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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If he can't or won't be precise and thoughtful now he cannot be trusted to do so in the future. However, imo he didn't misspeak. He lied.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's actually not clear at all. You are forcing that meaning but it's not the most natural one, & he likely did have the intent to mislead
-
In any case the absolute best case scenario is he made incorrect misleading statements
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's clear that he said "I wasn't involved" which clearly means he meant to say he had nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with the nomination. Which, as we all know now was not true. Context be damned because "I wasn't involved" is so clear and absolute on it's face.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So David, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He never used the word official. He said he didn’t work on it and was not involved. Had he said official he would have been pressed on the meaning. You should not use official if he didn’t.
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.