I’m a big fan of Daily 202 @jameshohmann but I want to clarify one thing about your piece today. I’m not in any way divided from my wife @NancyAFrench or my esteemed podcast co-host @xan_desanctis about Kavanaugh /1: washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost…
I said the night Christine Blasey Ford came forward that, if true, her allegations were disqualifying. I said very clearly they allegations were very serious. My focus since then has been on the evidence. Anyway, here’s my initial piece: nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-…
Both Nancy and Alexandra were responding to the continued argument (most notoriously made by Dennis Prager) that even if true the allegations weren’t disqualifying. I stand with Nancy and Alexandra 100 percent on their responses to that argument /3
There are two key questions:
1) Are the allegations serious? Yes, absolutely.
2) Is their sufficient supporting evidence to block the nomination? I’m unconvinced.
I’m sure Nancy and Alexandra have their own thoughts on point 2, but there’s no daylight between us on point 1.
1) Are the allegations serious? Yes, absolutely.
2) Is their sufficient supporting evidence to block the nomination? I’m unconvinced.
I’m sure Nancy and Alexandra have their own thoughts on point 2, but there’s no daylight between us on point 1.
Anyway, like I said, I love what you do. I don’t want any confusion about my position — especially when it relates to my wife and colleague! /end.
