I'm no longer managing editor at @ATLblog (just a contributor), so I'm going to use tweets to respond to this "perjury" argument of @ElieNYC (also raised by @WashingtonPost reporting & @nycsouthpaw, among others.) #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearingshttps://twitter.com/atlblog/status/1037762280874749952 …
-
-
2. A crucial background fact: at the
@WhiteHouse, different lawyers in the Counsel's Office get different circuit courts as their portfolios when it comes to nominations. See, e.g., here (noting Cheryl Stanton handling the 5th Cir.):http://bit.ly/2NTfm7kShow this thread -
3. At Kavanaugh's 2004 hearing (Elie erroneously says it was 2006), in response to Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh explained that Bill Pryor's 11th Cir. nomination wasn't in Kavanaugh's portfolio: "not... assigned to me,""not one... I worked on personally."pic.twitter.com/slYE251Rsn
Show this thread -
4. Later in the same colloquy, Kavanaugh restated the point in slightly different words: "the way the work is divvied up, that wasn't one of the ones I" (and then he was cut off, but presumably he would have said something like "assigned" or "given").
#SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/dg6Et7rKOT
Show this thread -
5. Sandwiched in between these two perfectly clear explanations is the language that
@ElieNYC,@nycsouthpaw and others fixate on: "I was not involved in handling [Pryor's] nomination."pic.twitter.com/mIUiYEb2ai
Show this thread -
6. Yes, Kavanaugh could have been more precise. But read in context, in light of statements he made immediately before & after, it's clear that all he was saying was that the Pryor nom/11th Cir. wasn't under his official
@WhiteHouse purview.Show this thread -
7. The "not involved" statement that Kavanaugh's critics rip out of context CANNOT be fairly read as a blanket denial of any and all involvement, especially based on other testimony given by Kavanaugh in the very same colloquy.
Show this thread -
8. Kavanaugh explicitly ADMITTED, for example, that he might have attended a moot session for Pryor, and/or read & discussed news articles about the Pryor nom (but understandably didn't want to go into detail about
@WhiteHouse internal deliberations).pic.twitter.com/K9nOo4uf2X
Show this thread -
9. Even if you want to over-read the "not involved" line, perjury requires specific intent to mislead - which Kavanaugh obviously did not have, having ADMITTED to at least SOME involvement with the Pryor nom.https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1747-elements-perjury-specific-intent …
Show this thread -
10. So, in conclusion, this "perjury" argument is without merit -- an unfair and unfounded attack against Judge Kavanaugh. Vote against him if you disagree with his jurisprudence, fine -- but please don't slander him. Thanks.
#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearingsShow this thread -
P.S. I have done two additional threads on "perjury" allegations related to
#Memogate and NSA surveillance: 1. Memogate: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792 … 2. NSA surveillance:https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038195699513520129 …Show this thread -
P.P.S. More tweets on the "perjury" claims: 3. Pickering: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038617313933750273 … 4. Addressing "OK, maybe he didn't commit perjury, but wasn't he misleading/incomplete/not totally forthcoming? Shouldn't we demand more for
#SCOTUS?"https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038630129025646593 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
cannot help but notice that you completely omitted the stolen emails issue
-
The stolen memos (not emails, actually) where Senator Leahy admits to opposing Miguel Estrada because he's Latino? Those stolen memos?
-
sure, if that's what they said. did Kavanaugh tell the truth about his interaction with them under oath, then or now, or did he lie?
-
Yes, he did tell the truth. Find me one statement in there that indicates he knew they were improperly or illegally obtained (or that in fact they were illegally obtained).
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-patrick-leahy-points-to-email-that-suggests-judge-lied-to-senate.html … check the transcript, that isn't the lie in question.
-
the lie was: Q: did Miranda provide you with documents from Dem Judiciary staff? A: No. whether or not this is prosecutable perjury, it's a clear lie under oath to Congress.
-
Kavanaugh never received the memos. He received language from the memos, that was later revealed to be lifted verbatim but Kavanaugh never received the actual documents. Given the context, that's not even hiding the ball since the focus was whether he knew he received stolen info
-
Hatch: Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with information that you believed or were led to believe was obtained or derived from Democratic files?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
-
Most patently idiotic statement of the day on Twitter. Congrats
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.