Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has a complicated history that contradicts his own predicament as he defends his nomination. One instance, however, has nothing to do with drinking or sexual assault, but about using evidence in trials.
Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega brought up "exculpatory statements," which is a statement that is favorable to a defendant in a criminal trial. It is generally seen as something that could exonerate someone of guilt.
"BK's lies about binge drinking are false exculpatory statements designed to undermine Ford's 100% certain I.D. of him as her attacker. In 2013, Kavanaugh found a detainee's false exculpatory statements to be strong evidence of guilt," she tweeted Wednesday.
"To be clear, I question the ultimate holding in that case, Ali v. Obama, but there is no question about the strength of the longstanding principle that false exculpatory statements may be considered evidence of guilt," she noted.
To be clear, I question the ultimate holding in that case, Ali v. Obama, but there is no question about the strengt… https://t.co/zOAGkdLyJP— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Elizabeth de la Vega) 1538600584.0
Her link was to a case before Kavanaugh's court about a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Abdul Razak Ali, who sued Barack Obama's administration. In that case, Kavanaugh decided that the false statements made to make the defendant look good or innocent were a sign of guilt.
If Kavanaugh were to follow his own ruling, any false statement he made to prove his innocence could do the exact opposite.