As in most other things, context is key. If it's a rando conversation at some cocktail party with a group of people you don't know, that's far different from sitting across a desk from someone in deep discussion. I think a more relevant question would be whether or not he would recuse himself should the matter come before the court given that its subject nominated him.

With the way Kamala asked the question and the posture of the questioning, it is reasonable for anyone to think maybe Kamala got something and he/she talked to someone from the law firm without knowing it.

Just now, he was asked if he had interviewed someone. Snap answer "I don't believe so. I could be mistaken but I don't believe so." That's what an intellectually honest response looks like.

How could he believe so? Kamala specifically said "anyone." You're an idiot if you'd commit to that statement in any kind of legal setting.

I agree the way you answered it is better but I'd even attach a caveat that "I talked to a lot of people about Mueller and his investigation. It's possible one of them works for the firm but I don't remember specifically talking to someone who I know to work for the firm."

100% Kamala would have cut him off mid way and says "Yes or No."

Okay, the mueller investigation has been going on for not that long, is a pretty significant political event, and the firm is significant for its connection to the administration.

Watching the Trumpers grouse about decorum and precedent is gonna be amazing.

Good for Booker, about ****ing time.

That snap answer is his words from a few minutes ago, not mine, in case that wasn't clear. I can't see why he could not have answered Harris' question similarly. It was specifically NOT committing. It seems likely he was not answering in that way because he knew it would be a dishonest response.

He could have easily qualified it with something like, If I did speak with anyone there, I did not realize they worked there.

Which is why chances are Kavanaugh probably has talked to a lot of people about the event, some of whom he almost certainly doesn't even remember.

Hmmm. Or maybe, just maybe the question isn’t about if he ever had a passing surface conversation at a party along the lines of “what about that Mueller investigation, huh??” and there actually is a pointed conversation, that he KNOWS and KNEW was with someone who worked there and he is pretending he just can’t be sure now because he is ****ing lying? You know, relevant.

I mean he has had so many convos about that subject he can’t even remember allllll the people he discussed it with, cuz it’s all over the news, but he has never once thought about if a president can pardon himself.

Get. The. ****. Out.

Because Harris was all BE VERY CAREFUL IN YOUR ANSWER SIR. Like if he legit didn't recall ever talking to someone who worked at that firm about Mueller and Harris is acting like she did anyone would be insane to say unequivocally "no I never mentioned mueller to anyone who worked at that firm". Because there are hundreds of lawyers who work there and Kavanaugh has probably had conversations with, I don't know, at least hundreds of lawyers in the relevant time.

Also, Harris wasn't asking about Trump's lawyers. She was asking about ANY person who worked at that firm. The scope of the question was absurd and Kavanaugh rightfully asked for clarification.

The question he did not answer is if he had one that he knows about. It is possible he may have had one he forgets but he is dodging if there is one he absolutely remembers.

Uh, sure. Let me try a plausible version.

He was surprised by the question and was making a good faith effort to search his memory to see if any of, possibly hundreds, of people he's talked to about Mueller investigation worked for Trump's lawyer's firm.

Another version. He was just surprised by the question and started wondering if Kamala is trying to get at something he genuinely wasn't aware of and didn't want to perjure himself.

JFC.

I do not recall having a conversation about the case with anyone who works for the law firm, and certainly not in the context of discussing particulars, however I can’t be sure I have never had a casual word about it with someone who I was unaware is employed there simply because I talk to so many people with whom I do not know where they work. So t is possible, yes, but I never made a point of it.

Or—-Yes I met with them.

Or—-golly, like don’t all public servants work for all the public? I may have talked to the mailman about it and it could be said that that they work for the law firm if they ever delivered mail, and I really want to be sure to give you the answer you need here but I just can’t.

Both of those have perfectly reasonable non-perjurious direct responses to her question.

Meanwhile this bull**** is what gets the press and not Kavanaugh's legal positions that I honestly believe should be disqualifying. His position on gun laws and executive powers for examples scare the **** out of me.

If that's true then why in the world wouldn't Harris tell him who she was referring to?

Agreed on his positions, but effectively nothing is disqualifying him within the current process.

I like that mainstream Republican views on torture and racial profiling are so toxic that Kavanaugh has to lie about holding them.

Has anybody asked him about Bryce Harper or anything Nationals related? Dude was supposedly spending 10s of thousands of dollars on tix every year. Unless it was some sort of bribery, scalping, laundering scam.

Given the line of questioning, it's possible that Harris was just going for a "gotcha" moment with no actual proof and not even a hint of a suspicion that he's done something untoward. It's also possible she had a tip, or even has proof, that he has done something highly questionable given the process he's in.

It's also possible that Kavanaugh knows he did something wrong and slyly evaded answering the question by feigning confusion and because so many people work there.

Given that Harris has literally dozens of angles to question this guy and make him look back to her constituents and to moderates, pray tell, why would she start some random fishing expedition instead of using other material?

There's like a 70-80% chance Kavanaugh had a conversation that should (at the very least) force him to recuse on these matters, and he doesn't want to reveal it because... *gasp* he doesn't want to recuse.

^

kav here either forgot or blatantly lied at the minimum knew they were spying on dems and obviously didn't do **** about it.

"georgewbush.com" definitely not hosted on a PRIVATE SERVER presumably

Booker has balls. Finally someone put their career on the line.

Corryn can go **** himself with a rusty cattle prod.