A thread on Judge #Kavanaugh & perjury.
I’m an attorney & have followed the Kavanaugh nomination closely. I want to discuss why I think it's important to use the word perjury to discuss some of #Kavanaugh's dishonesty. Continued ⤵
salon.com/2018/09/14/bre…
I’m an attorney & have followed the Kavanaugh nomination closely. I want to discuss why I think it's important to use the word perjury to discuss some of #Kavanaugh's dishonesty. Continued ⤵
salon.com/2018/09/14/bre…
A major problem with news coverage of Kavanaugh's deception is that the news relies on experts for its stories & that many of the legal experts including #NeverTrump conservatives & anti-trump progressives know #Kavanaugh to be a thoughtful lawyer. (Cartoon via @tomtomorrow) 
A good example of this came from 1 of my favorite podcasts, @NSLpodcast. Hosts are 2 attorneys—1conservative/1progressive—both critical of Trump. Both set aside evidence of #Kavanaugh's dishonesty bc they believe him to be honest. They know him personally
In my experience—there’s studies to back this up—everyone lies, even honest people. Discussing lies can be uncomfortable & even taboo, especially when it's someone we personally know. But as lawyers we must distinguish between white lies & lies under oath.
ft.com/content/143d1b…
ft.com/content/143d1b…
I want to emphasize that NOT every misstatement is a lie. Deceit requires knowledge & intent. See e.g. warrantless wiretapping (where #Kavanaugh may have worked on related issues, but there isn't *public* evidence he was ever briefed on the program). nytimes.com/2018/09/05/us/…
Looking guilty is also not direct evidence of lying. Absent additional information becoming public, there is no evidence Kavanaugh lied to Senator Harris regarding meeting w someone from Kasowitz Benson & Torres on the Mueller investigation:
vox.com/2018/9/6/17826…
vox.com/2018/9/6/17826…
BUT there were a few instances where there is documentary evidence strongly implies he intentionally mislead the Senate in his 2004 confirmation hearing. See e.g. when he testified that he did not "work[] on personally" the nomination of J. Pryor. vox.com/2018/9/6/17828…
Recently released documents show #Kavanaugh made a misstatement when he said he didn’t work on J. Pryor’s nomination. Given Pryor was a controversial nominee & the emails were contemporaneous, it’s unlikely that he forgot he worked on Pryor. A likely lie.
vox.com/2018/9/6/17828…
vox.com/2018/9/6/17828…
On the stolen docs, maybe #Kavanaugh didn't know they were stolen. But he testified there was nothing “untoward” for him to suspect. Another likely lie: he received emails with the subject line “spying” & marked “confidential” & "not for distribution.”
Maybe the evidence doesn’t YET rise to where a prosecutor would bring a criminal prosecution for perjury (lying under oath). But it would be an absurd standard for honesty, if we only called out lies that you could prove were lies beyond a reasonable doubt vox.com/2018/9/7/17829…
To continue the criminal law analogy, maybe there isn't evidence of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt YET, but there's probable cause to continue a perjury investigation… but R's are refusing to make public more than 10% of his docs. #WhatAreTheyHiding washingtonpost.com/politics/white…
But criminal perjury=analogy. Don't need evidence of lying beyond a reasonable doubt, we need sufficient evidence of lying to vote NO. Plenty there.
Even #Kavanaugh argued that a president could be impeached for alleged perjury. Voting no=much less extreme latimes.com/politics/la-na…
Even #Kavanaugh argued that a president could be impeached for alleged perjury. Voting no=much less extreme latimes.com/politics/la-na…
FYI, I’m an attorney w @MALDEF a nonprofit law firm, one of 100s of #CivilRights orgs working to #StopKavanaugh. Opinions are my own. Nothing above should be used as legal advice. Practical advice: don't lie under oath… or accept legal advice on twitter.
