4. Another reason to put "stolen" in quotes is because no hacking took place. The files were on a shared server - Repubs could access Dem files, and vice versa - so the "stealing" was really exploiting a glitch. But legality aside, it was unethical and wrong.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Wow what a sterling case you’re making for Kavanaugh...not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It refers to a letter sent to Leahy "in the strictest confidence"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Willful blindness.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Senator Hatch didn’t ask him if he knew it was stolen square this line of questioning and his answer with any of those emails.
@rickhasenpic.twitter.com/x7BdMy703P
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Stop conflating. This isn't a criminal court, re "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yes, he SHOULD have known....just like in civil court it's a "preponderance of the evidence." Thanks for making the case for the latter. The evidence suggests he knew this was again your word - WRONG
-
"should have known" does not get you to perjury.
-
Agreed. Purjury is red herring. At best he was disingenuous and misleading. Not SCOTUS qualities. Preponderance of evidence shows he is far worse. Again, not up to being a federal judge, never mind SCOTUS. All simple undeniable facts. And we didn't even go to perjury.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He was at least negligent, yes. But that being a “far cry” from perjury doesn’t mean he didn’t know.
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.