Discussion: Kavanaugh Denies Lying To Committee About Involvement In Bush Torture Program

So he’s restarted the clock on the statute of limitations.

7 Likes

Does anyone know if his papers will be available after confirmation? If so, they could possibly be used for a future impeachment.

8 Likes

“I was not read into that program. I was not read into that program. I was not read into that program.”

WTF does that even mean? Make him answer – did he have knowledge of, and was he involved in the torture program, contrary to his previous testimony?

5 Likes

He was read between the lines.

4 Likes

He has no problem with lying. From a 2006 hearing:

Durbin continued, “And at the time of the nomination, what did you know about Mr. Haynes’s role in crafting the administration’s detention and interrogation policies?” To which Kavanaugh replied:

Senator, I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants, and so I do not have any involvement with that.

In fact, in 2002, Kavanaugh and a group of top White House lawyers discussed whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Bush administration’s decision to deny lawyers to American enemy combatants. Kavanaugh advised the group that the Supreme Court’s swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, would probably reject the president’s assertion that the men were not entitled to counsel. Kavanaugh had worked as a clerk for Kennedy. That meeting was first reported in The Washington Post. NPR independently confirmed the details with multiple sources.

5 Likes

Now we know how he defines truth.

Now we know how he defines

To be clear, “I was not read into that program” is a FAR more narrow claim than he made in 2006, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants, and so I do not have any involvement in that.” … where “that” refers to the question asking “what did you know about Mr. Haynes’s role in crafting the administration’s detention and interrogation policies?”

“Being read into” a program is a formal affair, where a person is brought on board a program and given requisite documentation and background information to fulfill a specific job on the team. No one ever asked about that.

They asked if he knew about another person’s role in crafting a document as a part of that program. Other than his blanket statement that he did not lie then (which is easy to weasel out of), he has not reiterated the statement he made in 2006, and that is incredibly telling.

This deserved more in-depth follow-up questioning, especially asking about why the documents from that time period have been wholesale kept from the committee when the question of his inaccurate testimony has been officially lodged and is known to be an area of interest.

3 Likes

One of the first rules of cross-examination is that you don’t ask a question if you can’t box the witness into the answer. Lots of lawyers think it’s great to say, “Isn’t it true on that on April 26th you went to a movie?” But if you ask that and the witness says “No,” then you’d better have proof that he did go to the movies, or you’ve lost time and momentum. That, I suspect is what is happening to most of the Democrats’ questions in this hearing.

Liars only fess up on TV shows.

He’s trying to weasel our of answering or admitting he did in fact know something, by denying being officially cleared for and introduced to the program in it’s entirety.

ETA - this is deliberately misleading, if he did have some knowledge.

1 Like

“I told the truth and the whole truth in my prior testimony. I was not read into that program,” Kavanaugh told Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Wednesday.

Um, Tierney? That was Pat Leahy.