5. If thousands of smart people around the nation look long and hard enough at anyone's testimony, especially a nominee who testified for dozens of hours at three hearings, they can find - or manufacture - what might look like errors in the testimony.
-
Show this thread
-
David Lat Retweeted Benjamin Wittes
6. The issue then becomes, as to any specific alleged error, is the mistake (a) significant and (b) intentional? Or is it, as
@BenjaminWittes puts it, "minor and inadvertent"?https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1038531832168554497 …David Lat added,
Benjamin WittesVerified account @benjaminwittesThere’s a far simpler explanation for Kavanaugh’s behavior: He believed his testimony in 2004 and 2006 to be truthful, and he told the truth as he understood it this time too—and that any errors are minor and inadvertent and not the result of trying to cover something up.Show this thread1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
7. (This is why perjury has a "materiality" requirement. The supposedly false statement must have "a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body" in question.)http://bit.ly/2MfbY50
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
8. As I've explained at length, based on reviewing the testimonial and documentary evidence, I believe that Judge Kavanaugh has given truthful, accurate, and complete testimony, on all issues where his testimony has been questioned.
2 replies 3 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
9. But even if one can identify SOME specific snippet of testimony that might be erroneous, and can further show that the defense of the testimony's correctness doesn't hold water, the alleged error must also clearly be (a) important and (b) deliberate.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
10. I respectfully submit that none of the alleged errors in Kavanaugh's testimony meet this standard - at least from the vantage point of a moderate U.S. senator who might cast the deciding vote on his nomination, as opposed to a partisan on either side.
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
11. Critics of Kavanaugh should focus on his jurisprudence, which liberals and progressives DO have legitimate reason to question, and refrain from attacks on his character, which are not warranted. .
#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearings#KavanaughConfirmationHearings7 replies 10 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @DavidLat
Did you know nothing about Kozinski until December?
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @KathyHKu
I knew nothing of the allegations. I actually know less than many people about certain situations because people are so tight-lipped around me, fearing I'll blab & blog about them. For more discussion, seehttp://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-david-lat-legal-scholar-and-author-of-supreme-ambitions/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DavidLat
Did you know about the "Easy Rider Gag List" before the LA Times reported it in 2008?
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
No, not that I can recall. I was not on the Gag List myself. To try and refresh my recollection, I just reviewed all the emails I have from Kozinski prior to 2008, and none of them reference the Gag List (e.g., by forwarding a Gag List email).
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.