I was going to try to put together a list of all of the falsehoods, implausible claims, and questionable conduct by Kavanaugh solely as an ADULT.
But it’s hard to keep up.
And I’m worried the thread would be so long it would break Twitter.
Hell with it. Let’s break Twitter. 1/
2/ Let's keep this thread concise with links. Here is the @washingtonpost fact-checker. They gave him 3 Pinocchios on 3 different statements under oath for his use of documents stolen from Senate Democrats: washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/…
3/ Here's more on Kavanaugh and the stolen documents from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee: slate.com/news-and-polit…
4/ @washingtonpost found his answers "problematic" as to whether he was involved with the Bush administration's policy on detainees:
Kavanaugh: “I think with respect to the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees,..." washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/…
5/ "...I [Kavanaugh] was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memos that subsequently came out until the summer, sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. This was not part of my docket, either in the Counsel's Office or as staff secretary.”
6/ "No evidence has surfaced that Kavanaugh worked on the [torture memo]. However, “treatment of detainees” is a broader phrasing than “torture of detainees” — and it could fairly encompass Kavanaugh’s role in administration’s internal debate over detainees’ right to counsel."
7/ How about those baseball tickets? The story of piling up $200,000 of debt for shared tickets is utterly implausible, and it should ring suspicious to any serious sports fan. See my thread on these fan norms from last week:
8/ And it's incredibly suspicious that those massive debts were all suddenly repaid in one year. By whom? For which tickets and for what value? This is shady and totally unanswered.
9/ I flagged his answers to Sen. Coons on executive power and Humphrey's Executor. His description of his opinions was false. See video followed by my explanation.
10/ I've written about Kavanaugh's implausible answers on Judge Kozinski's serial sexual harassment. He said he was "shocked" and it was a gut-punch.
Thread on how he became Kozinski's clerk in 1991, and the open rumors about Kozinski for years:
11/ Did Kavanaugh initiate or help Ed Whelan and Leonard Leo with the disgusting attempt to smear Kavanaugh's high school friend, a middle school teacher? Who else would have provided such details of Bethesda 17-year-olds circa 1982?
12/ Now that the Georgetown Prep yearbooks have shown that Kavanaugh participated in a vile smear about a girl, clearly implying that he and a dozen had sex with her, did he apologize to her for his outrageous conduct last night on @FoxNews?
NO. Damning.
13/ Problem: Kavanaugh implied in a yearbook that he had sex with her, but claimed on @foxnews to be a virgin past college:
"I did not have sexual intercourse or *anything close to sexual intercourse* in high school or for many years there after." usatoday.com/story/news/nat…
14/ Obviously, virginity is a non-sequitur and immaterial to whether someone can commit sexual assault. But he went further: nothing "close to sexual intercourse."
The 1990s are calling. They want their impeachment transcripts back.
Was Kavanaugh alive then? Oh right...
15/ How many people will come forward to question this claim? Here's one.
It's totally normal for college freshmen to lie about sexual experience.
It's totally not normal to name one in your high school yearbook.
16/ @foxnews interview: "Was there ever a time [in high school] that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?
"No, that never happened."
Just read what he wrote in his own yearbook. (The passages in blue).
18/ So many Kavanaugh whoppers, I forgot about this one:
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."
He thinks Trump talking to 2 people (Leo and McGahn) broke the record.
And his speech, “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep” is awfully hard to square with his Choir Boy act last night.
What happened at Georgetown Prep, Brett?
22/ I’m not condemning judges or college students for drinking alcohol. And if I criticized drinking to excess, I’d be an insufferable hypocrite. (Maybe I already am.)
But I have no patience for those who put on a disingenuous Choir Boy act as a defense to serious allegations.
23/ Breaking now: "Sen. Feinstein has now identified another area in which she believes Kavanaugh was not truthful. By directing officials to speak to reporters during investigation of Pres. Clinton, Kavanaugh may have violated grand jury secrecy laws..." politico.com/story/2018/09/…
24/ "...even though Kavanaugh told her and Sen. Whitehouse he never broke those rules. According to a memo from National Archives, Kavanaugh instructed Hickman Ewing, deputy counsel, to ‘call [Chris] Ruddy’ about matters before a grand jury, which would be illegal to disclose."
25/ Feinstein: "I asked Kavanaugh for the record whether he shared ‘information learned through grand jury proceedings.’ His answer, that he acted ‘consistent with the law,’ conflicts with the official memo from Mr. Ewing." Disclosing grand jury information is against the law."
26/ Kavanaugh allegedly told Ewing to give this Vince Foster information to Chris Ruddy, one of the main right-wing partisan flacks of the 90s.
He published the conspiratorial "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster."
You've seen him on TV defending Trump. money.cnn.com/2017/06/13/med…
27/ Here are rules about grand jury secrecy:
(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(vi) an attorney for the government... law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/r…
28/ Kavanaugh allegedly violated grand jury Rule 6, and could have been punished by contempt of court. And then he allegedly lied about that under oath to Sen. Feinstein and Whitehouse. law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/r…
29/ Kavanaugh's prepared testimony below, with reference "smears" against his "good name."
And still no apology of any kind to the woman whose "good name" he smeared so outrageously in his yearbook.
Has he learned anything from his mistakes? huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-ka…
Restarting this thread with new evidence of falsehoods and credibility problems:
I grew up in Bethesda 15 years later. Times change, but boof doesn’t. His answer was laughable to Marylanders.
34/ The Renate answers were a triple whopper of outrageous callousness then, obvious lies now, and an insultingly disrespectful disingenuous non-apology apology. Vile.
🧵 from @jdmortenson on Sai Prakash & Aditya Bamzai is devastating.
It has serious legal implications - and it is actually much worse.
Julian & I have asked questions for years privately & politely.
I regret that it has come to this.
I regret I didn't call them out 4 yrs ago. 1/
2/ I emailed Prakash questions about his use of sources in May 2020, early in Covid, in his article "New Light on the Decision of 1789," while Seila Law was pending.
He never addressed them. Instead, he & @adityabamzai repeated them & added new misuses: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
3/ I sent drafts to Prakash detailing my concerns.
In 2020, I co-organized a conference at Stanford & invited Prakash (Covid pushed to 2022).
He accepted, but when he asked if I would be debating past work, he cancelled w/ no explanation.
It gets worse. law.stanford.edu/events-archive…
This scare tactic - that the GOP will challenge any new nominee - is meritless nonsense, belied by Speaker Johnson's inability to specify any legal argument.
(See election law experts like @rickhasen in thread)
It tells you the GOP is desperate to keep Biden on the ballot. 1/
“I don’t put any credence into it,” says @RickHasen. “Biden is not the party’s nominee now, and states generally point to the major party’s nominee as the one whose name is on the ballot.”
I've read Judge Cannon's dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago case, ruling Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was invalid.
I am shocked but not surprised.
Clearly she was desperate to dismiss the Watergate case US v. Nixon & DC Cir. precedents in order to dismiss this case.
1/
2/ Cannon's decision is mostly statutory interpretation, not con law, ruling Smith's appointment does not have a statutory basis.
She doesn't rule directly on the constitutional issues, but she sneaks them in through "clear statement" rules, a now infamous Roberts Court move.
3/ I acknowledge the statutory basis for Smith's appointment is not textually obvious.
Judge Cannon actually does a good job explaining that the statutes that the DOJ relies on are not clear or leave questions.
But what do judges do when they have such doubts?
Trump v. US thread.
Opinion below.
Bottom line #1: I agree that a Jan 6 trial cannot happen before the election (That was almost certain when the Court took this case)
2/ The Court remanded the case.
Commentators are overlooking the Court's emphasis on "presumptive immunity," rather than "absolute immunity."
See Chief Justice Roberts's concise summary at p. 6 below.
This presumption still opens a big door for trial court evidentiary hearings.
3/ The Court holds "absolute immunity" for "core constitutional powers" (p. 6 above).
But what are those "core" powers?
p. 8: "Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority."
I'll be live-tweeting tonight's debate, to the extent that I can keep up and have the stomach for it.
🧵 1/ I note that Donald Trump has already lost the expectations pre-game, which may (or may not) be a big deal. politicalwire.com/2024/06/27/mor…
2/ "A @nytimes Siena College poll found 60% of registered voters thought Trump would perform 'very' or 'somewhat' well in tonight’s debate. Only 46% said the same of Biden.
Overall, nearly half of voters anticipated a poor showing for Biden."
Low expectations. Maybe good news?
@nytimes 3/ I'm sorry this matters, but Biden has a frog in his throat, and even when he cleared the frog, his voice is flat and monotone. His answer on inflation is fine substantively, but the vocals are really not good.
His answer was good.
But he sounds weak.
@RickPildes 3/ Barrett picked up on the Special Counsel's argument of the absurdity that crim statutes need a clear statement, if only a tiny number of statutes include (she said only three or so). Surely Congress did not mean for presidents to be broadly immune so generally from crim law.