Well before the hearings got underway, liberals were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Judge Brett Kavanaugh. By the end of the first day of hearings, the room was hip-deep in sinks. As liberals grow increasingly desperate in their attempt to obstruct his confirmation, there’s danger that the truth will get lost in the chaos. Fred Lucas at the Daily Signal took the time to break down some of their claims.
For example, some critics tried to claim that Kavanaugh sided with Nixon in the former president’s attempt to withhold the Watergate tapes. Lucas looked into it, then wrote an article explaining how Kavanaugh clearly rejected Nixon’s position.
Another bogus claim was that Kavanaugh opposed prosecuting presidents. A strange claim, indeed, Lucas noted, considering that Kavanaugh worked on the Special Counsel team that prosecuted President Clinton in 1998.
Liberal even claimed Kavanaugh dissented against Obamacare, when his court did not rule on the law itself, only on whether lawsuits could be brought before the law went into effect.
In all the arguments, there is a theme: Liberals don’t have substantive grounds to disqualify Kavanaugh, so they try to make something out of nothing. Heritage Members make it possible for Lucas to do the job the media should be doing: reporting facts.
What questions would you ask if you were talking to Brett Kavanaugh?