1. At the outset, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful engagement with my tweets evaluating the "perjury" claims against Kavanaugh, which I deeply appreciate (even -- or especially -- when folks disagree with me). Sorry I can't respond to all individually.
-
-
Show this thread
-
2. The Kavanaugh testimony being evaluated for truthfulness comes from his judicial confirmation hearings -- in 2004 and in 2006, for the D.C. Circuit, and last week, for
#SCOTUS. One needs to keep this important fact in mind at all times.Show this thread -
3. In an ideal world, perhaps judicial confirmation hearings would be cooperative searches for truth and consensus, where both sides would be as honest, open, and expansive as possible. In the real world, in 2018, they are bloodsport.
Show this thread -
4. I compare confirmation hearings to depositions. Lawyers who prepare deposition witnesses advise them to tell the truth - you're under oath - but don't say more than is necessary and don't volunteer anything, especially if it's bad for your side.
Show this thread -
5. The common deposition prep advice: if opposing counsel asks "can you tell me what time it is," you say "yes."
Show this thread -
6. So at his confirmation hearings, Judge Kavanaugh was under no obligation to volunteer info, give expansive answers, help Democratic senators gather ammo to attack him, or set himself on fire. Judge Robert Bork did that, and look what happened to him.
Show this thread -
7. If Kavanaugh gave unduly narrow or incomplete answers, it was the job of
@SenJudiciary Democrats to act like lawyers taking depos - press the witness, probe more deeply, rephrase again & again, show the witness more docs - until you get what you want.Show this thread -
8. It was not Kavanaugh's job to make their case for them. He had no duty to say, e.g., "Oh, you want to go after me for my involvement with Pryor & Pickering? Well, let me tell you just how incredibly involved I was, so you can nail me to the wall for it!"
Show this thread -
9. In a better world, sure, maybe Kavanaugh would try to help the senators find out exactly what they were looking for. But in that better world, the senators wouldn't be trying to play a game of "gotcha" in order to derail his nomination.
Show this thread -
10. To sum up, Judge Kavanaugh's only duty was to testify truthfully - no more, no less. As I've argued in my prior threads, he did just that.
#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearings#KavanaughConfirmation#KavanaughConfirmationHearing#KavanaughConfirmationHearingsShow this thread -
In case you missed them, here are my prior evaluations of the Kavanaugh "perjury" claims: 1. Pryor: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818136349814784 … 2. Memogate: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792 … 3. NSA surveillance: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038195699513520129 … 4. Pickering:https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038617313933750273 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
...The premise of your argument that we should be OK with someone that basically did not shoot themselves in the foot in the equivalent of a deposition... for the SCOTUS. If that’s seriously our bar, we’re way past a crisis for this nomination and the nation.
-
His premise is that these hearings are pointless and tell us nothing about the fitness of the nominee.
-
If that’s the case, it’s clearly because it’s become an end run around the spirit of the process. Fine say it’s broken, so what’s the solution?
-
Make the hearings non-public, so the senators with 2020 ambitions don’t grandstand.
-
Your answer is to remove public visibility into one of the most important hearings that have *decades* of public impact because, what you view as, grandstanding bothers you? If it’s government of the people, by the people and for the people, this road leads to a very bad place.
-
Remove all cameras from the hearings. That’ll solve it. You think Booker acts like a preening schmoe is there’s no camera to play to?
-
1) That undermines that “these hearings are pointless and tell us nothing” point 2) Whatever you might feel about the delivery, it doesn’t obviate his point And in good faith: 3) Do you know what the senate was created for?
-
I see good arguments on both sides re: whether to have
#SCOTUS hearings (which are a relatively modern thing, as@SenMikeLee noted at#KavanaughHearings). On the one hand, they are often pointless and/or used shamelessly for political ends (by both sides). - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks for the reading, which is more detailed than I've seen elsewhere. Now let's see the tens of thousands of other docs illegitimately withheld, regarding the nominee who brazenly lied about his nomination selection process. Those docs may be harder to read so favorably.
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.