This latest post in @EdWhelanEPPC's series on the "perjury" accusations against Judge #Kavanaugh is responsive: http://bit.ly/2COGhjC . As I explained in my original thread, it's not an issue of dictionary definitions; it's an issue of context.https://twitter.com/jeffhauser/status/1039846921324646403 …
-
-
Replying to @DavidLat @EdWhelanEPPC
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)_/¯
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Chijogoldbe @EdWhelanEPPC
David Lat Retweeted David Lat
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 …
David Lat added,
David LatVerified account @DavidLatTHREAD, re: this frequently raised point: "OK, maybe Judge Kavanaugh didn't commit perjury. But wasn't his testimony misleading/incomplete/not totally forthcoming? Shouldn't we demand more for#SCOTUS?"#KavanaughHearings#KavanaughConfirmationHearingsShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DavidLat @EdWhelanEPPC
(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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.