This confirms that Kavanaugh is telling the same lie (it's less substantive for him, but still) that some believe got Alberto Gonzales ousted as AG.pic.twitter.com/dMulWGlARM
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
And, yes, I agree that his response to questions about using Miranda's emails should, by itself, be disqualifying. But it's also clear he is narrowly parsing answers and on "TSP" he happens to be using a known dodge, one invented for the purpose.
No, he's not narrowly parsing on his answers. Judiciary is asking specific questions, not using TSP, but NSA. And unless there are additional memos showing more direct involvement, I don't see anything in the public record that directly contradicts his testimony now or in 2006.
Sorry. The fact that he's being asked answers abt NSA and he's answering ONLY abt TSP (which is what he did in the original) is precisely the lie, not the excuse. Same as limiting As on Kozinski JUST to sexual nature. Or As on birth control to what plaintiffs said. Etc etc.
I mean, this will not, in any way, make the difference between him being confirmed or not. But it should have been the basis for recusal in Klayman.
Oh, interesting about recusal on Klayman. That hadn't occurred to me. I'm not sure that even Leahy, who asked the question, would parse the way that you have.
And 100% agree with you about whether it makes a difference to whether or not he's confirmed. But I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who was read into TSP/702/SI thinking he lied.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.