Hi I'm Alexander DE scientists and, along with David French Icon, hosting liberty, Podcast David, and I break down the latest political news, with a focus on the importance of culture and religion and american life Are- those are available twice a week and can be found on Itunes, Google play stature tune in or out my view online. its he'll Thomas, its chambers. It's the defining rational showdown of our time, will discuss this in nothing else on this week's edition of the letters Onrush Lowry and Joint is always, or at least every now, and then by the right and honourable Charles, see W Cook and David French close to the end

pod cast, ordered liberty, peanut various embitter d, like a Michael Majority, an asset I am alarmed are both who hate on site Ryan is actually out promoting his new book melting pot or civil war is a fantastic read. A significant contribution to the debate over immigration. I've read it. I've benefit from it. All of you will as well. So please pick up rye hands, book melting pot or civil Were you listening to a national view, podcast of quick public service announcement if you're, are listening to us on National viewed a calmer delighted have you, but it would be easier for you and better for us. If you made as part of your feet at Google Place teacher I tunes or tune in, and if you like, what you hear Please consider reviewing us on Itunes. If he don't like what you hear here. Please forget, I said anything and this week's podcast Esparza

by the new book, politicians, the worst kind, people to run the government, except for all others by Discovery Institute Chairman Bruce Chapman more about that in due course, so, let's die than we had an amazing day yesterday by any standards, compelling in gripping testimony by Christine Blasi Ford, who accuses Cavenaugh of sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, followed up by the equally a gripping. Testimony of have an odd himself and David, we watched us together, you or appear in New York staff was gathered in the conference room and just cliche apply to could have heard a pin drop, and then there was cry. It was just an incredibly moving. Performers made all the more powerful by the fact

that very few of us expected it. Certainly I didn't think he had it in him. I thought his first performance at the Senate. Hearings was ok, a boat was probably the worst performers, just a matter of performance of any other reason, Republican. Nominees, and I thought his performance on Martha Maccallum addressing these accusations was stilted And overly programmed, and just not very good, to see him come out with this righteous rage and just take a bazooka to the democratic side of the hearing room and just defend himself in these very much. About terms and industry. This is testimony that will be remembered for decades with just incredible yeah I mean so much of so much. Politics is expectations and You know, after the Senate performance when he, you know his first convert round of hearings after the more

Maccallum, which you know I found to be fine. You know it was obviously is trying to control. Is emotions and probably trying to to control is emotions, but by that time it sort of cemented in the public that idea that he was reserve, maybe a little wooden, maybe a little unemotional and he comes in and he's the complete opposite of that. Just the complete opposite in it was as if it was as if he keep in daintily understood the stakes, or even more than that I mean he. He was a guy fighting for his family at that point and and this is something that I think anyone will talk a lot about this, but there's been a lot of criticism and blow back against him that this was the entitled mail. This was the guy denied his rightful Supreme court. See now this was I had been grotesquely accused of gang rape, among other things,

his name dragged through the mud, a name that he'd been building for decades, This is this was something that was wrong in this role and and look as I wrote no emotion is in evidence, testimonies, Evan emotion is in evidence and so in a were often swayed by emotion, more than were swayed by evidence. But one thing I found striking about his his statement is: he was, emotional, he was powerful. He was. The evidence, threw out the presentation so what he was making wasn't just an emotional argument to save my family save my reputation. It was an evidence based argument that right, Peter and reaffirmed the reality that there was no corroborating evidence for Christine Blasi Ford's testimony, none at all and that, in fact, the x the evidence existed. It was Evelyn

rendered her story more and more implausible, and so I thought for me. As somebody seen, a lot of people be emotional and legal settings when you by that emotion and with the evidence, I think that's what made it so much more powerful Ass, a Charlie were regulated diamond, affords testimony and in a moment, but stick with with Cavanaugh One of the reasons I was so depressed after the first part of the day is, I thought the prosecutor really didn't ask questions of Ford and that, if her, Count was going to the credibility of accounts can be dented needed to happen. Then there's no way to catch, I was gonna, be other. Do it effectively or sympathetically himself? but he really manage and an amazing way- and this is great rhetorical and forensic feed to be able to thread that needle because he didn't contest the

The notion that she might have been sexually assaulted at some point he expressed, great sympathy for her one of that single most moving parts of his testimony was when he, said his ten year old daughter had suggested night for that they pray for four. Word, but he laid out the evidence is David says today If there is any inquiry compelling way, if he hadn't done that in exactly the way that he did it, he would have been dead by three he has every right to be angry and indignant. I dont like the word entitled, Pajar He had every right to be angry, which he was an indignant which he was and forensic which he was. There is

no way that we would now be talking about the possibility of his being confirmed if he hadn't done exactly what he did. He had to show a hate talking my best because it's how we talk about sports, but he had to show two things one that, as has been true from the start, there is no independent evidence in favour of false claims and that matters in a country that privileges presumption of innocence evidence, and he also had to show that he was devastated by the mark against his reputation which, as

ignores will always be there had he sat there and very quietly dismantled forts case against him. As you said, you didn't rejected per se. Had he sat there and very quietly and calmly dismantled, affords case against him. He would have failed to convey the astonishment. And and upset at the last few days. He would also have been accused of being odd. Weird to cool too calm does not imply killed. It was the combination that saved him and again I don't like it When we talk about this as if it's well, it was the way he ran and caught the bull. Look at his stance. Of course he hits home runs cause. He can turn at the last minute. With a slight comes in this, this is not

This is extraordinarily serious, not just because we have an hour. Is a man and a man with a family and a conscience, but because, if we do not insist upon a better process in the future. We are just going to see this get worse and worse and worse and worse, and so he very very, I think, effectively defuse the two cases, the two of noxious cases that have been made from the start of this process. The first. Is that an accusation is sufficient on its own and that we should assume that anybody who has been accused of something is forever tainted by that accusation, and the second was that there is any corroborating evidence to back up any of these claims, which there is not so they were stuck.

And more about the the anger at, as you mentioned so soon ass. He came out a box with with this righteous indignation. Their people say that decides he's proven he lacks a judicial temperament, but there nothing throughout his career as a judge to suggest he lacks a judicial temperament and is Charlie put it in something he wrote this is really to different things cause and, in a judge, jury as a judge. You hearing someone else's case in this instance he's the defendant. Yeah, you know, look I'm just I'm just not true king seriously. Anyone who says that wasn't a judicial temperament, because you know look what, let's just back a little bit the azure, your correct. First, there's nothing in an entire careers and judge spanning more than a decade that he doesn't have a judicial temperament. So We actually have a record there to look at. This was not

and second this was not a judicial performance. This not a judicial function, and then third, let's repeat again the allegations against him. You know he was, walking in to that end, at hearing room having been accused of sexual assault. Having been used in a story that that shame on the new Yorker for running of India exposure by a person who professed have memory gaps that where a consultation with their attorney helped her her memories, but still could quite quite clearly he's Cavanaugh as having exactly done it in Nobody else placed them in the room together at that point and then follow By this now, seemingly forgotten on the left side of the internet claim of gang rape, in a in an accusation that no reputable music,

do you not even the new Yorker would run ways but comes through Michael at a naughty of all people. And then these other anonymous allegations, one of which was immediately recanted, made by some twitter egg somewhere in this way. An onslaught of uncertainty initiated. Allegations that were increasingly grotesque free, singly surreal in all. Company by these think pieces all across the left. Like you know, There was a rate gang rape, Bream Gang Gang Rape Ring Georgetown prep. Well, let's go back. Refer to the movie sixteen candles, as validation, I'm not make this at this was the kind of thing going on and so you're walking into that circumstance, you ve been accused the most hey this crime short of murder in the United States, no meaningful evidence at all

millions of people saying believe women believe women at me You better believe I would be breathing hot fire in those circumstances, my wife be breathing hot fire. In those circumstances, it a point we sit down, you follow. Her hands and you look at the assembled at they at the Kangaroo court assembled in front of you and they come. Let us reason together, no, This is a moment when you draw the line in the sand and you declare who you are and you'd call out those people who have been paid. Securing you unjustly. That is what you do. The thing I'm amazed about you know often said the term area Ernie who represents himself has a fool for a client or any man who represents himself has a fool for a client in a way Cavanaugh actually pulled it off. He was client telling

human story, an attorney, making a legal argument all at the same time, and that is virtually impossible to do, and he did it and he had to do it said Sir Charlie, wanting those remarkable after that opening statement, which was instantly transformative, is dying, Feinstein, clue did had no idea how to handle him, but As the questioning went on from the democratic side of the platform, It was really notable. How wasn't about the alleged saw it was about his his yearbook. What about other incidents of drinking we'll talk about those in a minute, but a constant theme Was they try to nail him down and get him on? The record favouring an FBI invested I thought this was one of his weak points. I did know why he just didn't have a simple sentence, saying I'm happy to talk to anyone, but this is not this.

She's? Not under my control and take it up with sender gradually and please ex question you answer? first time and I d say I have already answered it and steady, he stumbled, and occasionally got cornered for a moment on this question by by Dick Durban. But what what do you make of

cabin of of democrats- saying the only way to prove your innocence to Us- is by submitting to investigation by the FBI. I think, is preposterous nonsense and I think the argument that he must not believe he's innocent because he doesn't want the FBI to investigate him is authoritarian and cruel. I think the reason that he went further than just saying when we're what whatever the the committee wants, I will do is he's exhausted. I think he's tired. I think he doesn't want to live through one more day of this. I think he wanted the herring straight away. I think he has found the last ten days excruciating and I think that came through whether that was smart or not warm to be seen, but it certainly understandable that the point here, though, is that we all know

that the FBI does not come to conclusions. Cavanaugh sat down beside it, Joe Biden back and ninety ninety one. When rejecting the idea that an FBI investigation had cleared Clarence Thomas. We all know that this is not a case over which the FBI has jurisdiction and, as such, it would only be fulfilling its role as the better of candidates for federal, patient. We all know that there is nothing to investigate, because his now corroborating evidence is no time. There's no date, there's no place. There is no evidence whatsoever other than the testimony of the accused. The reason the Democrats want this is twofold. Firstly, they want to keep delaying. This has been an exercise from the beginning, and this is not to say that Doctor Ford has been consciously doing this, but this has been an exercise it from the beginning. In delaying that's what- and this became very clear- yes, it

during doktor votes testimony, that's what forts lawyers tried to do. They were not on the level and that's what the Democratic Party has tried to do. They want to delay. They want to push this beyond the beginning of the Supreme Court term ought to have a first and hopefully beyond the mid term, but they also want- and this is totally perfectly understandable, even if it is insidious. They also want to be able to say that cabin is under FBI investigation. It will be a great talking point for them if they can say a president whose under FBI investigation nominated a judge who is under FBI investigation. So of course cabinets not gonna. Go for that of course, Republicans I'm not gonna, go for that and if you look at the details of it, if you think this is a circus now, just imagine what it would be like if the questions yesterday to Cavanaugh about his yearbook and whether he likes beer and so on and so forth, were instead directed at somebody like Mark Judge. I should

when did outrage? The Democrats yesterday were no way forensic. They they wilted after his testimony, they wilted. They asked almost nothing. They asked whether you didn't FBI investigation, and then they also have interest silly questions. The fact that he sat there had to us have you are paid quarters, shows shows where we up those questions in an FBI. Investigation would be pointed at people like Mark judge. That their various nothing, the F b I can ask do that. The Senate cannot ask and do- and I thought likely was absolute- on point when he reminded everybody that the constitution gives the Senate this row, the Senate can fulfil it, the witness was in front of them. They have the authority and the responsibility to investigate this themselves and the fact that democratic declined to take that opportunity- and instead said none of the executive branch should do it. I think speaks volumes said David, another

weak point I thought and Kevin US testimony was his unwillingness and I don't think you as new untruthful but clearly went out of his way minimize any other drinking, for instance, when they highlighted the entry and his yearbook when he talked about being head of whatever it was Ralph Club. I guess it was Cake Party Ralph Club at each week clearly is referring to up at each make. Not an uncommon occur, and I guess Corey Booker brought this. I forget who brought it up and he said well, I had a week stomach and maybe does have a weak stomach. I don't doubt that, but I also think is obvious. Drank too which is as not a lesson and threw up at times that was weak and then there's some people. I don't know if they be I haven't taken a deeper into urban dictionary, but there are some people who claiming that his his account of what the word both underline, that I say it

was wrong. Has done referred a flat, you answer reversed, throwing up, and Devils triangle is not a drinking game instead of three some this. This was a different reason is yearbook when he make of that. For us budgeting and so on. So the urban dictionary forensics is laughable You know that you're talking about early eighties slang, if we when you think about slang involves it changes so that that was their wishes, hilarious to see the twitter light up with urban dictionary forensics. As for the rest of it, you know, look at me night, I think it is pretty darn clear as he said many times he drank to access, and question was: did he ever drink to lose his memory of the day or of the night? That was the key question in and the reason why Democrats were hammering him on this

and the reason why he was defensive, I think is, is pretty clear if they could establish that he was thrown up a lot or if they could establish that he stumbled or he slurred than than they're going to try to do what you What is is sort of like come cheap daytime tv version of Perry. Masons gotcha moment will win Calvin OZ denial was really specific. It wasn't a denial that he'd been drug wasn. Denial that he'd had too many beers on occasion it was in denial that he couldn't remember what had happened the night before Look, I can say with absolute confidence, that. I have never. In my entire life, been in a situation where I could not remember what happened the night before I mean I've been around an awful lot of high performing people who, like dream, like to drink and theirs things as people were controlled party ears. I mean this is, and I think that's part of his.

How he was incredulous and one kept going back to his academic record. Was that you don't understand. If I was the person, your painting me as I couldn't have done, what I did It couldn't have been the athlete that I was. I couldn't have been the academic that I was. I couldn't have done. What idea, if your claiming knew that I was the person your claiming that I was in and I think part of that sort of came office? How dare you questioned me? I was so smart and in good at school. That to me was one of the weak points, but I think he was just kind of incredulous that your painting me as some sort of alcoholic win You cannot be that in an do all the things that I did in my life and I am and he's right about that he's right about that in it. It just looked to me like dime story, Perry, Mason, stuff because they had nothing to talk about about the actual event they didn't have a time they didn't have a place. Everyone was allegedly there said they don't recall the events

they didn't have an event to really talk about once. He said I'd never done this before, and I mean I never sexually assaulted anyone and so they were left this your book and one last thing: real, quick, look, teenage guys especially in my experience for the smart nerdy teenage guys will often exaggerate what they do, and joke about what they do out of proportion to what they have actually done. This is thing that happens in high school. Everyone's acting, like you know, the highs, your book with something that that was a paragraph where he with that was witness testimony under oath, that was a collection of

looks and exaggerations, and everybody understands that if they're looking at that and good God, he also on that point. He hid it. S got no play because non picked up on it, but he actually sat I'd need to check the testimony to find the exact words we actually said effectively at one point that he'd been averted for quite a while, but but got lied about it, a college because they didn't want people. So David really quickly without a move on we make the argument. I saw the somewhere this morning that democratic Maybe it impressed centre on a panel very well. We could could become President knighted states and twenty twenty one and Kavanaugh will be on the court and have to hear lots of cases involving this persons ministration, and how can you do it? Having stated his belief that they they their partners? dastardly underhanded effort to take him down. Well, you know

It's the same way, the Clarence Thomas can sit on the court when he said he was. You know a part of a high tech, lynching, the the the fact of the matter is the very rarely is are the president of the United States personal interests in front of the court, He almost always where you're talking about are the actions of the president in their official capacity, the actions of the United States government. In that Come stands, mynors, there's a long history of of well along recent history of pretty contentious Senate hearing, and a long history of of contention in in the when a in increasing contention in the political process, I think if he had position where he had expressed distinct per, in animals against a distinct individual in a public setting, he would probably have to refuse

have anger at the way he was treated in a political process that not something where he has to accuse now, if he had said if he is, if he goes on record, saying that dastardly Corey Booker What a disgusting human being, what a terrible human being inquiry Booker becomes. President United States, I would say there be in there in one of his. Interests comes to input before the court. I would say there be a pretty good argument he should refuse, but expressing anger at the way, the political process has treated him in this circumstance. No, I don't think you're talking about refusal and nine hundred and ninety nine cases out of a thousand right question on this portion. Our discussion to you first, Charles, Have you cook rate the effectiveness for his purposes of bread, cabin testimony from zero to ten zero. He just qualify himself with his rage. Ocean ten. He saved his nomination. It was a term inside.

Nomination and the only way in which you could believe that he disqualified himself is? If you go back to the argument that having been accused, he has to step out of the process, because the active defending himself disqualifies him for the court, which would give anyone a veto of any Supreme Court nomination in the future. David CR. Two hundred and ten, I'm also going to give him a ten at one of my favorite tweets was Josh. Forget it, but he tweeted out it's almost as if his wife said before he went into the hearing room come back with your shield or on it here he gave everything that he had because he had he had to do that. He did it and in him he moved an awful lot of people as he did so. I gave him a ten on it agree. If ten before we move on. Let's hear more from our sponsor down rather the White House. How did that happen? Love marheyo every day is news, urges us to rethink what it means to be a successful politician, this'll absurdity. Editors is brought to you by us

fascinating new book politicians, the worst kind of people around the government, except for all the others, this important work discover Institute chairman, Bruce, Japanese, Bruce Chapman addresses a timeless question. What does it take to be an effective politician? drawing on history and storytelling from his own decades of personal experience and city state and national government Monopoly ways in on what it makes it makes a politician successful you also offers a compelling vision for democratic renewal. Politicians is getting rave reviews around the country, Mitch Daniels, Edmunds and Michael that are seeing its praises. Politicians is available at Amazon. Dot com get it now and the title is politicians, the worst people are on the government, except for all others by Bruce Chapman Chairman other Discovery Institute? We hope all of you check it out, Sir David, let's

so blue back in time to yesterday morning, when Christine Blasi Ford Testified- and she was obviously herself very emotional, almost the whole time and I think across the spectrum people certainly on left, word transfixed and found it got wrenching, but also people on the right right thought she was a a compelling insincere witness. What did you make of it Yeah I mean I thought she was compelling. She came across a sincere very moving. It was sad. It was awful to lodge So you know I watched it in and look. I have had the feeling from the beginning. I have not had the. I have not had the feeling, from the beginning that this is a person coming forward and lying about.

A consciously lying about what happened. That would imply. That six years ago, she sort of cooked up a memory of an incident high school. Then that doesn't mean she's accurately remembering what happened there too very, very different things in an answer. To look at this and to say will that woman is a liar? I do. I just didn't find that a credit all argument. What I found much more credible was the idea that she is not accurately remembering what happened, and what have to be really careful about have we really careful about in these circumstances is, I said this before emotion is in evidence. We can't look at someone and say but cause They say something with feeling in great sincerity that they are right it's saying goes with bright cabinet, which is why emphasised how he weave the evidence, hinder the presentation and when I care thinking, as I watched her speak was

there's, no other evidence and she's, not bringing any other evidence to the table here. And I was reminded of this. You know from the book of proverbs proverbs. Eighteen, seventy paraphrasing you know he in a lawsuit, you speaks first seems right until cross examination. Answers she spoke, it was powerful. It is essentially a repeated the essence of what we already knew and then critically wasn't really exposed to cross examination, in a way this week we ve come to understand cross examination in this country, and your maiden uses for the questioning beyond that, but she can your story. She was essentially unchallenged in her story and in that had its own power and one of the things that worried me a great deal after it was. I thought I've never been involved in a sexual ass. My case have never been involved, in a case,

bobbing any sort of sex crime where allegation was made with such little cross examination and always enhances the power of it and and so wind that one of the reasons why, when her testimony ended, I wrote this thing. It surely it changed everything that nothing had changed. Nothing and the lack of evidence, but it changed, everything in the sense of having a powerful, unchallenged piece of testimony, and so that's why I was going into Cavanaugh testimony thinking while we're watching the exaggerated version of a campus kangaroo court. Here s sewed early. I just found the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, extremely annoying and ineffectual, I think her hurried cut. It imaging affect, was propria, extremely non threatening. Add at first

it seemed like. Maybe she was just slowly building towards something, and then it became clear over the time she was building towards nothing and was focused on largely process where she raids some legitimate issues. The in going to tell her democratic lawyers were playing Republicans for fools, which was was useful based on a very frustrating that her her memory and her account worth more rigorously interrogated. I interest. It is a key question how she got to and from this party suppose it party theirs is key. Where she thinks the house is its eye, I think should been asked about every single person that she says was at this party and was it at this person's house and if it wasn't any those causes. It raises a really big question: and then this would be more delicate. Maybe this is a very hard to do. It Ashley televised hearing, but there

some chance memory was effectively recovered or, and advanced or changed in therapy, and I think it was least worth a bringing up the very important reason, on memory and how memory is not a memory doesn't go and into a lock box and stay the same for four years, especially if, if you haven't talked about it It changes in his constructed over time and Elizabeth Loftus is an expert in this area and her research and books are exactly on point and if you will forget Ex, except the the cultural what's supposed to be the cultural, nor that we believe all women, it would mean that no one is ever falsely accused of rape

where you have, women who are genuinely victims have gone through just rhythmic trauma who miss identify the the person who allegedly committed effects. I was frustrated by two. I think, though, that Rachel Mitchell was was placed into a very difficult position in that first, is, is really nothing to ask about in the same way that wasn't great deal to us. Carbon are about because there is no concrete charge. How do you start pulling apart a story that can't be corroborated? She is used to being put in front of people who say this happened to me last year on this date in this place, this person did it myself and records will show this

told this person the next day. That's not what she was confronted with and to make matters far worse. She was operating within an environment in which it has seemed Siena. Somehow illegitimate, or unfair or rational to question p. When they make claims right. I have to say I struggled to think of a dangerous idea than but

Eve, all women, it is as dangerous as don't believe all women, it's a dangerous, believable, whites or believe old, black, so believe, or people with with blue eyes. Of course, you can't do that, but this was a herring in front of the public. It was televised and as such, it was as political us. It was criminal and she knew ass did the Republicans, who asked her to step in for them that she was going to be crucified if she was seen to be battering the witness by asking even elementary questions, and that's why I think

You didn't ask her even elementary crisis. I am, and I am happy to concede this, I'm missing a gene. I think I watched fought testimony. I don't know whether she's turned the truth. I can't know I certainly don't think she's good or evil wars as as made it all up actively, but I am not impressed by The idea that she seemed credible or whatever that means or that she was emotional emotion, is necessary, but not sufficient. What is always sufficient or is imperative is evidence and fought didn't have any, and even though she was barely cross examined, that became clear. In fact, she couldn't even remember things happened three months ago, which may be normal, but nevertheless

as we have seen too many cases in which people who are likeable credible emotional the reason the innocent people go to prison and have their lives destroyed for us just to pick up a standard ass. Illiberal s believe women and had cabin. I had only his anger and only his frustration. He too would have delivered pointless testimony. As David says, it was because he made such a good case on his own behalf that he was compelling, and so yes, I accept she seems nice. She doesn't seem like a fabulous. She I'm sure it was difficult for her. I I'd empathize greatly that she was put in a position in which she.

Felt the need to to say what she said in front of the country and so on, but I don't really understand what people mean when they say what she was emotional. Therefore, she seemed credible. I've read far far too many court cases in which people seem entirely credible, but are wrong and Others pay the price for it. So I didn't. I just didn't romanticism the energetic it's part of this has been. A bizarre, experience for me, because I keep looking at this through the prism of alarm. You're too deciding whether or not to pursue a case and imagine a client, listen to you or some comes into a prosecutor's office and says I was attacked and you say: Ok, I who why have I haven't name? Where did it happen? I dont know: when did it happen? I dont know well, do you know somebody brought

Did you try yourself? No, who brought you? I don't know what well, I laughed and who pick you up and brought it home. I dont know why are there some people at the party what here some names of people? the party that I think back at my story. You call the people at the party. Not one of them can say that Brett Cavanaugh was they D. The accused at the same place with the accuser. One of the witnesses, the accuser puts forward. Lawyers. Don't take that case. They don't even file that loss it prosecutors. Don't bring that indictment. So What we're dealing with that in mind. I have any don't you say: why did you read Caitlin Flanagan in the Atlantic talking about unrelated things that happened to her and they certainly what we don't really light prep school boys? Do we because they can be a bit boozy and they certainly don't say what

a lot of women in the past- have had bad things happen to them in the men have got away with it, and they certainly don't say, though, that too many Georgetown prep students on the Supreme Court. This is all irrational. Nonsense. The only thing that matters here. The only thing that can matter for any neutral person is whether there is evidence, corroborated evidence that it happened. She did provide evidence. Witness testimony is evidence, but the fact that she was emotional tells us that she probably isn't a psychopath who was sitting there and in a calculated way making it up, but it tells us nothing else, and I I am a little surprised at how focused people were afterwards on, while she was when she was very emotional. It is necessary in a limited way, but it is not sufficient. So, David quickly before we move on from this portion of discussion, can you talk a little bit about about memory and especially this this notion? We heard it yesterday that in a traumatic,

episode like what's alleged here, you remember it in great detail certain parts. But remember nothing at all about events surrounding it. Yes, this is this was junk science. What we're we're binkie! We are being junk science debate yesterday and in what's happening is there is a growing number of people in this? Is your sings encompasses an awful lot and essentially but the argument is that there's this trauma, influenced memory the way this trauma and put in- and nobody would say, the trauma- doesn't influence memory of course trauma info his memory, the questions? How does it influence it in the way that activists in arguing that it does is essentially says this? if I believe things with particularity, that is, power of trauma. If I don't believe it, that is the power of trauma. So therefore,

size. Evidence of the attack is: of the attack. Inability to remember things about the attack is also evidence of the attack. And that is not the way this works, and so this is what's happened on campuses around the country, so people common they'll say these are in these are claimed brought far sooner far sooner, weeks, months days after an alleged assault and you'll have some memories and some memory that are really really hazy were contradictory, we're, don't seem to make sense, and then you Get somebody solemnly telling campers Kangaroo Court will that all of it is evidence of the assault when the reality is that memory gaps do not help your case. They do not help your case memory. Gaps are a problem in the world of actual evidence and the thing you wanted at the other thing about memory, and this is something this really offensive to some people I was on

slate podcast, and I could tell that some. The person I was I was chatting with was getting offended. By this notion, and I know a lot of the listeners did p who can believe things that didn't happen with absolute certainty. Apps with certainty- and this is not a controversial or contention reality the problem, as every single human being is convinced of their own memories. There can to their own memory? So they can in the Alps ACT say, oh, I can imagine somebody else being Somebody else miss remembering, but not me, mine memories are absolute crystal clear. In what happened is you have An awful lot of people have terrible memories from their lives. They dont question at all in any way, shape or form, and they imply. That same certainty to other way you come forward and yet it is Charlie, said you can, with the weakest fastest. Most simple, Google search. You can come up with p

or who have misidentified rapists out where's days after a horrible rape not just thirty years but hours and days meet memory is so weird and fragile. If, if there's just add something very quickly to what David said here, it is, I think, interesting that progressives have set sexual assault. Aside put it into a different box, then every everything else, because normally it progressives making the case David is making an correctly in these are a seal. You points that that we have to be very careful watch how we treat memory that we have to be very careful when prosecuting people How we treat testimony based on memory It is normally asserted and with good reason that the people who tend to be

Railroaded in these circumstances are poor that have worse lawyers. That society is is a raid against them. This is that of stereotypes and preconceptions abound that hurt them and with this question, and not just because of the Supreme Court but on college campuses as well in a people like as recline vocs who who say yes, we should punish guilty people to impose a sort of icy chill of fair on the college carbon They have abandoned all of the work that they have done to make exactly this point and yesterday use all that to the fixed point at which John Corn, in like the ACL you spokesmen, when he says hold on, could we could we remember how things work in America? Please, sir?

Echo question this portion, the discussion. I gotta you first David French rate, the effectiveness of Christine Glassy forts, testimony for own purposes, from zero to ten Zero she's shredded her own credibility, tension. Launched, a torpedo to the bow. A bread Cavanaugh I would say five I mean. I think it is did the day are at the end of it. Testimony sort of way, the emotion wore off and fair minded but looked at it. They realise that there was nothing more than the latter that she, He offered into the test into the record. There was no additional evidence and that that in in an a very formal, Dick evidentiary way. She did not strengthen our case troika.

Then how to put a number on it, because I think she did ass well ass. She could but ass well ass. She could still means no corroborating evidence all the corroborating evidence against her. She she didn't lie. I think, on purpose. She she wasn't rude dismissive sheet. She came and told her story, but that's just not enough, and so maybe you need to numbers how. How did she do as well as she could have done? Yes, that change anything whatsoever? No, yes, sir. I basically agree with both of you. I give her a ten in turn, just working with material that she had I gave her a giver zero in terms of no new evidence and she came in with corroborating evidence. So that's kind of tuna Missus Charley suggested and if the average amount it comes out to David five. Really quickly before I move on limit, tell people a little bit about an hour plus the new digital, premium subscription service on national view that car

We are urge everyone listening podcast sign up for an hour plus a lot. Raising benefits you get access to all our material. Everything in the print magazine and articles running on an arose behind our metered pay, Wally The ability to comment which is only available to our applause, scribes. You see that ninety percent fewer ads on the website. We all have experience of being a annoyed by web ads and basically no web as whatsoever on article so come here to read something you get to read it without any distractions and finally get be part of NASH Reviews and our pluses private Facebook group, where there's an awesome community there developing you dont have a question today. Very often we have questions from and our plus members from that Facebook group on this podcast here get invited to be part of conversation with a writers, editors and other news, might makers and get invited to other events,

we really like to have all of you, part of our and our plus community so we ve run a little losses really quickly. Roscoe Little Brown gauged are on this question, just get a thought from from each of you and then will do an exit question and move on and and this historic podcast so David. It was really remarkable, Lindsey Gram statement, which I think was It wasn't anywhere near as important as the cabinets statement, but was was still really help turn the mood in the room. I think, during that the question and answer period Lindsey Ground, is a relatively moderate guy he's republican in the tradition of John Mccain ass. He noted in his remarks he voted for Craig. And so to my your and he was as rage has any senator again can possibly be and said this. Is

under handed, and the other party is basically illegitimate, which really really goes to how'd. Divided our politics is right now and our culture- and this has been a theme of Europe or for quite some time, yeah meanness, Lindy gram with would be if you're gonna have the Rhine the Hall of Fame inserted the populist right we're Lindsey, Graham, would be the chief of all rhinos mean this is a guy who has made. Free out of trying to reach cross the aisle time and time again and he absolutely I mean it was he was exe correlating excoriated in it, I think that its previous wrecked- restrained. His previous record reckon silly of attempting reconciliation across the aisle that may that so potent and you know, look On the one hand, a lot of us were sort of

way to go Lindsey? This really really had to be said. But on the other hand, if we have now reached the point where Z. Graham, is that deeply alienated and that deeply suggested by the state of our politics. We are moving into a dangerous place mean our negative polarization which everyone has been talking about. Everyone is aware of it only getting worse and at his never felt worse than this week, so while, on the one hand, I was credibly believe hardened by Graham stand on. Another Hannah was disheartened that it was necessary in that

that it was necessary. I think, speaks a lot about where we are now. What do you think? I think of you, push Lindsey Graham to behave like that. Then you should think about what you ve done. People will just cost. This is being reflective of the trench warfare and which were presently engaged politically and in an indirect sense that is accurate, but Linsey, Graham, was not ass, say Jeff, like did lamenting on a bipartisan base, is where we are just fine, he was making specific claims and points about. The way Democrats have handled is about the way that they behaved throughout this process. Not just with this. With this, this accusation,

and he was right. I I sees a funny want because he is. He has a right to know that in some ways he's not in others he's heterodox is how I put it politically, but temperamental E. He is moderate, ass, a person. He does build bridges. He said yesterday somewhat pointedly. These are people who have been my friends and that's true. So again, I would If you push Lindsey Graham to that, then I think that mean something to execution to David French. Will bread Cavanaugh he confirmed in an extra bonus editors a question on this topic. Will he be impeached? Yes, M Hearn, yes, impeached! No joy! I don't know

he'll be confirmed. I think I would say yes on balance, but the vote probably won't beheld into what Monday Tuesday Tuesday evening. Probably so, who knows in politics- and there are already in our attacking Jeff, Facon elevators, so well say he certainly one being pcb makes it to the court. I think that impeaching Brett cabin- I will, if he's except it, be a little cause within democratic circles. It'll be used in primaries, and I think that every time he is the deciding vote or rights, the majority opinion in a close case, then Democrats will say it's a legitimate, but there is not going to be there

a tight or the political impetus to get two thirds of the Senate to agree to get rid of a guy. I think the answer is yes, and no Sir David what'd few other things before I go. You have been taken with the sound of Elsie is and what you think they have a better product on the field and they haven't awhile. Yeah, you know I'd. The Unifil has suffered from twin problems of late problem. Number one is, you know, that's been. The talk of the political world, at least is the kneeling controversy about power. Number two hasn't been addressed and talked about quite enough outside of sort of the football purists circles, but it's been a suspect The early season. Nfl football is just men, bad, not fund a watch, bad quarter, packing bad play at the skill positions. Scoring games penalty filled Man this early season, I mean, if there's one thing: that's been nice break from

the unrelenting Graham world of politics, is at least the start of this football season, both college and Pro has featured some theirs just some great games. Why open offences? American? true pastime, at least on the feed old seems to be back if it can just get rid of the political distractions. Maybe we can have some thing, is a country that we can once again kind of enjoy together. But you know on on a promising note to see that talent in the inner actually unleashed, at least in every franchise, except the unbelievably weird constraints, they're putting on the Dallas cowboys, his offense beside from that, we were actually seeing some real football played at

high level and that's a lot of fun to try. You been focused on court cutting. I have, I think, for the first time it is possible to cut the cord just have an internet connection in some sort of device, maybe an apple tv and not to miss out on anything. I used. Direct tv now is different than their satellite services it's an app which is available on apple tv and other devices stream straight over my internet, and it feels like tv is quick. I've used some of the services it takes awhile to load it buffers, the cology goes in and out and I ever get internet. So it's not because of that. This one you change channel, to see if you would change channels on a television once you add that to Netflix and so forth. I no longer see why anyone would make cable Ivan focused lightly on the power the words stupid cousin. Daughter is obsessed with it. As I mentioned last week, you know one thing she said and trying to good to not got the door

for work recently as I going to work as stupid, she's really calling everything and everyone stupid. Now, It really is on its. It has pungent snap to it as as worded just feels like an insult and of course, every time she says it, I say don't say that word, which increases the attraction of the war. So she she says even more and today, when I left the house, she said by stupid daddy. So it is time for rich. We should count your blessing That's the idea that we have some words in this house that I have to tell Jack. He can't say, and then he wanted to say them even more and I'm I'm turn my hair out, because yes said public. If one of us so let's dieters, pick ray. They quickly David. What's your pic way there's been that so many good things written about that and cabinet battle. It's it's hard to pick out one, but Damn Maclaughlan wrote a extended.

He's just sort of from a very lawyer early perspective broke down the state of the evidence in the case and, How interviewed, if you're, looking this at this from an evident cherry basis? How should we evaluate it in? I thought it was just abstaining. It was a good long red- and you know I think, what was so missing and all of this pieces about personal experiences in culture and how Georgetown prep was, and how a terrible individual people's lives have been in. The light of the stories are genuinely heartbreaking is very refreshing to just see, read something. This is ok. Let's just look at this creation. All the evidence in this allegation and break it down it was outstanding. Charley was your back also damage coffin? Nothing

do with Cavanaugh Anne, and one of the reasons I liked to so much, I think, was it. It had nothing to do with carbon out. It is also an excellent piece of work on its own. It was a piece about the one hundredth anniversary of anything that pronouncing this correctly. The muse are gone offensive in World war, one which was absolutely disastrous in terms of casualties for. American troops. Damn Mcloughlin is a man of many many talents and it turns out that war sobered him is among them silent now I wish I could make it unanimous and pick something that and rode that instead, I'm gonna go with something that are Buckley. Fellow Madeline Kerns wrote about the aforementioned Elizabeth Loftus and her work on now. Marie, which is highly relevant to this this current controversy, and I urge everyone to check out. That's

for us even listening to a national, you pot ghastly rebuke every transmission or account of this again without the express written permission of national. You magazine strictly pro habited. Thank you David. You, Charlie, thank you too Bruce Chapman, who has a wonderful new book out called politicians, and thanks especially to all of you for listening, where the editors see you Next.