for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. we must listen. we must do our best to seek the truth in good faith. that is our only duty. neil: was jeff flake signaling a no vote on this, when it comes to a vote, the supreme court. caitlin owens from axios. the man who has a different take on it, from the daily caller. who says this could be jeff flake s way of providing a grudging. i think it was i think jeff flake is going to bas on this and i think ultimately what he was doing here is taking the opportunity to attack donald trump for his statements about the process. the president of the united states. and simultaneously come out and
steps down. what do you think? i think that s been the strategy from the beginning from the democrats, neil. it s been delay, block, obstruct, stall, try and push this off into next year. that s what they ve been doing from the beginning, which is why i think that this information which the democrats have had in their position going back to july was just launched at the last minute to try to drag this process out and sink this nomination. i don t think the democrats had a fair process in mind. they tried to hijack this process, turn it into a circus and that s what they re doing now. trying to consistently drag this out. so i can t put much stock or credence into any statements they re making at the moment because they re all politically motivated. neil: senator, we know this is about christine blasey ford and her charges. if democrats wanted to bring up deborah ramirez, another woman laying down similar comments
say that with a heavy heart, tomorrow were going to have inconclusive evidence about what actually transpired but in the end, were going have to make a decision and yes this will forever be steeped in doubt, whatever decision we end up making. it sounds to me like he is preparing his watchers for his yes vote this week. i don t know, neil. this could go either way. i think some senators, some of these key swing vote senators, lisa murkowski, susan collins, jeff flake, i think they are trying to watch the hearing with an open mind and we just don t know. tomorrow, there s going to be crazy fireworks on both sides. we don t know what can come out. i think flake was kind of thing this process has been ugly. we will see what happens. i didn t get the sense that he was signaling his vote either way. neil: there is another worry that tomorrow s could quickly go off the rails.
he was the wrath of god. you ran the best clip of the four hours of his testimony. he condemned the whole process, including senators by name. and then when he was asked what senators thought of professor hill s allegations and performance, he said i don t know. i didn t watch it. you could hear a pin drop. you didn t watch it? no. it s garbage. why would i waste my time watching it. i blew everybody away. it changed some of the winds in his direction. i m not suggesting that judge kavanaugh not watch the morning session neil: because they went to great leaps here that he would come second half. but the voracity, the indignation that he showed carried the day. he was looking for a nomination from a senate that was 56 democrats to 44 republicans.
championed the open process the tax bill went through. sure, they went through an open process. only if you define open by one party negotiating behind closed doors having one markup with only one expert witness while voting down every single amendment proposed by democrats. if any one believes that this was an open process h then, then i have a bridge back in my hometown to sell you. then he tells us this was passed to get jobs and put more money in the pockets of men and women. well if you believe trickle down economic, you are right. but no economists believe this