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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
Kavanaugh specifically intended to mislead Congress about his involvement with Pryor. Documents show how deep he was, and the spying either participated in or was aware of.
-
I hope the ideological gains are worth it to you. Because later when the Court is thought of as nothing more than a partisan institution of majoritarian control, you are deciding to be counted with the people who are bringing the institution low.
-
But that’s alright. As you are admitting that the Supreme Court is nothing more than a partisan extension of the most raw form of political power, my fight to bring other partisans to finally join the battle is made all more easy.
-
One day, not soon unfortunately, the damage you here cause will be revisited. And on that day your previous arguments to be invested in the integrity of the institution will not fool so many, as it once fooled me.
-
Ellie, are you going to engage with any substantive point at issue here?
-
There was no substantive issue raised. Kavanaugh lied.
@DavidLat said I didn’t show the context. I did. He said I slandered Kavanaugh. I didn’t. He’s bitching that his guy got caught in a lie. That you people think that’s “substance” matters less to me than you might think. -
“You people” I’ll see my way of this, I guess. I don’t know if you have something personal going on here. But he did raise valid rebuttals to your analysis, they appear well intentioned, and I would recommend engaging rather than reductionism and criticizing intentions.
-
Yes, “you people.” Think I don’t notice that whenever
@DavidLat sic’s people on me, it’s an orgy of white people on my otherwise diverse mentions? I’ve been here for ten years, I’ve always known exactly who I was up against. It’s frustrating but I’ve never let you people stop me - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
David are you claiming that Kavanaugh didn't mislead the committee on his receipt of purloined documents from
#SenateJudiciarySpying? To me there seems to be little ability to explain hat issue -- even if one embraces your parsing of terminology vis a vis Pryor. Cc:@jeffhauser -
Here's my thread on that - https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792 … - and see also this from
@Popehat - https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1038108259792519173 … -#SCOTUS#KavanaghHearing#KavanaughConfirmationHearings -
Theres real integrity issue here. When Gore campaign in 2000 got improper materials from Dubyas debate prep team they turned it over to FBI & recused Chris Lehane from debate prep. Most charitable interpretation of Kavanaugh on
#memogate is hear no evil see no evil speak no evil -
Kavanaugh either knew or should have known that these were marked confidential and by all rights should not have been in their hands or used by them. This doesn't reflect well on his ethics or integrity, even if it is perhaps <barely> legal
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Okay, now do the other perjury charge against Kavsnsugh - Miranda docs
New conversation -
-
-
BS. He lied. He's smart and careful. He could easily have said something like, "That one wasn't assigned to me but I may have assisted with prep." Instead, he chose to say he wasn't involved. Do this with a district judge and see how fast you're facing a disciplinary referral.
-
He did say exactly that, though.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Okay. Let’s say I agree with you that “perjury” is a stretch on the Pryor issue. What about his testimony that the NYT article on terrorism surveillance was the first he learned of it when numerous 2001 emails show otherwise? Less ambiguity there, no?
- 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.