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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Seems like another example of the two-tiered justice system tbh
-
What about either of those explanations is perfectly clear?
-
"That was not one of the people who was assigned to me" perfectly clearly means "that was not one of the people that was assigned to me."
-
a separate subject from his involvement with the nomination. the emails show he conceived the nomination in the first place, likely conducted an interview with the nominee, and was repeatedly invited to strategy sessions--all of which he seems to have concealed.
-
He also concealed his complicity in or knowledge about the spying and stealing of documents. But, obviously, this thread proves that there's no lack of integrity that they won't explain away for ideological gains.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perfectly clear lies. He did work on it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This claim of fixation lacks...context.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.