he was trying to get on late night. that s not the real question. the real question is, who is this for politically when it gets fact checked in such real time today. by contrast, in a pre-internet era, maybe you trot out stuff about sentencing, and it actually takes a long time to figure it out. here on the days of the hearing, and we were down there covering them, people had online and people were learning that josh hawley supported judges with similar records. that makes it clear, the record really wasn t the issue. the record was never the issue. to your first question, who this was for, this was for trump s core base of qanon supporters. it s for insurrectionists who buy into conspiracy theories, who love to see josh hawley with his fist raised on january 6th. it s for the same people who buy that mug he has still selling
so long to greenlight sending those troops over. now to be clear, the pentagon is defending these two generals. gave us a statement saying that piatt and flynn were honest when they spoke to the committee. these are two diverging narratives and it doesn t seem possible for both of them to be true. the fact that there is this new emerging narrative coming out right now about why it took so long, is a really significant development. we should just be clear, this document is scorching. he says that the ig report, it is a revisionist tract worthy of the best stalinist or north korea propaganda-ness. says these men are liars. unmitigated lying, that flynn committed perjury. the big issue that strikes me here is that these both men are on the record and i believe under oath saying, we didn t slow walk this. because a concern about optics. we weren t worried about how it would look at the national guard was called up. that wasn t the issue. what you have for matthews is he is saying that is
narratives, and it doesn t seem possible for both of them to be true. the fact that there is this new emerging narrative coming out right now about why it took so long is a recent development. right. we should just be clear. this document is scorching. he says of the ig report, he says it is a revisionist tract worthy of the best stalinist and north korea propagandist. he says it s unmitigated lying that flynn committed perjury. it strikes me here these men are both on the record and i believe under oath saying we didn t slow-walk this because of a concern about optics. we weren t worried about how it would look if the national guard was called up. that wasn t the issue. and what you have from matthews is saying that s not true. at least in his telling, that s precisely what they were worried about. right. you have matthews saying that s a lie and using, to your point, unusually strong language to go after these two generals. an important piece of context
isn t a substantial obstacle nothing would be. the issue was before the court and the court said at page 879 in adopting the undue burden test it was not disturbing the viability line. a very interesting question. i think justice barrett raised, too. usually just philosophical but i think it has bite here. when i read casey, it is not just one-on-one, two is greater than one. casey plus roe is greater than roe. they are making a point that we are an institution perhaps more than a court of appeals. or a district court. it is hamilton s point. no purse, no sword, and yet we have to have public support and that comes primarily, says
there can be some planning by some people about pregnancy. people who are raped don t have a choice whether it s by an outsider or their own husband and not everybody can afford contraceptives. many women in mississippi don t have money to pay for contraceptives. but their point in their brief was contraceptives, if you use them, the failure rate is very small, etc., etc. how can there be real reliance? can you address that issue? first, this is not a new