2. A crucial background fact: at the @WhiteHouse, different lawyers in the Counsel's Office get different circuit courts as their portfolios when it comes to nominations. See, e.g., here (noting Cheryl Stanton handling the 5th Cir.):http://bit.ly/2NTfm7k
-
Show this thread
-
3. At Kavanaugh's 2004 hearing (Elie erroneously says it was 2006), in response to Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh explained that Bill Pryor's 11th Cir. nomination wasn't in Kavanaugh's portfolio: "not... assigned to me,""not one... I worked on personally."pic.twitter.com/slYE251Rsn
4 replies 53 retweets 209 likesShow this thread -
4. Later in the same colloquy, Kavanaugh restated the point in slightly different words: "the way the work is divvied up, that wasn't one of the ones I" (and then he was cut off, but presumably he would have said something like "assigned" or "given").
#SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/dg6Et7rKOT
2 replies 49 retweets 187 likesShow this thread -
5. Sandwiched in between these two perfectly clear explanations is the language that
@ElieNYC,@nycsouthpaw and others fixate on: "I was not involved in handling [Pryor's] nomination."pic.twitter.com/mIUiYEb2ai
4 replies 52 retweets 187 likesShow this thread -
6. Yes, Kavanaugh could have been more precise. But read in context, in light of statements he made immediately before & after, it's clear that all he was saying was that the Pryor nom/11th Cir. wasn't under his official
@WhiteHouse purview.7 replies 67 retweets 283 likesShow this thread -
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.
8 replies 65 retweets 288 likesShow 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
7 replies 51 retweets 219 likesShow 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 …
11 replies 54 retweets 283 likesShow 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#KavanaughHearings90 replies 337 retweets 1,247 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @DavidLat
Okay, now do the other perjury charge against Kavsnsugh - Miranda docs
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
David Lat Retweeted David Lat
David Lat added,
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.