He was not presiding over anything. He was responding as a man attacked. His reputation, his family, his career. There were no facts or information to dispute. He didn’t have a hundred coaches. He didn’t have a talking point notebook or a fuzzy hippocampus. I’d have been crazed.
-
-
-
Please understand the truth. He was prepped in every way imaginable and when he began to fail anyway, when confronted with questions from the "female" attorney, Rs fired her on the spot. It's one thing to have policy differences but this is as dangerous for you as anyone.
-
I would vote for him right now. He has stated roe decided and is an excellent judge. I didn’t believe a WORD she said except her name. He has been through so many background checks and nothing. This seems like a farce to me. I’m ok with FBI checking again, but check what?
-
I should not have responded to the first post. Do you ever believe women or do you always defer to men? What are your relationships like? I believe there's a reason you think Trump keeps you "safe" and it isn't healthy & it's not educated. It's frightening.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Outrageous. He was utterly dignified under extreme pressure after weeks of disgraceful attacks by the Democrats and their attack pack in the media. You should be ashamed of yourselves but you are not, you think any tactic is acceptable to stop any Trump nomination. Disgusting.
-
Then you don't understand the foundations on which judicial systems are based on in any civilised society. As Aristotle stated: “The law is reason free from passion…"
-
Well you certainly remember Legally Blonde but I think your arrogant reply went downhill from there. I know that traducing a decent man in the name of politics is unforgivable and those of you that engage in this disgusting politicking with a mans life are beneath contempt.
-
I apologise for the seemingly arrogant reply. Really no disrespect intended. Though I don't understand the reference to Legally Blonde? Clearly Kavanaugh is vocally biased in his opinions which would surely undermine a most respected institution..
-
Ask your friend about Legally Blonde and no offence was taken. The New Yorker referred to the Senate hearing. The passion you saw was a man defending himself after an outrageous collection of unsubstantiated attacks. He was a man, not a lawyer or a judge, defending his good name.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He should be confirmed, she should be committed. Again.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I'd be more surprised if he weren't dismayed, considering everything said about him. Any chance The New Yorker might try to be an impartial periodical? I thought not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Respectfully believe you’re misguided
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
OH PLEASE! He is allowed to defend himself for God sake. You would do the same.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You are completely biased!! Shame on you!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your partial reporting hardly regards you as a trusted source!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The New Yorker is obviously a partisan rag. If he displays passion he is disqualified and if he doesn’t then he is callous cold and unfit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What vitriol?? Surely this a typo. Or did you mean Blumenthal? Desperate much?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, the nerve of him. Just sit back and be wrongly accused.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.