gotten lost in the process. so i think that was an amazing moment for her and i think it s one that people will remember in a very positive way as well because she was the person who stood up and showed the deliberation and thoughtfulness that we would hope that a lot more senators would show. chris: let me step in for a second to set the scene. it looks like the final vote on confirmation of brett kavanaugh is going to take place there on the senate floor around 35:00 # of, about 3 3:50, about 37 minutes from now. we will have live coverage of the final speeches and roll call which even if you think you know what s going to happen, it s always very dramatic. it s interesting to point out that this is supposed to happen, if they had taken the full 30 hours, which happens after cloture is invoked, that would have taken us to 4:52 p.m., so an hour later. i think there s one thing even more important, everybody getting their say and this is a holiday weekend and people just
they were intent on shrouding the truth because they knew that if the truth came to light, judge kavanaugh would be exposed as a truly flawed nominee. so, my colleagues, my fellow americans, what is the appropriate response? our country needs to have a reconning on these issues and there is only one remedy. change must come from where change in america always begins. the ballot box. so to americans, to so many millions who are outraged by what happened here, there s one answer. vote. if you believe dr. ford and other brave women who came forward and you want to vindicate their sacrifice, vote. if you believe the supreme court should uphold women s rights, vote.
and i can t help but be reminded of clarence thomas who did something i think very different. that is, he came out. he came out angry. but he kept his composure. and one of the major differences between clarence thomas and brett kavanaugh today is thomas said in so many words, you can take this job and do whatever you want with it. i m happy at the d.c. court of appeals. it s not worth going through this. when you look at brett kavanaugh by contrast, from the very beginning, he s wavered in his demeanor, his anger. but one thing has remained constant. all his life, he has always wanted this job. and really, really wanted it. maybe that is one major difference between then and now. and maybe that is what saved clarence thomas. was ultimately that his view was i will come, testify, tell the truth, but i will not engage. and you can if you make that
grabs. but corker will be voting to confirm brett stevens excuse me. brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. brett stevens is a reporter for the new york times. i have the new york times on my mind because i have a reporter from them here. and nancy cook is a reporter for politico still with us is josh barrow. adam, let me start with you. we ve seen it s been a long-term story going back at least 30 years. partisanship of washington intersecting with the supreme court nominations. it looks like the vote count on this in about an hour is going to be the closest we ve had, even closer than clarence thomas in 1991. this nomination, if it is successful this afternoon and brett kavanaugh joins the court, talk to me about the atmosphere of that court that he s joining. what will his addition to it mean? this will be the culmination of a long-term project that
convict judge kavanaugh beyond a reasonable doubt. we were just determining whether this is a job interview, whether he s entitled to a lifetime seat on the supreme court. but you can t say i believe her and then say, but, in spite of the fact i believe her, i m going to discredit what she says. it doesn t sit right. im i m sorry. she was making a point, though, similar to what you were saying right now. this was not the standard that of a criminal trial. that it was this preponderance of evidence. she was saying that the evidence that she had seen, you know, for instance dr. blasey ford s friend who said she didn t remember even meeting brett kavanaugh. the lack of that kind of corroboration led her to say, she errs on the more likely it wasn t kavanaugh side of it. yeah. i mean, it s calling for a reasonable doubt standard but not using the term reasonable doubt. this is the problem. it s she and frankly senator manchin and others used some