Democrats Disproven…Again And Again And Again

Democrats Have Perpetuated ‘False,’ ‘Unfair And Unfounded’ Attacks

‘Three Pinocchios’ For Leahy ‘Throwing Red Meat’ On Bush-Era Surveillance Program “Considering the context, Kavanaugh’s email in the days after 9/11 is a slim reed on which to hang an allegation of potentially misleading testimony under oath. Leahy asked whether Kavanaugh had seen or heard anything about a specific program, and Kavanaugh said no. No evidence has surfaced showing Kavanaugh knew at the time that a spying program was being developed before or after he sent the email to [John] Yoo. Even though Leahy is careful to say Kavanaugh ‘might have’ misled the Senate, he’s still throwing red meat out without much to back him up, and he gets Three Pinocchios for this one.” (“Did Brett Kavanaugh Give False Testimony Under Oath?,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Blog, 9/17/2018)

‘Two Pinocchios’ For ‘Durbin’s Statement That There’s New Evidence That Kavanaugh Misled The Judiciary Committee Regarding The Haynes Nomination’ “These emails do not show Kavanaugh played a ‘substantial role’ in the [Jim] Haynes nomination. The full record here shows that Kavanaugh’s past disclosures about his work on the Haynes nomination line up with these emails…. [Sen. Dick] Durbin’s [D-IL] statement that there’s new evidence that Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee regarding the Haynes nomination is worth Two Pinocchios.” (“Did Brett Kavanaugh Give False Testimony Under Oath?,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Blog, 9/17/2018)

‘This One Merits Two Pinocchios For Leahy’ On Judge Kavanaugh And The Pryor Nomination “[I]t’s important to keep in mind that [Kavanaugh] disclosed in his written answers to Durbin and [Sen. Ted] Kennedy [D-MA] in 2004 that he had been involved in meetings and discussions about [Bill] Pryor and 18 other nominees…. This one merits Two Pinocchios for [Sen. Pat] Leahy [D-VT].” (“Did Brett Kavanaugh Give False Testimony Under Oath?,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Blog, 9/17/2018)

Judge ‘Kavanaugh’s Answers … Were Accurate’ On Pickering Nomination “Kavanaugh at the 2006 hearing told then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) … ‘This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,’ Kavanaugh said. ‘I was not the associate counsel in the White House counsel’s office assigned to Judge Pickering’s nomination,’ Kavanaugh added in a response to Feingold’s written questions…. In this case, Kavanaugh’s answers to Feingold were accurate …” (“Did Brett Kavanaugh Give False Testimony Under Oath?,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Blog, 9/17/2018)

‘Without Merit’: ‘Perjury’ Claims Are ‘An Unfair And Unfounded Attack Against Judge Kavanaugh’ DAVID LAT, Above the Law: “The most recent attacks accuse Judge Kavanaugh of committing perjury. He has testified for dozens of hours at three separate confirmation hearings — in 2004 and 2006 for the D.C. Circuit, and last week for the Supreme Court — and his opponents have been scouring this voluminous testimony to try and find what they view as false and misleading statements…. After viewing the testimonial and documentary evidence, I concluded that the claims lack merit.” (David Lat, “In Defense Of Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Above The Law Blog, 9/10/2018) LAT: “So, in conclusion, this ‘perjury’ argument is without merit — an unfair and unfounded attack against Judge Kavanaugh.” (David Lat, “In Defense Of Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Above The Law Blog, 9/10/2018)

###

SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER