them fairly because this has happened? hold on, hold on. hold on, i ll let you answer that. i want to put something else in there. and if he himself did not think there was something wrong with what he said and how he testified, he would not be writing this apology right. i think, you know, one of the worst parts about that testimony and that sort of testimony of his was that he was in this really untenable position of having to defend his integrity and the political strategy that was thrust upon him. and to answer your question, kiersten, i think that he said things that were exceedingly political there that i think he regretted. and i think you have to take that in the context of an entire career of both serving as a judge and being political. that was a moment of intense and incendiary moment in one s life. so i don t know if he s the kind of person or anybody is the kind of person where one moment
for his family, for the senate, it s been emotional for the country. it has been it s demonstrated the cultural shift. it s hit with this social change that we re seeing that many would argue has come way too late and isn t complete. all of this all these forces i think are together in a crucible that make none of this normal and i don t think you can take any one incident and say, gosh, this is odd. maybe we shouldn t do it this way. i just want to get to some of what he said in his op-ed, kiersten. he writes, i do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. i am not a pro plaintiff or pro defendant judge. i am not a pro prosecution or pro defense judge. i am a pro law judge. so, my question is, can we can he really say that? and can we believe it after he said the left was taking revenge on what happened with the
hand, really does care about the story behind all this. she joins us now along with cnn political analyst kiersten powers. dana, first of all, you hear the president s explanation which obviously couldn t drakts the first lady s own spokeswoman. let s just tick through the other possible ways of interpreting this jacket. either tone deaf or trolling directed not at the news media but somewhere else or a staff who couldn t or wouldn t raise a red flag beforehand or perhaps a combination of all three. i think it s a combination of all three is the more likely of those scenarios. then there s just what we don t know which is obviously a lot. what we do know, anderson, as you very eloquently pointed out, was this was no question intended to sej a message. and the irony of this is that the message had a code ha tha has been so hard to crack that even the staff in the west wing and guess the east wing, the first lady s staff, have had mixed messages about what the coded message on her jack
different points of view. kiersten, what do you think? i seem to remember republicans always talking about bill clinton during hillary clinton s election so i don t understand this idea that nobody ever talks about what the spouses do. i think your example is a good one of david axlerod, but it s not even the same thing because kellyanne conway s husband is a major player in republican politics. so it s not just some spouse that has some opinions, it s somebody who s very influential. so it is interesting to people. to me, it looked like dahna was being very lighthearted. it was very lighthearted. the idea that whatever i think anybody who s ever met her, i think viewers can tell by watching her, she s literally the nicest person you would meet. she is not nasty or would not try and harass someone and kellyanne knows that. yeah. even if she didn t ask the question perfectly, you know, there s a mature adult way to respond to that and that s not what kellyanne did. just so t
thank you, dahna. thank you, kellyanne. appreciate it. what was that? let s discuss with margaret hoover and kiersten powers. margaret, i m feeling like the question about kellyanne s husband struck a nerve with her. what happened there? well, i can understand why it struck a nerve because i happen to be a person who has a spouse that has a different perspective than in the public eye? in the public eye, has his own public views that often are starkly different from my own. yeah? i don t answer for his political views. okay. nor should i have to. i truly don t think any person who is married, whether they re in political life or not, should have to answer for the political opinions of their spouse. okay. let me stop you there, right there, because she was saying this only happens to me. kellyanne was acting as though we would never ask anybody else. i like to play the game if this