8. What was the 9/17/01 email about? Per the Times, it related to a 9/17/01 memo by Jonn Yoo to Timothy Flanagan, then deputy @WhiteHouse counsel, entitled "Constitutional Standards on Random Electronic Surveillance for Counter-Terrorism Purposes."
-
Show this thread
-
9. The 9/17/01 Yoo-to-Flanagan memo and the 9/17/01 Kavanaugh-to-Yoo email, per the Times (but emphasis mine), "explored a HYPOTHETICAL warrantless surveillance program" -- i.e., NOT the subsequent actual program, Stellarwind.
2 replies 7 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
10. Yes, some of the 9/17/01 research eventually made its way into
#Stellarwind authorization -- but Kavanaugh wasn't privy to that, since he was no longer in the loop at that point.1 reply 4 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
11. Why? Because as Yoo explained to
@NYTimes, “Kavanaugh was not cleared to know about Stellarwind or any other counterterrorism surveillance program that I worked on while at@TheJusticeDept."https://nyti.ms/2Ctpfak1 reply 5 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
12. See also
@Neal_Katyal (liberal lawyer and former Acting Solicitor General under President Obama): "Leahy suggesting J. Kavanaugh knew about NSA wiretapping earlier than he testified in 2006 that he did. This is going to be easy to verify."1 reply 3 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
David Lat Retweeted Neal Katyal
13. Why? Per Katyal: "There is always a record of everyone read into highly classified SCI programs & you even have to sign a ledger."https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1037364512901554177 …
David Lat added,
1 reply 3 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
14. As already noted, Kavanaugh was not "read into" Stellarwind, and his signature does not appear in the ledger. His 2006 testimony was accurate; he did not see "docs about 'the president’s N.S.A. warrantless wiretapping program'" prior to the Times story.
1 reply 7 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
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.1 reply 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
16. What about Kavanaugh's latest testimony, in his
#SCOTUS confirmation hearings? This week,@SenatorLeahy posed different, more general questions.1 reply 5 retweets 10 likesShow 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/2Ctpfak1 reply 4 retweets 13 likesShow 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]."
-
-
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."
1 reply 5 retweets 17 likesShow 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#KavanaughConfirmationHearings6 replies 25 retweets 48 likesShow 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.