Speaker 1: When you're ready to ride Metro, we want you to
Speaker 1: know we're ready for you. Here are just a few
Speaker 1: of the people at Metro to tell you how we're
Speaker 1: doing our part to keep riders safe. We're cleaning like
Speaker 1: nevill before greatly. You've found half Santro, no mask, no
Speaker 1: Metro need one. We have a few extras at Metro.
Speaker 1: We're doing our part to keep the DC area moving.
Speaker 1: Find out more at well Matta dot com slash doing
Speaker 1: our part. Molly Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.
Speaker 1: We enjoy her work on Brett Bears Show Special Report
Speaker 1: with Brett Bear. She is a thinker, she is a writer,
Speaker 1: and she's written a brand new book about the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Speaker 1: And what a pleasure it is. Because four hours simply
Speaker 1: usn't enough. This is Armstrong and Getty extra large. So
Speaker 1: we've been trying to get Molly Hemingway on the Armstrong
Speaker 1: and Getty Show for a very very long time. We
Speaker 1: couldn't be bigger fans. For some reason, she's ducked us
Speaker 1: all these years. Me finally, Wow, Wow, that's a fine.
Speaker 1: How do you do, Molly. I'd like to apologize for
Speaker 1: the belligerence and aile manners of my co host, How
Speaker 1: are you great, and it's great to be here with you. Well,
Speaker 1: we are actually very big fans of you. Your intelligence,
Speaker 1: your forcefulness in making your arguments. Also your occasional just
Speaker 1: barely perceptible eye roll when you're there on a special
Speaker 1: report and a particularly numb skulled confident has made. Your
Speaker 1: lack of a poker face is more than appreciated. Yes,
Speaker 1: I've been told I need to work on that, but
Speaker 1: I do, I do, my bet. Yeah, Well it's it's
Speaker 1: it's absolutely a respectful exchange of ideas and not a
Speaker 1: cable shouting match, which is why we like it so much.
Speaker 1: But the occasional glance by Molly Hemingway is appreciated. So anyway,
Speaker 1: So Molly Hemingway joined us today to talk about Justice
Speaker 1: on Trial, the Kavanaugh confirmation, in the future of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And Molly, I've seen you talk about this
Speaker 1: book and a couple of different settings, though I haven't
Speaker 1: read it. But it's important that we soberly look at
Speaker 1: that crazy couple of months that actually was a circus
Speaker 1: and a national disgrace, as Kavanaugh described it. Why did
Speaker 1: you decide to write the book right. My co author
Speaker 1: Carrie Savarino, and I lived through the hearings. She was
Speaker 1: working on the nomination, I was covering it. We knew
Speaker 1: it was an important story. We we believe strongly it
Speaker 1: was the most important thing to happen to the country
Speaker 1: last year. We wanted to just get an accurate description
Speaker 1: of what happened, learn what was going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: And we interviewed more than a hundred people, including the
Speaker 1: President and vice president and members of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and senators and people close to the Kavanaugh family and
Speaker 1: the blasi Ford family, and just we're able to say
Speaker 1: what happened and why it happened, and and get the
Speaker 1: actual facts down before people forget them. Hey, I want
Speaker 1: to get into the timeline and the various things and
Speaker 1: when they happen in what order, and who knew what
Speaker 1: when and what newspaper knew this but printed in anyway.
Speaker 1: All that stuff is interesting to me. But how close
Speaker 1: did it ever come to them actually pull in Kavanaugh?
Speaker 1: Did it ever get dicey? It definitely got dicey, but
Speaker 1: it got dicey on the Senate side. It didn't get
Speaker 1: dicey from the White House side. So the you know,
Speaker 1: whatever else you want to say about the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: they had kind of prepared for such a thing as
Speaker 1: this type of confirmation battle. They had thoroughly vetted all
Speaker 1: candidates for any kind of problems that could arise. They
Speaker 1: knew their history enough to know that sometimes there are
Speaker 1: last minute shenanigans where people try and pull you know,
Speaker 1: dirty tricks to sideline nominees, and they anticipated it, and
Speaker 1: they were prepared, and perhaps no other administration in history
Speaker 1: this was going to withstand this type of pressure like
Speaker 1: this one. Whatever. There's hardly been another human being on earth,
Speaker 1: let alone a president that was so, you know, perfect
Speaker 1: for being able to withstand the slings and arrows of
Speaker 1: one of these scandals. He's been living in his whole
Speaker 1: adult life. He doesn't he doesn't go into a fetal
Speaker 1: position when the media is on a roll with some
Speaker 1: sex scandal. He's been doing this his whole life. So
Speaker 1: that was perfect, exactly, and understanding the presumption of innocence
Speaker 1: and why that's important, why people need to actually prove
Speaker 1: allegations without them just being believed. But the Senate was not.
Speaker 1: They were not stalwarts. A lot of the senators were
Speaker 1: ready to be ready to run throughout the process. You know,
Speaker 1: the story of Jeff Flake is well known about how
Speaker 1: he was back and forth about all the elevator, But
Speaker 1: there were other Republicans too that were that, we're kind
Speaker 1: of wavering, and we'd tell the story of one senator
Speaker 1: on the Senate Judiciary Committee who went to Susan Collins
Speaker 1: and tried to get her to agree to go to
Speaker 1: the White House and get and get them to pull
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh nomination. And she said that he did this
Speaker 1: after Christie Lassie Ford testified and she said, I'd like
Speaker 1: to wait until we hear from Brett Kavanaugh. Of course,
Speaker 1: so outrageous stalwart, but not everybody else was. Yeah. So listen, um,
Speaker 1: if you were to just describe the entire Kavanaugh circus
Speaker 1: briefly for folks, well, if I were going to i'd
Speaker 1: probably working back to Joseph Welchi was the guy who
Speaker 1: famously asked Joseph McCarthy at long last, have you no
Speaker 1: sense of decency? Um? Was this just an abandonment completely
Speaker 1: of any sense of decency um in favor of just
Speaker 1: achieving the end you want? I mean, it was so ugly,
Speaker 1: it was, and it was it got ugly very soon.
Speaker 1: I think people forget what was happening early on. Within
Speaker 1: moments of him being nominated, there was a big protests
Speaker 1: that had been pre planned on the steps of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. You had people announced that they were opposed
Speaker 1: to his nomination before he before he had even been named.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were saying they would oppose anyone who
Speaker 1: was a nominee, and so there were problems early on.
Speaker 1: There were people getting arrested. In the first round of hearing.
Speaker 1: Two people got arrested, people who were flown in from
Speaker 1: out of out of the area to do protests where
Speaker 1: they were um they had their bail paid for and
Speaker 1: everything like that. So it was pretty chaotic from the beginning.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out where's the timeline on this
Speaker 1: whole thing, because there was the piece that came out
Speaker 1: was at the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 1: about al frank and Stewart Smalley and how so many
Speaker 1: people regret it. Regret that now it makes you understand
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh thing and the al Franken thing, how the
Speaker 1: which trials happened, I mean, because we get into these fevers.
Speaker 1: Apparently now most Democrats look back on the al Franken
Speaker 1: thing and think what were we doing? Why did we
Speaker 1: run him out of office? And al Franken's thinking, why
Speaker 1: didn't I stand up to that? So but that was
Speaker 1: the that was the era and setting we were in
Speaker 1: for this whole Kavanaugh thing, right, Oh well, it's even
Speaker 1: more than that. And I actually found I'm very sympathetic
Speaker 1: to the idea that al Franken got. Rail wrote it
Speaker 1: that people were just in a mob hysteria type moment
Speaker 1: and that he had to be the sacrificial lamb because
Speaker 1: of the way that politicians have been playing up the
Speaker 1: you know, the me too moment. But the woman who
Speaker 1: wrote that piece in The New Yorker, Jane Mayor, was
Speaker 1: one of the prime instigators of the Kavanaugh mob awesome,
Speaker 1: And she wrote the second piece you know, so first
Speaker 1: of Christie blasi Ford come out. She writes this other
Speaker 1: piece about a second accuser who spent six days alone
Speaker 1: with her attorney to come up with an allegation. She
Speaker 1: was very foggy on anything, She had nobody to corroborate
Speaker 1: her story. And Jane Mayer published that story in the
Speaker 1: pages of New Yorker and said that she did it
Speaker 1: precisely to show a pattern of alleged misconduct, which is
Speaker 1: not a journalistic standard that I would encourage people to uphold.
Speaker 1: So it's great that she has come late to the
Speaker 1: notion that people should be innocent until proven guilty and
Speaker 1: the due process matters. But she is the last person
Speaker 1: on earth I would have making that case, given how
Speaker 1: she was not just about Kavanaugh, but also she was,
Speaker 1: of course the author of one of the worst books
Speaker 1: about Justice Thomas uh from decades. Well, I'm glad you
Speaker 1: pointed that out, So would you? Was that your Is
Speaker 1: that what you'd say as the most immoral and disgusting
Speaker 1: um the episode within the greater story? Or do you
Speaker 1: have another that's a favorite? Well, there were lot of
Speaker 1: There was a lot of media misbehavior in this story,
Speaker 1: and of course it's very important to take any allegations seriously,
Speaker 1: to investigate them and think about whether you are truly
Speaker 1: about to nominate someone too. Are you're putting someone on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court who is a serial rapist, which is
Speaker 1: where the allegations got by the end, regularly participates in
Speaker 1: gang rapes. That's where we were of a leader of
Speaker 1: a gang rape cartel that roamed the suburbs of Maryland.
Speaker 1: Was was the allegation made by Michael Abanati and his client,
Speaker 1: Julie sweat Nick. And yes, they were referred for criminal
Speaker 1: prosecution for making that false claim. Um, and so were
Speaker 1: a few other people who made false claims against Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: But it's one thing to make the false claim. It's
Speaker 1: another thing that you had people who really should have
Speaker 1: been more sensible believing the claim or publishing it or
Speaker 1: putting it out there. And NBC News knew at the time,
Speaker 1: you know, before the confirmation. They knew that Michael Abanati's
Speaker 1: supposed witness, second witness who would corrobor these crazy allegations.
Speaker 1: They knew she was saying that he what he claimed
Speaker 1: about her was not true. But they sat on that
Speaker 1: for weeks. They knew it before the confirmation vote, and
Speaker 1: then they kind of like put it out quietly a
Speaker 1: few weeks after he was confirmed. And again, that's just
Speaker 1: really bad behavior that decreases people's trust in the media
Speaker 1: to accurately. Oh my god, that's beyond bad behavior. You've
Speaker 1: got to get out of the business. If you're willing
Speaker 1: to do something that's not biased, that's that's that's crime.
Speaker 1: It's from It's astounding, yeah, that that should be criminally
Speaker 1: prosecutable for ruining a person's life and image and reputation
Speaker 1: and everything like that. Um what I remember this story barely,
Speaker 1: and this one was so amazing to me that a letter,
Speaker 1: it was in a just in an envelope to a
Speaker 1: newspaper and that was pretty much all the information, you know,
Speaker 1: scrawled on their Kavanaugh raped me and that was about it,
Speaker 1: and newspapers were willing to run with it. Was that
Speaker 1: what was that whole story? I wouldn't say it was
Speaker 1: quite that bad. But what was interesting is Christine Blossi
Speaker 1: Ford sends a letter to her representative. She claimed she's
Speaker 1: unclear on how to reach a U. S. Senator. She's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a weird claim to make, given
Speaker 1: that she's a PhD uh, you know, she's a professor
Speaker 1: at a university. It's kind of odd to claim that
Speaker 1: you don't know how to reach your own U. S. Senator.
Speaker 1: Her representative and as she puts her in contact with
Speaker 1: Senator Diane Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: And that's where things get really weird because she writes
Speaker 1: this letter to find Stein at the end of July,
Speaker 1: she says she doesn't want her name to be out publicly.
Speaker 1: I while the Senate has a process for how to
Speaker 1: handle allegations against nominees, it's completely confidential, and it is
Speaker 1: actually it goes through the FBI. Um, but everyone's kept
Speaker 1: all the information is kept confidential. It protects the accuser
Speaker 1: and the accused, and you can actually investiga into claim.
Speaker 1: And Diane Feinstein, for some reason, circumvents that process. Instead,
Speaker 1: she connects the accuser with a high profile attorney who's
Speaker 1: known for rolling out um like pr campaigns against against
Speaker 1: high profile men who are accused her sexual misconduct. They
Speaker 1: circumment the process that would have kept it confidential, and
Speaker 1: then they arranged for a big PIA rollout, which was
Speaker 1: against the stated interests of the accuser. Now, it is
Speaker 1: also true that the accuser are saying that she didn't
Speaker 1: want her name to be public or anything to be public.
Speaker 1: The first call she made was to the Washington Post
Speaker 1: in early July. So there, you know, there's reason to
Speaker 1: think that maybe what she claimed she wanted was a
Speaker 1: bit at odds with her behavior. But um but either way,
Speaker 1: her stated her stated preference was did not have her
Speaker 1: name be public and everybody who had the information set
Speaker 1: about to make it public, and that was unfortunate. It's
Speaker 1: probably a minor point, but do you have an idea
Speaker 1: an opinion on whether di fi herself was the engine
Speaker 1: for that or was it activist staffers that are going
Speaker 1: behind the old gal's back. Oh so, we you know,
Speaker 1: we interviewed a lot of people involved in the process,
Speaker 1: senators and their staff. They all actually speak extremely well
Speaker 1: of Diane Feinstein and extremely poorly about her staff. But
Speaker 1: they feel that her staff was taking advantage of her
Speaker 1: that um, that she's older, she her she throughout the day,
Speaker 1: maybe it gets more tired and whatnot, and they felt
Speaker 1: that the staff was taking advantage of that situation to
Speaker 1: do things in her name that were not what she
Speaker 1: would want. And we had many examples that's how she
Speaker 1: would negotiate things that were actually favorable to Democrats throughout
Speaker 1: the process, and her staff would then renegotiate it in
Speaker 1: a way that was so absurd that the Republicans just
Speaker 1: sort of stopped working with them. Um. And they really
Speaker 1: a lot of people had a higher regard for her
Speaker 1: than they did her staff, and they really felt that
Speaker 1: that in fact they get so upset about this. At
Speaker 1: one point, we tell the story of a bunch of
Speaker 1: senators who literally almost physically fight each other. They're so
Speaker 1: frustrated about what's happening and that disconnect between the minority
Speaker 1: staff and the majority staff. You know, I expect politicians
Speaker 1: to behave badly and uh, maybe I should hold them
Speaker 1: to higher standards and expect more, but I expect them
Speaker 1: to But maybe it's because I'm in media. I expect
Speaker 1: the media to be better. And I was speaking of
Speaker 1: the particular letter that went to the San Diego Union
Speaker 1: Tribune that showed up. It was to Kamala Harris's office,
Speaker 1: then got forward to the San Diego Union Tribune. There
Speaker 1: was just an accusation that Kavanaugh and a buddy of
Speaker 1: his raped me, and it just it had no information,
Speaker 1: was unsigned, I think it was. I was unsigned. It
Speaker 1: had no return just so it had nothing and it
Speaker 1: actually made it into the into the into the media
Speaker 1: and got talked about that. I mean, that's just disgraceful.
Speaker 1: It's really that all standards were thrown out the window
Speaker 1: for how to handle something just because I guess people
Speaker 1: thought that reputational harm was not a big deal or
Speaker 1: that it was justified because of political reasons, like political opposition.
Speaker 1: But there were all sorts of allegations. You had people
Speaker 1: making claims. I think I just heard when you mentioned
Speaker 1: the claim that there was a rape on a boat
Speaker 1: in a in a state that, like Kavanaugh, had never
Speaker 1: even been rod And the senator takes it to the
Speaker 1: to Chuck Grassley, but he also releases it to the
Speaker 1: media who run with it. And and these are the
Speaker 1: types of things. You know. Anyone can make an allegation,
Speaker 1: and it's important for people who are gatekeepers like the
Speaker 1: media to investigate the claim and decide whether it is
Speaker 1: it meets the standard of should this be published? And
Speaker 1: there was not a lot of that going on. And
Speaker 1: that's very unfortunate because there is real harm caused by
Speaker 1: reputational damage. You said, there was no buckling of out
Speaker 1: of the White House. They didn't get close to pulling Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: How close did Kavanaugh come to us saying and I
Speaker 1: don't need this is his wife or friends or whoever
Speaker 1: egging him on saying just get out. We report that
Speaker 1: when he was being considered for the nomination, his wife
Speaker 1: actually prayed that he wouldn't get the nomination. They had
Speaker 1: gone through two very different difficult confirmation battles years prior
Speaker 1: he had a lifetime appointment on a federal court. Their
Speaker 1: life was really good. She just didn't want to go
Speaker 1: through it again, and that was before she had any
Speaker 1: idea how bad it would get. But he always had
Speaker 1: this idea that he would give it his best for everything,
Speaker 1: so he just, you know, if he was upsloord, he
Speaker 1: was going to try and get it. If he doesn't
Speaker 1: get it, that's fine. And then once he gets the nomination,
Speaker 1: he's going to try and actually make it through the process.
Speaker 1: And if he doesn't, that's fine. Um, there is a change.
Speaker 1: So he he was never going to back out, and
Speaker 1: he had the support of his family, but there was
Speaker 1: this change you saw in the reopened hearing where it's
Speaker 1: not even about getting to sit on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: but really about whether he's going to be able to
Speaker 1: be around children anymore. You know, at that point you
Speaker 1: have the media saying that he shouldn't be around children,
Speaker 1: like I don't even know where they were coming up
Speaker 1: with some of these things. He shouldn't be coaching his
Speaker 1: daughter's basketball team and that sort of thing with with
Speaker 1: his background, what a terrible thing to say about a
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Um did you did? You got more
Speaker 1: emotional about it at that point? Yeah, yeah, I would too.
Speaker 1: I he was pretty emotional, as we all remember in
Speaker 1: that hearing, But I would have been I might have
Speaker 1: physically attacked somebody. You start telling me I can't be
Speaker 1: around my kid's friends because I'm so dangerous, such a
Speaker 1: sexual predator. That'd make you insane? Did you do you
Speaker 1: ever talk to anybody in journalism say I gotta ask you,
Speaker 1: how did you sit on that story or you knew
Speaker 1: that probably wasn't true? How did how did you? How
Speaker 1: do you live with yourself? Well, that's one of the
Speaker 1: things that does bother us that we look at, is
Speaker 1: how prior to the confirmation you have this feeding frenzy
Speaker 1: of stories, all alleging really serious wrongdoing. The moment he's confirmed,
Speaker 1: it all just goes away. And you have to wonder
Speaker 1: there if it were bad that someone were being considered
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court who had these allegations, so much
Speaker 1: worse if they actually are on the court. So there's
Speaker 1: no reason why the story should have stopped if they
Speaker 1: believed them to be true and that they didn't pursue
Speaker 1: the stories and it just kind of disappeared. And even
Speaker 1: you know, we we wrote this book. It's a number
Speaker 1: one best seller, and the New York Times in Washington
Speaker 1: Posts have admitted that in their best seller lists, but
Speaker 1: they haven't covered the news that we break about, um
Speaker 1: about what happened behind the scenes. You know normally when
Speaker 1: you interview Supreme Court justices and key players. When you're
Speaker 1: ready to ride Metro, we want you to know we're
Speaker 1: ready for you. Here are just a few of the
Speaker 1: people at Metro to tell you how we're doing our
Speaker 1: part to keep righters safe. We're cleaning like Noble before
Speaker 1: half builded greatly. You've found hand sign of stations Metro,
Speaker 1: no mask, no Metro need one. We have a few
Speaker 1: extras at Metro. We're doing our part to keep the
Speaker 1: DC area moving. Find out more at well mata dot
Speaker 1: com slash doing our part. For all your foodies out there,
Speaker 1: I'm unwrapping a McDonald's steak, egg and cheese bagel. Look
Speaker 1: at this steak and the juice running down the side.
Speaker 1: Get a little bit on a wrapper here, m and
Speaker 1: then the fluffy egg and real cheese folded over the side,
Speaker 1: looking just so good. Mmm mmm grilled onions on a
Speaker 1: butt of bagel too thumbs off a McDonald steak, egg
Speaker 1: and cheese bagel for breakfast. Love It, m boup. I
Speaker 1: participate in McDonald's. It's a major news story. You would
Speaker 1: get some media coverage, and they're not even covering the book,
Speaker 1: which is a big, big thing with a lot of
Speaker 1: news that is broken in it that has never been
Speaker 1: reported before, about Kennedy's retirement, or about Christine blasi Ford's
Speaker 1: friends not believing her. I mean, these are things that
Speaker 1: are just reported that should be covered and they're not
Speaker 1: even acknowledging them. Well, that would open up, That would
Speaker 1: open up, Yeah, exactly, that would open up a can
Speaker 1: of worms that they'd have to account for. Well, I'd say,
Speaker 1: given the seriousness of what you're writing about in the
Speaker 1: the impact that it's had to ignore it is well,
Speaker 1: it speaks louder than words. Honestly, Um, you're you're a
Speaker 1: serious journalist, so you might not be willing to go here.
Speaker 1: How nutty is blasi Ford? I mean, as you looked
Speaker 1: into her life and her friends, my my personal take
Speaker 1: was she believed what she was saying. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: it happened. I think she believed it though I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know, and we definitely don't get into into
Speaker 1: pretending like we can know what was going on inside
Speaker 1: someone's brain or whatnot. But we did talk to a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are friends with her, and they
Speaker 1: painted a really mixed picture. They all actually really like her,
Speaker 1: and they thought she was a nice person. They did
Speaker 1: acknowledge that she was very political, very motivated by her
Speaker 1: support of abortion, that she scrubbed her Facebook page before
Speaker 1: she went public, um that her behavior, her description of herself,
Speaker 1: for her characterization of herself in high school was at
Speaker 1: odds with what they remembered. But you know, there are
Speaker 1: people who are lifelong friends, and they painted a pretty
Speaker 1: complicated picture. She had no evidence to support her allegations,
Speaker 1: and she named four people, including a lifelong friend who said,
Speaker 1: not only did she not remember such an occasion, she
Speaker 1: remembered the summer quite well, and for her not to
Speaker 1: remember anything matching this description was notable. That friend also
Speaker 1: reported that she had been pressured to change her story
Speaker 1: by mutual acquaintances of the two that she didn't appreciate
Speaker 1: that pressure. So these were you know, these are all
Speaker 1: things that we cover in the book and it's um,
Speaker 1: it's important and noteworthy. Well and and Ms Blasi Ford
Speaker 1: and I do not know what happened. I was not there.
Speaker 1: And crazy people get raped and sluts it raped, and
Speaker 1: and whoever perpetrates that sort of thing ought to be
Speaker 1: punished severely. But she had some pretty severe emotional problems too. Um,
Speaker 1: I mean just credibility. Why she's a little nutty, as
Speaker 1: Jack said, but I know you you don't want to
Speaker 1: go there. Just no, it's it's not I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's emotional. I would just say that Rachel Mitchell,
Speaker 1: the sex crimes prosecutor who does the forensic interview of
Speaker 1: her very difficult circumstances of live national television, impossible to
Speaker 1: explore some of the inconsistencies. For instance, we were told
Speaker 1: that the hearing had to be delayed because of a
Speaker 1: of a terrifying, crippling fear of flying. Right, And she
Speaker 1: points out that not only did she fly all the
Speaker 1: time for professional reasons, she does it for personal reasons,
Speaker 1: and lists her primary hobby as international surf travel, which
Speaker 1: involves not just flying, but like flying over large expanses
Speaker 1: of the Pacific Ocean and island hopping and so the
Speaker 1: claims that were made were at odds with the reality
Speaker 1: um that she herself testified to. It's a very generous
Speaker 1: way to put it. So this is just an opinion
Speaker 1: question to you, as an acute observer of the political scene,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that this trend can't continue much further.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, unless you accuse somebody of being Hitler
Speaker 1: reincarnate or the anti Christ. You can't go much further
Speaker 1: than that. Yet, where does it go from here? Well,
Speaker 1: and this has happened before. You saw this in the
Speaker 1: Bork hearings, the Thomas hearings. Uh, there were other other
Speaker 1: hearings where you've seen some pretty outlandish claims that are made. Um,
Speaker 1: it happened here. I think people would be naive to
Speaker 1: think it won't happen in the future. One of the
Speaker 1: things we show is that it tends to happen not
Speaker 1: because of particular nominees so much as when there's an
Speaker 1: ideological shifts in play for the for the court. So
Speaker 1: Neil gors Wich was replacing Anton and Scalia. That's not
Speaker 1: a big shift, So nobody freaks out about it. When
Speaker 1: a Trump nominee is replacing Anthony Kennedy who's a swing vote, Well,
Speaker 1: that's a bigger issue. And if one of the liberal
Speaker 1: block justices were to retire or have a seat open
Speaker 1: up and then to be replaced by a Trump nominee,
Speaker 1: I think you would expect it come like an apocalyptic
Speaker 1: type battle. And it's not going to be about whether,
Speaker 1: you know, the nominee really has a problem in their past.
Speaker 1: So much is whether people feel threatened by a change
Speaker 1: on the court. Right. So if the notorious RBG actually
Speaker 1: you know, can't do it anymore, and Trump gets to
Speaker 1: appoint another Supreme Court justice the way he's appointed so
Speaker 1: many justices at various levels across the country, that would
Speaker 1: be Are there people out there that would be willing
Speaker 1: to to stick their neck out and even even try
Speaker 1: to make it through that gauntlet. It's certainly, and there
Speaker 1: might be people who are willing to stick their neck out,
Speaker 1: but aren't willing to have their family go through it.
Speaker 1: It's there are all sorts of people who just cannot
Speaker 1: imagine putting their loved ones through this type of battle,
Speaker 1: which is why it's important to hold people accountable for
Speaker 1: making false allegations for circumventing processes that are designed to
Speaker 1: protect nominees and people who accuse them, and there hasn't
Speaker 1: been a lot of the on ability at this point,
Speaker 1: and it's important that people know the history and know
Speaker 1: it well and tell people that you know, it's understandable
Speaker 1: that political battles will be politically waged, but there should
Speaker 1: be limits to what you're willing to do or able
Speaker 1: to do as you go after people. It just occurs
Speaker 1: to me the three examples we just gave here, so
Speaker 1: you got Kavanaugh, Bork, and Clarence Thomas O's are all
Speaker 1: Republicans that Democrats went off when after in a in
Speaker 1: a very ugly way. Do we have any examples where
Speaker 1: the parties are flipped? No, I mean Republicans play hardball
Speaker 1: on this too. You might remember that when President Obama
Speaker 1: nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat, they just said,
Speaker 1: we're not even going to have hearings, and that was
Speaker 1: that was something that bothered a lot of people. Now
Speaker 1: they didn't go after Garland. It bothered me. It was
Speaker 1: a clever move and it worked, but it wasn't fair
Speaker 1: they made that. They made the claim before Garland was
Speaker 1: even named, which is a big difference and important difference.
Speaker 1: So they didn't go after him personally. They went after saying,
Speaker 1: we're just even getna hold hearings. We're not going to
Speaker 1: consider anyone that you put forth. So Republicans play hardball,
Speaker 1: but less personally. And of course the big issue here
Speaker 1: is the court has become this way that people accomplish
Speaker 1: things when legislatures fail to accomplish what they want, so
Speaker 1: they use the court to push through their progressive ideology
Speaker 1: and and so the court is kind of responsible for
Speaker 1: this itself. The more political they are, the more political
Speaker 1: people will be about nomination battles. The better course of
Speaker 1: action would be simply to do their job, which is
Speaker 1: determined whether a law is constitutional or not um and
Speaker 1: that can be a law written by Democrats or Republicans.
Speaker 1: You just determine is it constitutional or not. And when
Speaker 1: you don't do that and you make it more political,
Speaker 1: well you're gonna have a lot of political battles. What
Speaker 1: was it was it Ben sass Or who was talking
Speaker 1: about quite persuasively not long ago, about the fact that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Courts been elevated to such astounding heights because
Speaker 1: Congress won't do its damn job, and so you almost
Speaker 1: have to have a nine person legislative body figuring out
Speaker 1: what the hell Congress means. Well, I do think that
Speaker 1: the Congress has passed a lot of its responsibility to
Speaker 1: the administrative state executive branch agencies, and then that does
Speaker 1: create a huge branch of administrative law where the courts
Speaker 1: have to decide whether something's constitutional or not. So Congress
Speaker 1: has been part of the problem. But really, even so,
Speaker 1: even when that's their job, rather than um, make political decisions,
Speaker 1: as the Court has done too many times. You know,
Speaker 1: whether it's like redefining marriage or inventing rights to to abortion,
Speaker 1: you know these are things better handled through the legislative
Speaker 1: process and uh, and that people should litigate them through
Speaker 1: the court of public opinion rather than the actual Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: So you and Carrie Savorino have digested this ugly episode
Speaker 1: as thoroughly as absolutely anybody. Uh. Looking to the future,
Speaker 1: and of course the subtitle includes the future of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, but looking to the future of Supreme Court hearings.
Speaker 1: If you were to have advised, say, an administration on
Speaker 1: how to counter the battle roar administration for oh lord, um,
Speaker 1: how to counter the fever pitch, the wild allegations, the
Speaker 1: utter journalistic irresponsibility, Uh, what would your council be? Well,
Speaker 1: I actually think the Trump administration handled it really well.
Speaker 1: They started their vetting during the primary campaign, not even
Speaker 1: not even in not waiting until they had the actual
Speaker 1: Republican nomination, but they started going through candidates figuring out
Speaker 1: who had the right approach to the law, this originalist
Speaker 1: approach to whether something is constitutional or not. They looked
Speaker 1: to see had they shown that they have the right
Speaker 1: approach through multiple opinions and a track record that shows
Speaker 1: they're willing to make unpopular decisions that are correct under pressure.
Speaker 1: And they really did look for courage. Do they have
Speaker 1: the courage of their convictions? That's what you're going to
Speaker 1: need to get through this type of process. One of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justices we talked to was kind of
Speaker 1: pointing out, if you can't make it through this brutal process,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of brutal for everyone to one degree
Speaker 1: or another, and then maybe you shouldn't be serving on
Speaker 1: the court. You know, it requires a lot of courage
Speaker 1: to make the proper decision, and if you don't have
Speaker 1: if you don't if you can't make it through a
Speaker 1: tough process, then you might not have what it takes
Speaker 1: to withstand all the pressure that will be coming your
Speaker 1: way once you do sit on the court. You know,
Speaker 1: Molly Hemingway, we are fanboys here on the Armstrong and
Speaker 1: getting show for the term, and we're on all across
Speaker 1: the country, including in Washington, D C. And and uh,
Speaker 1: just hoping that we can get you on on a
Speaker 1: regular basis to talk about that. We play clips from
Speaker 1: you and then pretend you're here. That's what we do.
Speaker 1: I love it, said Molly Hemingway. Hey, what a pleasure,
Speaker 1: terrific book. Can't wait to read it. And uh, and
Speaker 1: we appreciate the conversations. Why we got you on the line,
Speaker 1: I got to ask, I mean, we just finished when
Speaker 1: we're taping this two nights of Democratic debates. Who's going
Speaker 1: to be the nominee? Who do you think? I'm really
Speaker 1: not sure. I think I'm really not sure. And until
Speaker 1: I am sure, I don't like to speculate too much.
Speaker 1: I think Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are strong. I
Speaker 1: think there's something about Mary Ann Williamson that I wouldn't
Speaker 1: which I know it sounds absurd and crazy, but she's
Speaker 1: the only one that says anything actually interesting. Usually, how
Speaker 1: about my boy Yang, He's pretty fun, He's pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: I don't know if his his what his platform is
Speaker 1: universal basic income and no circumcision, which I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how palatable that it's not my top five. Well well, well,
Speaker 1: but speaking of palatable, I mean, if any of the
Speaker 1: candidates run on health care for illegals, free healthcare for illegals,
Speaker 1: they don't have a chance of beating Trump, do they.
Speaker 1: It was so interesting to watch these debates where you
Speaker 1: have the people desperately trying to plead with the more
Speaker 1: radical candidates to moderate their positions somewhat, and then the
Speaker 1: radical people getting very angry at being told that their
Speaker 1: ideas are too extreme for the general populus. So just
Speaker 1: watching that back and forth with people just think, can
Speaker 1: you please not be so crazy if we're gonna have
Speaker 1: if we're gonna have a shot of beating Trump, and
Speaker 1: then the people saying nope, we're going to be crazier. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's a stay right now, and it's amazing.
Speaker 1: You certainly wouldn't have guessed this a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: Trump's gonna get reelected and win like forty eight states
Speaker 1: against some just crazy out there AOC green new deal
Speaker 1: healthcare for a legals candidate. Wow, what a historic moment
Speaker 1: that will be. Um, it'll be interesting to watch. But
Speaker 1: I certainly think he has a lot of advantages right
Speaker 1: now that are under noted by people in the media.
Speaker 1: And of course, like the more crazy the people in
Speaker 1: the media get where they're just they're just becoming almost
Speaker 1: rabid in their dislike of Trump. Not almost that, they're
Speaker 1: totally rabbid, and it just makes it hard to take
Speaker 1: them seriously when they try to levy critiques. It just
Speaker 1: comes off as absurd, all right, just an indulgence if
Speaker 1: you don't mind a few words on a couple of
Speaker 1: different people. Let's start with Brett Bear. What's Brett like? Oh,
Speaker 1: he's great. He's wonderful. So one of the two major
Speaker 1: shows that he comes on our show fairly regularly. We've
Speaker 1: had him on before. What are you doing? I've tried
Speaker 1: flatter and I'm gonna try shaming. I'm gonna see what works. Um,
Speaker 1: But he's great. I really enjoyed. That's my favorite hour
Speaker 1: of television on each day. And I like the cow
Speaker 1: he handles the news and very thankful that he UM
Speaker 1: puts people on his panel who represent the viewpoints of
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans. Yeah, it's the best news show
Speaker 1: on television. Absolutely. He seems like a thoroughly distant human being.
Speaker 1: Do you deny that? He's absolutely wonderful. That's good. And
Speaker 1: what was it like knowing, at least to some extent,
Speaker 1: Charles Krahammer, who also came on our show regular nay,
Speaker 1: oh stop it. I adored Charles and he was someone
Speaker 1: who at first, you know, we would just fight a lot,
Speaker 1: but then we would continue fighting off air because we
Speaker 1: enjoyed it so much. And he was also very encouraging.
Speaker 1: You know a lot of people take things so personally
Speaker 1: in DC right now, where if you disagree with them,
Speaker 1: then they decide that you're evil and you're horrible and
Speaker 1: you're beneath contempt. And he had this idea that when
Speaker 1: people disagreed, they should explore that disagreement and talk about
Speaker 1: it and you know, figure out where that disagreement led.
Speaker 1: And he didn't take it personally, So he really was
Speaker 1: encouraging in terms of um. You know, he and I
Speaker 1: definitely disagreed on a lot, you know, whether it's about
Speaker 1: Trump or foreign policy or whatnot, but we had fun
Speaker 1: in that disagreement. Yeah, you know, it's funny you should
Speaker 1: say that, because my dominant memories of Charles or number one,
Speaker 1: how funny he was um and number two, whenever I
Speaker 1: disagreed with him, I would think about it and think
Speaker 1: about it and think about it because I thought I needed,
Speaker 1: I need to have a really good case to disagree
Speaker 1: with this guy. And you know, we need more people
Speaker 1: like that. You know, he comes from that group of
Speaker 1: people that were very anti Trump, but unlike so many
Speaker 1: of them, he wanted to understand why people like Trump
Speaker 1: and what they found appealing about him, and he was
Speaker 1: more humble about it than a lot of people are
Speaker 1: who just can't even understand how anybody could possibly vote
Speaker 1: for him. Well, that's doing it wrong. And Brett Show,
Speaker 1: you gotta do it like they do on CNN. So
Speaker 1: you've got nine people on a panel and hey, guess
Speaker 1: what all nine of them agree, no disagreement. Yeah. Molly
Speaker 1: Hemingway Justice on Trial with Kavanaugh confirmation in the Future
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, which she wrote with Kerry Savarino, Molly,
Speaker 1: great to talk to you. I hope we can do
Speaker 1: it against soon. Thanks a milions, great, thank you, Thanks
Speaker 1: so you think I was successful on any level. I
Speaker 1: don't feel like I was. Were you trying to humiliate
Speaker 1: yourself and me by extension? Well, then yes, you were successful.
Speaker 1: I thought, absolutely successful. I realized flattering was getting nowhere, right,
Speaker 1: So then I thought, these people that you like in respect,
Speaker 1: who are also big deals. They've come on the show
Speaker 1: multiple times. It was the what's the term transparency of
Speaker 1: the strategy that bothered me. Really, she's she's a serious woman. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no doubt, which is great. I cannot wait to read
Speaker 1: this book because watching it unfold was so disgusting, and
Speaker 1: part of it is, you know, I sort of got
Speaker 1: My biggest fault is naivete. I can't believe people act
Speaker 1: so badly in such a big way, and and you
Speaker 1: can still suck air and sleep at night in the
Speaker 1: rest of it. It's astounding. You can't shock politicians can't
Speaker 1: shock me at this point. But I do expect journalists
Speaker 1: to not sit on something that would could clear a
Speaker 1: guy of being a gang rapist, right, but that would
Speaker 1: interrupt the narrative. That's print Wait a minute, a piece
Speaker 1: of notebook paper unsigned arrived at add newspaper office. Let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and print that allegation. I mean, that's an
Speaker 1: abandonment of journalistic principles so astounding and egregious. If it
Speaker 1: hadn't happened, I wouldn't believe it. And you know, if if, um,
Speaker 1: if the Weekly World News did that, I chuckle and think, well,
Speaker 1: everybody knows what they are. But for n NBC to
Speaker 1: do that, well, you know, let's screw him. That's I
Speaker 1: think of NBC about like I think about the Weekly
Speaker 1: World News. At this point, they have made their bed.
Speaker 1: By God, they wouldn't lie in it. I don't remember
Speaker 1: how we end these extra long podcasts. I think we
Speaker 1: just stopped talking mark extra large. When you're ready to
Speaker 1: ride Metro, we want you to know we're ready for you.
Speaker 1: Here are just a few of the people at Metro
Speaker 1: to tell you how we're doing our part to keep
Speaker 1: riders safe. We're cleaning like nevill before, half builded greatly.
Speaker 1: You've found half sanitizing, no mask, no Metro need one.
Speaker 1: We have a few extras at Metro. We're doing our
Speaker 1: part to keep the DC area moving. Find out more
Speaker 1: at well mata dot com slash doing our part