proof matters because this process stinks and it s made in high dujon, as we see here. the opening statement says very clearly this is the opening statement doesn t make any difference. let me fin, my question. you should not be relying on it. why should i not be relying on public testimony? if you were in a court of law, would you rely on the opening statement of attorney? i m asking about the substance of what he said. that doesn t matter because of the sham process being used. facts first, okay? this isn t a prosecution. this isn t even a trial. that may come later. it s not even a hearing. it s a deposition. so this isn t about it being an open thing. it s not an opening statement. it s a sworn statement by a republican. republicans are present at this deposition and they were allowed to question. nevertheless, the republicans decided to storm the gates,
attorney general sessions high dujon i believe is the phrase you would want to apply to his affect now. he says i have not lied, i have not lied and even within the statement in which he is saying he has not lied, he asserts he has not changed his story. he s clearly changed his story if you go back from his confirmation hearings from today. if raises the question, even on the basic matter of the question of has my story changed and you re asserting it has not when it clearly has, doesn t that call into question whether or not you are, in fact, a liar? michael crowley, did we get any clarity today? not much, brian. we got a lot of lack of mental clarity. i do not recall, i can t recall. i guess that s standard for these kinds of hearings. i think one point of clarity is that you just can t assume that