Interesting thread about whether Kavanaugh committed perjury w/r/t the files stolen from Senate Dems in the early 2000s. A criminal defense lawyer could make a very strong case against perjury, a charge that requires great precision. BUT... 1/ @gelbach @DavidLat @jadler1969https://twitter.com/gelbach/status/1038163689222889472 …
-
Show this thread
-
I am wondering what people think about this: Assume (quite possibly correctly) Kavanaugh did not know at the time that he was receiving stolen docs. But he seems to work pretty hard in the 2006 exchange below w/ Ted Kennedy to suggest he never received stolen info. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
I'm not claiming it's perjury. (I don't think it is b/c he didn't directly answer the question and his answer is highly specific to memos.) I'm not claiming it's impeachable. But it's misleading, no? And why not say that he realizes in hindsight that he got some stolen material?
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cshaplaw
@gelbach@jadler1969 This might sound like splitting hairs, but my assumption is he didn't realize at the time that the information - he did not receive "memos" per se, as I've discussed earlier - was improperly obtained.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't understand this interpretation. The question was directed to him in 2006, long after it was clear that the information was improperly obtained. No one asked whether he knew it was improperly obtained. The question was whether he received it at all. He answered falsely.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
We could quibble about whether he misunderstood the question (whether he understood the "memos" to be the same information he was sent in the e-mails we're now seeing, etc.), but that's not what you're saying here.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
David Lat Retweeted David Lat
Maybe not here, but I think I made that point earlier: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038135659830099968 … I'd also add that (1) it's a confusing exchange (both Ken and Kav could have been clearer), and (2) in context, "the memos" might be better read as "the provenance of the memos."
David Lat added,
-
-
To make the case you need to address the 2004 exchange between Hatch &, especially, Schumer and Kavanaugh, David. At least one of the questions made whether the received material was recognized as "stolen" or in memo form or not irrelevant.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuaX6qKyWk …
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.