THREAD #1: A point-by-point breakdown of Judge Kavanaugh's claims about the Manny Miranda email theft scandal.
Exhibit 1: After Kavanaugh ally Manny Miranda stole 4,670 Democratic files on controversial Bush nominees, Kavanaugh testified, over and over, that he never received stolen materials or anything that appeared to be prepared by Dems or even anything “untoward.” That’s just FALSE.
Ex.1a: Here’s Kavanaugh receiving a highly confidential letter written to me about a nominee’s position on abortion. It was so secret the sender believed she’d be fired if it got out. Miranda even said take “no action…except as I request.” Kavanaugh responded minutes later. 
Ex.1b: Here’s a memo Kavanaugh received in his inbox the day after my staff sent it to me. It represents extensive research on a critical argument that Democrats intended to make. If it were legitimately obtained, why would Miranda tell Kavanaugh it’s not for distribution?
Ex.1c: Here’s Miranda sharing “highly confidentail” [sic] info about what Sen. Biden’s staff was advising him on a controversial hearing. It also says what my staff was sharing with other Democrats. If this was “normal” info to receive, why label it highly confidential?
Ex.1d: Here’s Miranda sharing he had it on “100% info that Leahy is trying to convene the Dems this afternoon.” Clearly Miranda trusted Kavanaugh: He asked Kavanaugh to “refer to rumor, not to me” even when sharing the info with other Bush administration officials….
Ex.1e: Kavanaugh forwards an “interesting” email from another Republican staffer who appears in 1000s of emails with Miranda. It contains intel allegedly from a “mole” with the subject “spying.” I asked Kavanaugh in 2004 if he had heard of a Democratic “mole”—he did not answer.
Ex.1f: Miranda requested an off-site meeting with Kavanaugh and another Trump-appointed judge, Don Willet, wanting to hand them “paper” on Democratic senators’ thinking. If legitimate, why not email or fax it? I just asked Kavanaugh about off-site meetings; he refused to answer.
Ex.1g: Here’s Miranda sharing what I was looking into regarding a controversial nominee days before her hearing. Miranda even asked for help explaining why it was relevant—he didn’t learn about it from good faith conversations with “friends across the aisle” as he testified.
Ex.1h: Kavanaugh received a private letter from me & other Dems to Sen. Daschle. It was never made public & Kavanaugh had it before there was any mention of it in the press. Hard to imagine a savvy political operative didn’t know exactly what he had: a STOLEN nonpublic letter.
Ex. 1i,j,k,l: More inside, real-time info about what Democratic staff were researching, sharing, and tracking down. On controversial matters, the notion that such things would be shared “by friends across the aisle” is just not credible. It’s laughable.
Then there’s this: I’ve seen nominees try to dodge questions before. I’ve never seen a nominee flat-out refuse to answer ANY new questions, especially when it concerns their knowledge of a massive, multi-year theft.
