mitchell to question kavanaugh. we want the hearing to be handled very professional, not a political side show. and president trump continues to lash out over the controversy surrounding kavanaugh, accusing the democrats of trying to destroy kavanaugh. the second accuser doesn t know. she admits she was drunk. ramirez told the new yorker that kavanaugh thrusts his gentles in her face in college. he was all messed up. he doesn t show it was him, it might have been him, oh, gee, let s not make him a supreme court judge because of that? the president s remarks were not helpful and made it harder for moderate republicans to vote
to just subpoena her. if they wanted her to appear on monday or tuesday they could have subpoenaed her, and i think there s a lot of pretense here to pretend as though they are having a full comprehensive hearing that includes listening, but in reality it seems like this is more of a box to be checked. remember, in his interview with fox news brett kavanaugh suggested that he spent the years in college focussed on sports and academics, and the posts quotes a lynn swisher that says brett was a sloppy drunk and i know because i drank with him. he would end up slurring his words and stumbling. john, does this matter?
chairman of the energy committee. she was thrilled. none of them want to go back to the minority. it is to say they understand how important this has become to the republican base who at this point decided it was a proxy war against the left and the mainstream media and they know unless it s so clear they can vote against him and explain it i think they want to vote for him and are more likely to do so than not? i know it s an interesting tweet from you, laura, one of the things you pointed out is that on thursday i am paraphrasing your tweet, it will be an opportunity to hear but not an opportunity to listen. we know from hearing from other senators, this may not change anybody s mind. they are going, yeah, i will listen to you. really? it s almost checking a box off, and they believe due process means we have to
physically have a hearing. i don t have to listen to what you have to say because listening would require me to give myself an opportunity to process the testimony i am receiving and figure out where i want to go and whether it actually actually impings the moral terp ataod. the fact that they have already said it reinforces the notion it s a forgone conclusion and are patting people on the head and saying we are going to have al hearing. over the past few days and week there has been a thought that all of the magnanimous gestures have been overtaken bite republican members of the senate judiciary committee who have gone out of their way to say we have do all of these things, but they have not done the one thing that most lawyers would do, is
comments yesterday were so unhelpful is because you have seen republican unity surrounding kavanaugh because they believe the allegations are ill motivated, even though nobody knows yet who to believe, and so when the president enter skwrebgts himself in this way, it has the possibility of impacting the votes of the two senators the only two senators, really, that were a possible no on kavanaugh. it s all going to come down to who appears more credible in the hearing. as long as the circumstances don t change where in we have two people that could be telling the truth but we don t have any firsthand corroborating witnesses in the usa today story noted none of them had first-hand knowledge of having been there. the way republicans will act is to say we can move forward with the confirmation