that her QC friend had found her not guilty and the committee found technically that she hadn't "knowingly" misled Parliament. 1/
QC first. His finding was equivocal and in the end he said Parliament should decide. Parliament decided 2/ 
The Committee decided she had indeed misled Parliament but perhaps "not knowingly", which is the defence of her supporters.
Of course that's Johnson defence also, but they ignore that and call for his resignation. You might call that double standards. 3/
Of course that's Johnson defence also, but they ignore that and call for his resignation. You might call that double standards. 3/
But technicalities and uncertainties aside, there is Sturgeon's own on the record evidence to the Committee where she conveniently "forgot" every date and fact and person and document that might have been evidence in the case. Is that lying? If not, what is it? 4/
So, I repeat:
If Johnson has to resign for lying to Parliament, where does thar leave Sturgeon?
If Johnson has to resign for lying to Parliament, where does thar leave Sturgeon?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
