Ever take a step back and think about the fact that you're debating whether the current SCOTUS nom *technically* committed perjury? Let's use the MTD standard and say he didn't!!! Yay! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
-
-
This thread addresses your point. I think Kavanaugh's past testimony was honest both fundamentally & technically - but to the extent that he wasn't maximally chatty at his past hearings, that's a reflection of the times, not him.https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038630129025646593 …
-
(A) I use the "what time is it" hypo for all dep prep. But (B) I don't think this full fleshes your point out. Not sure how you can without a very clear presentation of the Q&A.
-
If you look at all my past threads, I have pretty significant, annotated excerpts (much larger than the ones used by the senators). And I link to the underlying hearing transcripts. But we may just have to agree to disagree here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That claim was unpersuasive -- context shows that the term "involved" means the same thing as the dictionary says, & thus he knowingly lied. Claiming "context" of Kavanaugh's serial dishonesty across swathe of testimony is exculpatory can be asserted without persuading. (1/2)
-
But regardless -- put aside perjury for the moment -- do you believe Kavanaugh will provide specific answers to specific questions about his finances from Senator Whitehouse and re "Gag list" from Coons? And do you believe it is required? (2/2)
-
TBH, I'm not sure; never having worked for
@SenJudiciary, I don't know the standards. He was asked about "Gag List" by@MazieHirono (although@ChrisCoons's questions are more specific). On finances, I think he should offer enough to dispel conflicts issues. -
Check out the Sotomayor here (in the 600s): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GPO-CHRG-SOTOMAYOR.pdf … Supreme Court nominees offer actual answers, even if brief, to all questions. I believe Kavanaugh will refuse to answer several pointed questions. That alone would be disqualifying on neutral principles.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
David, I’m curious. Do you recall ever having to defend a judicial nominee against perjury accusations?
-
Yolanda, I'm curious. Do you recall ever seeing utterly baseless perjury accusations against a judicial nominee?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The only context we need is that you like Kavanaugh and will defend everything he does. Democrats don't like him and therefore everything he does is bad. 50 out of 100 means confirmation. There is not right or wrong here because everyone is dug in with their views.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
General rule on a crime like perjury - if you have to argue dictionary definitions, grammar, and semantics to try and prove it, you’ve got nothing.
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.