THREAD.
1. After I refuted "perjury" claims against Judge Kavanaugh re: his testimony on the Pryor nomination, some asked about the claim that Kavanaugh perjured himself re: #Memogate. So here goes. #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearings #KavanaughConfirmationHearings
-
-
10. In the gossipy, intrigue-filled, often backstabbing worlds of Capitol Hill and D.C., having "moles" in different camps is common (cf.
@GameOfThrones). While some might view this as sleazy or unsavory, it's neither uncommon nor illegal.Show this thread -
11. Email #2 is even less incriminating. Miranda passes along info about what the
@SenJudiciary Dems are up to, but it sounds like it could easily have been gleaned through backchanneling, Capitol Hill gossip, etc.pic.twitter.com/2f8rrTqpUS
Show this thread -
12. The subject line says "highly confidential." As
@EdWhelanEPPC tweeted, "Leahy pretends that memo marked 'highly confidential' means that K must have known source. Because we all know that no one in D.C. overmarks things as confidential."pic.twitter.com/nyjaC8EGtB
Show this thread -
13. Email #3. Read it without the benefit of hindsight, i.e., not knowing about
#Memogate. Would YOU know from the face of this email that Republican@SenJudiciary staffers were improperly accessing Democratic staffers' files through a shared server?pic.twitter.com/XKGcrmdY6t
Show this thread -
14. Email #4. Yet again, there's no indication that this info was improperly obtained. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe Kavanaugh SHOULD have interrogated Miranda on how he got such detailed info - but that's a far cry from actual knowledge of theft.pic.twitter.com/5lCFedBxZC
Show this thread -
15. Email #5 from
@SenatorLeahy's Twitter feed, which makes much of the "not [for] distribution" subject line. But just because something is marked "not for distribution" doesn't mean it was stolen; it might be so marked for any number of reasons.pic.twitter.com/o61MPx3TGH
Show this thread -
16. Leahy's tweet also claims this email was "8 pages of material taken VERBATIM from my files." But how was Kavanaugh to have known that, since he didn't do the improper accessing? The memo simply presents the info as "Points they [Democrats] make."pic.twitter.com/HiIFrZFuW5
Show this thread -
17. This week, Judge Kavanaugh was asked about another email he received, containing a draft letter by
@SenJudiciary Democrats - but his response at the time, asking "Who signed this?", shows he didn't realize it was a draft.http://bit.ly/2Q8XiHHShow this thread -
18. I might have missed a few emails or new ones might emerge, but in each case, ask yourself: would a busy
@WhiteHouse lawyer, reading & responding to numerous emails a day on many different subjects, know from the email's face that it contained stolen info?Show this thread -
19. Would it have been great if Brett Kavanaugh had figured out what Manuel Miranda was doing and reported it to the authorities (as Kavanaugh testified he would have, if he had known)? Sure. But that's hindsight.
Show this thread -
20. There is no reason to believe Brett Kavanaugh knowingly received stolen information from the
#Memogate scandal - and no reason to believe he lied about it, in 2004, 2006, or 2018.#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearings#KavanaughConfirmationHearingsShow this thread -
P.S. I tweeted this correction earlier, but I'd like to add it to the thread for the record: as you can see from reading Email #1 (pasted again below), it came from not from Manny Miranda but from a different Senate staffer (Barbara Ledeen).pic.twitter.com/n96QLjckHX
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And this email is from Barbara Ledeen, not Manny Miranda, so it does not support Leahy’s charge. Miranda does not appear on the email at all, I don’t think.
-
Thanks for pointing out my error; I have corrected it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Taking it from a mole is still unethical and wrong. I’ve had “insiders” send me things in my career. I tell my opposing counsel and destroy the documents
-
I'm assuming that's in the context of litigation or court supervised mediation. Kavanaugh's instance was part of a political process which clearly has a different threshold.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why do you say this email was written by Miranda? It says, twice, that it's from Barbara Ledeen.
-
I’m almost certain David posted a correction. And doesn’t that fact support David’s argument?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“A friend who is a mole for us on the left. “
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hahaha "Voluntarily sharing info"
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.