Sia☺giah
Excuse me? You haven't seen all the evidence of him lying
Sat Sep 8, 2018 10:18pm
70.109.155.125

under oath? At the very least, deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation.

He denied seeing “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” (related to opposition strategies the Dems planned to use to stop Bush nominations). The release of a confidential email between him and the thief proved that to be a lie.

He denied knowing about a "mole" in the democrat group that stole the documents. An email of his PROVED that to be a lie when that mole (Miranda) discussed it with him via email.

He denied taking part in any discussions of or legal issues related to Bush era enhanced interrogation torture techniques for enemy combatants. There is legitimate reason to believe that was untrue as two witnesses claim that he was definitely present at a heated meeting on whether or not those same suspects should have lawyers appointed for them, which is one of the legal issues he was asked about.

He denied taking part in handling the vetting process for the Pryor nomination by the Bush administration. He was. Newly released emails show that he discussed the vetting process with several other WH personnel who were working on it with him.

He denied taking part in the Charles Pickering appointment -- Kavanaugh’s record indicates that he helped support the confirmation of Charles Pickering, a federal judge who once backed segregation. Pickering’s nomination was the subject of a tense multi-year battle in the Senate, but President Bush ultimately used a recess appointment to seat him on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the New York Times, Kavanaugh was in charge of developing a binder of information in favor of the nominee and communicated with a White House spokesperson about advancing an op-ed about Pickering’s nomination. In his 2006 hearing, however, Kavanaugh downplayed his work on Pickering: “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” he said. That's obviously not true according to newly released documents.

From articles I've read on Vox and other sources, the misrepresentations probably don't meet the requirements for formally charging perjury, but they meet the definition of misrepresentation, lies of omission, and selectively omitting information to give a false impression.

That stuff matters. He's NOT the honest guy he's being hailed as.