For example, when you say whatever you think will get you the most traction at the time.
Case in point:
View attachment 192304
As you are autistic and can't understand these things I'll explain.
As you know my late mom was American from a line starting in 1655. I have a huge US family, I visited relatives and even did a couple of months of high school as a teen in the US. I've not really thought very much about what I actually am. Technically yes, I am American however I've always used my other nationalities and I don't have a Social Security number.
So while I might have put more thought into it, I was not trying to deceive anyone. One one hand I am, on another I'm not. So there is no lie it that. I've never wasted time on a political discussion like ET before.
If you can argue there was, fine, say so. Otherwise you are just mischaracterising something to the point of lies yourself.
In the Kavanaugh situation nobody wants a
gotcha over microscopically petty things, several might seem very small however he accrued quite a lot recently that causes pause for concern.
Edited down the more known ones for ease of reading:
"Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are ‘refuted’
Blasey and Kavanaugh ‘did not travel in the same social circles’
‘I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out’
‘The drinking age was 18 in Maryland’
‘Boofs’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’
‘Renate Alumnius’
‘No connections to Yale’
“I have no connections there,” Kavanaugh insisted regarding his ties to Yale University, where he went as an undergraduate and for law school. “I got there by busting my tail.”
But his grandfather, Everett Edward Kavanaugh, went to Yale for undergrad. The Intercept
dug up a copy of his grandfather’s yearbook, showing him as a student.
Yale has said that
20 to 25 percent of its students are classified as legacy students.
No one accused me of sexual misconduct ‘until last week’
Mark Judge’s memoir was ‘fictionalized'
Judge Alex Kozinski
Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowing that Judge Alex Kozinski, a mentor for whom Kavanaugh clerked from 1991 to 1992, was a sex predator who harassed women in his office and maintained a private server in his offices for porn.
William Pryor nomination
William Pryor was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 2003. Pryor, a protege of now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was controversial for his views on abortion. Kavanaugh, who handled judicial nominations for the White House at that time, denied that he personally handled Pryor’s nomination when he was questioned during his appeals court confirmation hearings.
“I was not involved in handling his nomination,” Kavanaugh said. “I am familiar generally with Mr. Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.”
But emails showed that Kavanaugh was consulted on Pryor’s nomination.
Judge Charles Pickering Sr. nomination
During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing for his seat on the D.C. Circuit, he was asked about his role in the Bush White House during the 2001 nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to a seat on the 5th Circuit. Pickering had solicited letters of support for his nomination from lawyers who had business before his court in Mississippi. Kavanaugh was asked whether he knew about those letters of support.
“My first question is this,” then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Kavanaugh. “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?”
“The answer to the first question, Senator, is no,” Kavanaugh replied. “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.”
But recently disclosed emails show that Kavanaugh played a significant role in Pickering’s nomination process, which dragged on into 2004 because of a Democratic Party filibuster. Kavanaugh was often the only person included on emails about Pickering’s nomination and helped place op-eds and news stories to help the nominee.
This doesn’t directly refute Kavanaugh’s statement that he wasn’t “primarily handling” the Pickering nomination. Feingold, however, believes he was misled at the time by Kavanaugh.
“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,” Feingold wrote
Warrantless wiretapping
When Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, he was asked whether he knew anything about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping policy.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pressed Kavanaugh on whether he had ever seen “documents relating to the president’s [National Security Agency] warrantless wiretapping program.”
“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 [2005],” Kavanaugh said at the time.
Emails that came out during Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, however, tell a different story on both accounts.
Stolen emails
In 2003, Kavanaugh received information based on documents that were stolen from Senate Democrats by a Republican staffer. This included one fully copied stolen document. The documents provided inside information about Democrats’ strategy to oppose Bush’s judicial picks.
Leahy, whose documents were stolen, asked Kavanaugh about this in 2006. He denied knowing the source of the information he received.
Leahy returned to this question during Kavanaugh’s hearing last week ― this time with access to Kavanaugh’s emails from the time. One of those emails included the first draft of a memo composed by Leahy’s staff, although it was not labeled as such. Another came with a subject line of “Spying,” although this one simply suggested the author had a “mole” among Democrats providing intelligence on their strategy.
Leahy pressed Kavanaugh on the draft memo, which he said was “obviously taken from my internal emails.” He asked, “Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind?”
“It did not, Senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kind of discussions that happen,” Kavanaugh responded.
As to the question of the “mole” email labeled “Spying,” Kavanaugh chalked it up to bipartisanship, saying, “There was a lot of bipartisanship among the staffs. There were a lot of friendships and relationships where people would talk to — ‘Oh, I’ve got a friend on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s staff’ or ‘I have a friend on Sen. Hatch’s staff or Sen. Specter’s staff.’ That kind of information sharing did not raise red flags.”
Kavanaugh never apologized to Leahy about receiving or using the stolen documents. Leahy concluded, “It’s fair to say that he was not forthright with me, and I’m bothered by it.”
Sucking up to Trump
“No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said moments after President Donald Trump announced his nomination.
Not only is this an impossible claim to prove ― one would have to review the details of every past president’s vetting process for every Supreme Court nominee ― but it certainly appears that Trump did next to no consulting on his court pick. He was
given a list of possible nominees by the Federalist Society, a conservative group that has tremendous sway over Trump’s judicial nominees, and told to pick one.
It took Trump two weeks to pick Kavanaugh from the list. For some contrast, President Barack Obama spent about a month reviewing his options before nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court.
"
