4. Still here? Okay, if you're not behind the @NYTimes paywall or too lazy to read ten paragraphs, here's a longer version.
-
-
15. One other point, made by
@RajShah45 this week: the 2006 questions related to what docs Kavanaugh had seen "as staff secretary,” a role Kavanaugh didn't assume until 2003 - i.e., well after the 9/17/01 email and memo traffic.Show this thread -
16. What about Kavanaugh's latest testimony, in his
#SCOTUS confirmation hearings? This week,@SenatorLeahy posed different, more general questions.Show this thread -
17. This time around,
@SenatorLeahy pressed Kavanaugh "to say whether he had ever raised questions 'about the constitutional implications of a warrantless surveillance program' with Mr. Yoo in 2001," per@NYTimes.https://nyti.ms/2CtpfakShow this thread -
18. Kavanaugh said that "he could not 'rule anything out like that,' allowing that in the early days after [9/11], White House lawyers worked on many things before regular assignments were sorted out. But, he said, his answer in 2006 was about [Stellarwind]."
Show this thread -
19. So Kavanaugh's 2006 testimony was accurate; he didn't see Stellarwind docs because he wasn't authorized to do so. When asked a broader question this week about whether he had discussed surveillance more generally, he said he "couldn't rule it out."
Show this thread -
20. Far from constituting "perjury," Judge Brett Kavanaugh's testimony about NSA warrantless wiretapping/surveillance, in both 2006 and 2018, was truthful, accurate, and complete.
#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearings#KavanaughConfirmationHearingsShow this thread
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.