She wasn't asked if she gave the notes to the reporter. She was asked if she showed them to the reporter. She said she discussed the notes but did not recall if she actually showed them during the exchange. She was trying to be precise and honest. In any event, what would have been wrong with either answer - either discussing and showing, or just discussing? It's like you won't let her through a pinhole whereas you let Kavanaugh drive his truck through all of his BS.
Also interesting that there was no concern expressed about having done so if she had done that, just that she could not remember. So, let's see now. The Washington Post gets to see her notes, but the Senate Committee and the person being accused do not. And Kavanaugh is not allowed to be pissed and call the proceedings a circus because that does not show judicial temperament.
The kids coming forewords against the priests inevitably end up having corroborating evidence..... According to the left we are supposed to believe Brett Kavanaugh has participated in multiple gang rapes and not a single person has ever come foreword till right before his supreme court confirmation.
Do they also only get one week to investigate the allegation? I fear in the future, anonymous name handles won't be enough. "So, Mr. h4m, it says here you posted regularly in a conspiracy theory section of a trading forum, how do you answer that?"
No they get 3 decades and 6 FBI investigations instead. Quite frankly if the FBI blew this one this badly, then it bolsters Trumps stance that the FBI is completely fucking incompetent.
Wasn't aware the allegation was 3 decades old, why didn't the FBI reported it in their 6 background checks I wonder? Didn't know adult allegation of Priests' misconducts took 3 decades either.