strange reason is afraid to tell us the truth about his drinking. and the trouble is he was under oath when he was supposed to be telling us the truth about his drinking. and now he wants to be a supreme court justice where he will have to rule on perjury cases. he will have to rule on cases involving people who lied to the fbi. brett kavanaugh told the country under oath that he was a harmless beer drinker in high school and college. he said he was a legal beer drinker in his senior year in high school because the drinking age was 18, and every bit of that has been proven to be a lie. brett kavanaugh never had a legal drink until he was 21. the drinking age in maryland was not 18 when brett kavanaugh was a senior in high school. witnesses to brett kavanaugh s drinking in high school and college agree with brett kavanaugh that brett kavanaugh was a loud obnoxious drunk and a prolific puker, as he put it in his own words, in writing, in high school, in that letter that we just saw.
letter is a p.s., and in that p.s. he says, it would be a good idea to, quote, warn the neighbors that we re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. bart kavanaugh could have said under oath last week that when he was in high school, oh, yeah, by the way, they called me bart and i was a loud obnoxious drunk. but never raped anyone. most loud obnoxious drunks never rape anyone. we all know plenty of loud obnoxious loud drunks in high school who never raped anyone. but brett kavanaugh for some strange reason is afraid to tell us the truth about his drinking. and the trouble is he was under oath when he was supposed to be telling us the truth about his drinking. and now he wants to be a supreme court justice where he will have to rule on perjury cases. he will have to rule on cases involving people who lied to the fbi.
hurdle to overcome. it s not going to happen. also understand that go ahead robert? perjury cases are difficult to prove. that s not really had a what is on here. i don t think any reasonable person given what we know in the 24 hours that this was a story that attorney general was intending to intentionally mislead the senate on this issue. he said i should have told them about the ambassador. that s retrospect. that s not perjure. that s intent. not even close. go ahead stuart. i wasn t implying by any stretch of the imagination that the attorney general made a willful misleading statement. i was saying that investigation would require to establish that it was made willfully. and statute and law requires
prosecutor. misconduct, unethical, not true. what do you say, brad? i think his excuse and his reasoning for the answer he gave was very credible. what we saw in that al franken exchange is he mentioned if you look at the whole exchange and not the snippet, he mentioned continuing conversations between russian operatives and people from the trump campaign. if you see the whole exchange in totality, he s talking about hacking, talking different things about individuals speaking with the trump campaign. i can see where that answer makes sense. he s, you know, as his job, in the committee of the armed services committee, in his role, he has contact with ambassadors. this is something he didn t think of. you know, brad, brad, if i could just ask you this. in his job as attorney general, he prosecutors perjury cases. he fills out this is not perjury.
investigations. two issues. one is election and whether trump campaign did anything sinister with the russian. that s the first issue. if you for a second, focus on the q&a between franken and sessions. did senator answer the question or do you think he was slippery or deceitful. further investigation may show,ing witnesses, i can el it you this, i have defended a lot of perjury cases over the years. this would not rise to the level of perjury. it seems to me, the explanation was not precise enough, that he should have mentioned the two meetings but he did not intend to mislead. whether misleading congress,