Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_EAllusion]

I wish I knew if Water Dog was intentionally trolling with an Ed Whelan article or if he believes what he's pushing.

[_Gunnar]

It would be interesting to find out how closely Kavanaugh's new colleagues in the Supreme court have been following the battle over his nomination, how much they know about his previous history of lying under oath before the Senate, and what they truly think about that. I can't imagine they would not already know about the whole sordid mess.

[_Gunnar]

Give me one thing. Just one. Not a bunch of links. Not going to read all that. You give me one thing you have thoroughly researched and believe to be a demonstrable lie on the part of Kavanaugh.

I already gave you more than one thing and several links with easily demonstrable lies by Kavanaugh. I don't think you'll honestly take a look at anything I find, no matter how well attested and corroborated that does not reinforce your own confirmation bias. I think you are afraid to look at all the other links I provided.

[_Water Dog]

I already gave you more than one thing and several links with easily demonstrable lies by Kavanaugh. I don't think you'll honestly take a look at anything I find, no matter how well attested and corroborated that does not reinforce your own confirmation bias.

Right, so you can't actually point out a single instance of him definitively lying. About anything. And you don't know how to use google. I guess that settles the matter, then.

[_Water Dog]

[_Gunnar]

I wish I knew if Water Dog was intentionally trolling with an Ed Whelan article or if he believes what he's pushing.

I strongly suspect intentional trolling. He reminds me a great deal of some of the Flat Earther sites I have looked at who when confronted with solid evidence of heliocentrism and a round earth, they simply dismiss all the evidence as NASA lies and CGI.

[Guest]

I wish I knew if Water Dog was intentionally trolling with an Ed Whelan article or if he believes what he's pushing.

I strongly suspect intentional trolling. He reminds me a great deal of some of the Flat Earther sites I have looked at who when confronted with solid evidence of heliocentrism and a round earth, they simply dismiss all the evidence as NASA lies and CGI.

Should I waste any more time on this? Yeah, I get the joke, haha. Ed Whelan, snicker. Ed Whelan gaffed big time by trying to give the now proven liar Doctor Christine Blasey Ford the benefit of the doubt and voiced a possible theory of mistaken identity that a person in his position should have kept to himself. Shouldn't have done that and got roasted for it. That being said, Ed Whelan is an extremely competent person with a highly credible reputation. If you want a different article written by another person who debunks the same accusation, see google, there are others. Lots and lots and lots of them. They say the same thing though. How about speaking to the facts that Whelan presents instead of this ad hominem thing you're doing. What do you want me to say, boys? All any of us can do is rely on the information as its reported. You offered a source from East County Magazine (who??) which claims Kavaugh lied about this wire tap stuff. National Review, via Whelan, utterly blows this accusation out of the water, by presenting facts. Are his facts wrong? How? I don't think either one of you even read the article.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wish I knew if Water Dog was intentionally trolling with an Ed Whelan article or if he believes what he's pushing.

I strongly suspect intentional trolling. He reminds me a great deal of some of the Flat Earther sites I have looked at who when confronted with solid evidence of heliocentrism and a round earth, they simply dismiss all the evidence as NASA lies and CGI.

Gunnar,

If you're going to assert Kavaugh lied you need to do a better job than asserting via proxy by linking to someone else's poorly constructed argument.

You need to assert Argument A:

Kavanaugh Lied About This Thing

Present Your Case:

Here is Kavanaugh's lie, and this is why he lied:

Evidence #1

Evidence #2

Evidence #3

Sourcing your assertion doen't equal linking to some Slate article.

Be prepared to have your assertion and evidences challenged instead of rolling over like a whipped dog, and declaring that your opponent believes in a Flat Earth; argue your point. Failure to do that, and you risk looking like some bundle of sticks who likes to stroll onto the forum declaring himself much too smart and just lobs an insult. While cathartic for himself, he looks about as competent as a playground bully who's out of his element when attempting arithmetic.

- Doc

[_Gunnar]

I already gave you more than one thing and several links with easily demonstrable lies by Kavanaugh. I don't think you'll honestly take a look at anything I find, no matter how well attested and corroborated that does not reinforce your own confirmation bias.

Right, so you can't actually point out a single instance of him definitively lying. About anything. And you don't know how to use google. I guess that settles the matter, then.

Like I said, you are afraid to look at the links I provided. Let's look at a couple, shall we?

The lies that senators must tell themselves to support Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2018/09/28/the-lies-senators-must-tell-themselves-support-brett-kavanaugh/3Jy8vwnRx5PUwQtVHN3M5O/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos1

Whatever investigators finds, here’s some of what senators would need to ignore if they want to convince themselves they’re elevating an honest man to the Supreme Court:

In 2004, Kavanaugh said he was not involved in the handling of the controversial nomination of federal Judge William Pryor. That was a lie. E-mails later showed that he was involved.

• In 2006, Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved in the controversial nomination of federal Judge Charles Pickering. He lied about that too and said he was not.

• In 2006, Kavanaugh was asked about his role in the nomination of William Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel involved in creating the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. He lied about that.

All The Lies Brett Kavanaugh Told

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, his nomination is over.
“Oh, yes,” Flake told CBS News’ Scott Pelley.

Well, Senator? Do we have some news for you! Kavanaugh lied throughout his confirmation hearing. He told big lies and easily disprovable small lies. This may not even be the first time he has lied under oath: former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said Kavanaugh lied to him in his 2006 confirmation hearing for his current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

So, Sen. Flake, we now present to you all the lies Kavanaugh told in last week’s hearing — at least all the ones we can prove.

(A Flake spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.)

Russ Feingold

Sen. Russ Feingold: My first question is this. Did you know that Judge Pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? And if not, when did you become aware that Judge Pickering had solicited these letters of support?

Brett Kavanaugh: The answer to the first question, Senator, is no. This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.

But newly released emails show that Kavanaugh appeared to be the primary person handling Pickering’s nomination, at least by 2003, and was heavily involved in pushing for his confirmation as early as March 2002. There are emails showing that Kavanaugh coordinated meetings with and about Pickering; that he drafted remarks, letters to people on the Hill and at least one op-ed for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering; that he advised Gonzales on Pickering strategy; and much more.
One Department of Justice official even asked for Kavanaugh’s “blessings and instructions” before calling the nominee.

Others may have been involved, but Kavanaugh played a decisive leadership role in managing Pickering’s nomination and then lied to me about it.

In another example, Kavanaugh had worked to advance multiple controversial judicial nominations from President George W. Bush during a time when a Republican Senate staffer named Manuel Miranda accessed and downloaded thousands of computer files belonging to Democratic senators. Because Kavanaugh could have been in receipt of the stolen documents, he was grilled by senators of both parties on the matter at his first confirmation hearing in 2004 and he denied any involvement.

But emails released this year show that Kavanaugh received material from numerous emails, draft letters and memos laying out the legal arguments Democrats were going to make regarding Bush’s judicial nominees, including talking points written by a staffer to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). One email even had the subject
line “Spying” on it. Kavanaugh not only received that message, which mentioned a “mole,” but forwarded it to Gonzales. Leahy asked Kavanaugh about this regrettable episode in the 2004 confirmation hearing, and Kavanaugh’s responses were both unsatisfying and evasive.

Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying.

As a onetime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I considered the truthfulness of judicial nominees as a non-negotiable quality. Lying under oath cannot and must not be rewarded with a seat on the nation’s highest court, and lies cannot remain unchallenged.

[_Water Dog]

Let's walk through this.

From East County Magazine, by Miriam Raftery. And who is this person? From a google search she's a gigantic nobody. Her claim to fame is publishing some pieces that wrecked the career of a city councilman in San Diego. She's a low rent writer that has random liberal talk pieces. She has a BA in Environmental Studies. Does some work with HuffPo. Not much about her.

She says.

On Wednesday, Judge Kavanaugh testified under oath that he first learned about President George W. Bush’s wireless wiretapping program, also know as the Terrorist Surveillance program, from a New York Times article in 2005. But on Thursday, an email was released proving that back in 2001, Kavanaugh emailed John Yoo, the Bush administration Justice Deparrtment lawyer responsible for the infamous torture memo. Kavanaugh asked Yoo if there were “any results yet” in the “random/constant surveillance of phone and email surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S” to prevent “terrorist criminal violence”, in his own words.

In the other corner we have a piece from National Review by Ed Whelan. Who is Ed Whelan? He has a BA and JD from Harvard. Not that this alone means anything. Certainly not. And I don't particularly care about credentials, just putting it out there. But he's got quite an extensive career, law clerked for Scalia. General counsel to US Senate. Senior VP with Verizon. President of Ethics and Public Policy Center since 2004, an esteemed organization. Writes extensively for National Review. Syndicated columnist. Long story short, he's a player. He's not some nobody. He's also not a hack. He doesn't write drive-by conspiracy articles on random magazine websites.

He says.

Let’s go the next item in the Left’s absurd litany of lies—the claim that Judge Kavanaugh testified untruthfully at the 2006 hearing on his D.C. Circuit nomination when he stated that he did not learn of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, code-named Stellarwind, until the New York Times ran a story on it in December 2005.

Unlike the Manny Miranda controversy, which is sufficiently complicated that folks who aren’t paying attention might be a bit confused, this claim is patently ridiculous.

Here is Kavanaugh’s testimony on the matter at his 2006 hearing (pp. 42-43 of transcript):

Senator LEAHY. What was your reaction—as Staff Secretary, you see virtually every piece of paper that goes to the President; is that correct?

Mr. KAVANAUGH. On many issues, yes, Senator. Not everything, but on many issues.

Senator LEAHY. Did you see documents relating to the President’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program?

Mr. KAVANAUGH. Senator, I learned of that program when there was a New York Times story—reports of that program when there was a New York Times story that came over the wire, I think on a Thursday night in mid December of last year.

Senator LEAHY. You had not seen anything, or had you heard anything about it prior to the New York Times article?

Mr. KAVANAUGH. No.

Senator LEAHY. Nothing at all?

Mr. KAVANAUGH. Nothing at all.

As this New York Times article from last week makes clear, Leahy has zero evidence to contest Kavanaugh’s 2006 testimony that he had had no knowledge of the Stellarwind program. As former Obama administration official Neal Katyal has explained, “There is always a record of everyone read into highly classified SCI [sensitive compartmented information] programs and you even have to sign a ledger.” Per the NYT article, Kavanaugh was not read into the Stellarwind program, and, as Katyal points out, it would “be easy to verify” if he had been.

Leahy surely knows that Kavanaugh was not read into Stellarwind, and he did not contend otherwise at last week’s hearing. Rather, as the NYT article discusses, Leahy cited an email dated September 17, 2001—six days after the terrorist attacks—in which Kavanaugh inquired of DOJ lawyer John Yoo: “Any results yet on the 4A [Fourth Amendment] implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?” Kavanaugh explained to Leahy that “it was all hands on deck on all fronts” in “farming out assignments” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and that any such legal inquiry on September 17 was not conducted within the Stellarwind program (which, as the NYT article points out, wasn’t initiated until October 4, 2001).

In short, Kavanaugh’s 2006 testimony on this matter was entirely truthful, and Leahy’s effort to create a fog of confusion about it should not mislead anyone.

So, what does Whelan get wrong?

And by the way, Leahy is an absolute snake. Who is Leahy? It's so ironic that he's the one leading this controversy. He's oh-so concerned about warrantless wiretapping until a different political party is running the executive branch. He flipped from "must seek a warrant" to a new position of "doesn't have to seek a warrant and in fact can do even more without a warrant."

https://www.cnet.com/news/senate-bill-r ... -warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

✭ Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications.