Thread by @DavidLat

I'm no longer managing editor at @ATLblog (just a contributor), so I'm going to use tweets to respond to this "perjury" argument of @ElieNYC (also raised by @WashingtonPost reporting & @nycsouthpaw, among others.) #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearings

https://twitter.com/atlblog/status/1037762280874749952

1. The key issue here is CONTEXT. The quotations by Kavanaugh that people are fixating on must be read in light of the entire 2004 hearing transcript, which is available here: bit.ly/2M3VIUv - #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearings

2. A crucial background fact: at the @WhiteHouse, different lawyers in the Counsel's Office get different circuit courts as their portfolios when it comes to nominations. See, e.g., here (noting Cheryl Stanton handling the 5th Cir.): bit.ly/2NTfm7k

3. At Kavanaugh's 2004 hearing (Elie erroneously says it was 2006), in response to Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh explained that Bill Pryor's 11th Cir. nomination wasn't in Kavanaugh's portfolio: "not... assigned to me,""not one... I worked on personally."

4. Later in the same colloquy, Kavanaugh restated the point in slightly different words: "the way the work is divvied up, that wasn't one of the ones I" (and then he was cut off, but presumably he would have said something like "assigned" or "given"). #SCOTUS

5. Sandwiched in between these two perfectly clear explanations is the language that @ElieNYC, @nycsouthpaw and others fixate on: "I was not involved in handling [Pryor's] nomination."

6. Yes, Kavanaugh could have been more precise. But read in context, in light of statements he made immediately before & after, it's clear that all he was saying was that the Pryor nom/11th Cir. wasn't under his official @WhiteHouse purview.

7. The "not involved" statement that Kavanaugh's critics rip out of context CANNOT be fairly read as a blanket denial of any and all involvement, especially based on other testimony given by Kavanaugh in the very same colloquy.

8. Kavanaugh explicitly ADMITTED, for example, that he might have attended a moot session for Pryor, and/or read & discussed news articles about the Pryor nom (but understandably didn't want to go into detail about @WhiteHouse internal deliberations).

9. Even if you want to over-read the "not involved" line, perjury requires specific intent to mislead - which Kavanaugh obviously did not have, having ADMITTED to at least SOME involvement with the Pryor nom. justice.gov/usam/criminal-…

10. So, in conclusion, this "perjury" argument is without merit -- an unfair and unfounded attack against Judge Kavanaugh. Vote against him if you disagree with his jurisprudence, fine -- but please don't slander him. Thanks. #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearings

P.S. I have done two additional threads on "perjury" allegations related to #Memogate and NSA surveillance:

1. Memogate:

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792

2. NSA surveillance:

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038195699513520129

P.P.S. More tweets on the "perjury" claims:

3. Pickering:

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038617313933750273

4. Addressing "OK, maybe he didn't commit perjury, but wasn't he misleading/incomplete/not totally forthcoming? Shouldn't we demand more for #SCOTUS?"

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038630129025646593