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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Actually, this response to that question is misleading at best and a lie at worst, given email proof that BMK did in fact recommend Pryor be nominated.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That’s a lie. Lie number 1. And he was given a dozen opportunities to correct it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Much of Kavanaugh's language intentionally obfuscates and misleads. He says he is not "handling" the nomination, as if he were in charge of it, but numerous documents show he was deeply involved in the nomination as a decision-maker.https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1037737330189185024 …
- 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.