Updated 12.39pm with PN  and PL statements
A company linked to the Labour Party fronted a draft “consultancy” deal that would have seen it rec
is. it s a different climate and different threats. we re looking at a supreme court that is more hostile to roe, and again we re looking at state legislatures and governors across the country who are making really aggressive moves to try to limit a woman s access to abortion. and so that, you know, for him was something where he felt he could no longer support closing off that avenue. and i think you know, if you look at the totality of his career, democrats have been successful once in the last 50 years in keeping a republican supreme court nominee off the court, and that was robert borg. and the person who led that fight on the judiciary committee was joe biden. he s someone who has fought for a woman s right to choose throughout his career, and as he looked at the unprecedented crisis that we re in right now, he felt that he could no longer support closing off any avenue. again, this is beyond a position change, though. this feels like there is a
the confirmation. i think that s really important. dana: david, to you, the issue is that the conservatives have learned long ago that they could lose someone in a nomination battle. such as robert borg. obviously, the bork situation, if you look back at clarence thomas situation. if you look just two weeks ago at committee hearings. tv is not good for the centage, ntp is not good for hearings. while things, senator grassley has said, should move forward and they should be interviewed by the fbi and under oath, both to testify before the committee. not on camera, in my opinion. what you need to do, as senator grassley said, he is confused about why the lawyer for this person, who didn t have to release the person s name, didn t come to him and the committee and try and contact him. or, senator feinstein didn t. they never had to release the name to do that. yet, they didn t come forward. that is a confusing thing for
example. and going back to robert borg. one of the things i admire about donald trump, he s very good at making simple arguments. boiling an argument down to something very simple. it s almost like he s the perfect guy for this debate. the argument that republicans have been making, we want justices that follow the law. we don t want them making up law, the words in the constitution, the words in laws mean what they say. democrats are basically, they ve been making the argument that no, no, the words don t mean what they say. they mean whatever judge interprets them to say. that is a very simple fight. i think donald trump will be very good at making that argument. dana: can i tell you one thing that i thought was effective? a democrat talked about how frustrated she is with this situation. she says republicans get over merrick garland and they have never gotten over robert borg. the other thing that merrick