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
-
-
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 -
-
-
This is not true.
-
I recognize your superior Capitol Hill knowledge, Jeff - but I still don't think the high standards for perjury have been met (see, e.g.,
@Popehat - https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1038108259792519173 …). It's more fair to vote against K for jurisprudential rather than personal grounds. -
Not all of the possible evidence is yet known until Archivist completes review. To the extent to which the standard re Kavanaugh honesty is pseudo-legal, the standard is either indictment or search warrant/hold up process until archives released, not conviction. (1/2)
-
But I disagree that Kavanaugh's character is irrelevant given his partisan history re Starr, Memogate, etc... is irrelevant when the president who appointed him seems likely to have cheated in attaining that office & numerous cases about that are going to head to SCOTUS. (2/2)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Regardless of its being common, legal, or anything else, Kavanaugh denied getting any info prepared by the Dems, which he clearly did.
-
When did he say that?
-
Here: Hatch. Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Kavanaugh. No
-
And: Hatch. Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with information that you believed or were led to believe was obtained or derived from Democratic files? avanaugh. No.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is exactly right. In 15 yrs on the Hill, I never heard of this on a partisan fight. HJC Dems never leaked to Starr and Brett, for example. This is the laziest and most faulty part of David’s argument. And seen by his citation of Fame of Thrones. What’s next, House of Cards?
-
Ultimate question can a siting judge get caught lying to Ted Kennedy’s questions and still stay on the bench?
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.