I would like to propose a set of questions for the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings. I would ask about her interview with Donald Trump. 1) in the interview, did the president talk about himself at all ? Both answers are costly. We all know he did (he always does) so to answer no is to blatantly like. A yes answer leads to following questions (which I would ask in any case). Barrett will refuse to answer, saying the conversation should be private. 2. I’m not asking if he said he had a headache, My concern is whether he said anything about the upcoming Presidential election aand whether it might be contested. Again the answer no is an obvious lie. Also refusing to answer suggests that the answer is damaging to her (as the true answer certainly is).
Topics:
Robert Waldmann considers the following as important: history, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Skidelsky writes Lord Skidelsky to ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy with regard to the Ukraine war following the new policy of the government of the United States of America.
Joel Eissenberg writes No Invading Allies Act
Ken Melvin writes A Developed Taste
Bill Haskell writes The North American Automobile Industry Waits for Trump and the Gov. to Act
I would like to propose a set of questions for the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings.
I would ask about her interview with Donald Trump.
1) in the interview, did the president talk about himself at all ?
Both answers are costly. We all know he did (he always does) so to answer no is to blatantly like.
A yes answer leads to following questions (which I would ask in any case).
Barrett will refuse to answer, saying the conversation should be private.
2. I’m not asking if he said he had a headache, My concern is whether he said anything about the upcoming Presidential election aand whether it might be contested.
Again the answer no is an obvious lie. Also refusing to answer suggests that the answer is damaging to her (as the true answer certainly is).
She will refuse to answer
3. So you refuse to say that he didn’t suggest that he wants you confirmed so you can side with Trump in a possible upcoming Trump V Biden case ?
She has to refuse.
4. Did he ask you to assure him that you would vote in his favor if there were such a case ?
Here she has to answer no. It is very costly to refuse. If she answers yes (almost certainly the honest answer) then she can’t refuse to answer when asked how she replied.
5. Here under the extremely unlikely hypothesis that she answers yes, she would have to claim she told him she can’t make that promise about a purely speculative case for which the facts haven’t even occurred yet. That would be an obvious lie. If she had been asked and gave that answer, she would not have been nominated.
So she will answer no, but then argue that the conversation is confidential and she shouldn’t answer other questions about it. I think the questions lead her to contradicting herself.
She could stick to refusal to answer, but if she refuses to answer “did you promise to President Trump that you will favor him in an upcoming Trump V Biden case ?”
Then she has some trouble.
Then ask if she promises to recuse herself if there is a Trump V Biden case (she has to answer that one).
This doesn’t distract from the gross impropriety of blocking Garland then rushing Barrett.
The questions are not polite or normal, but the situation is clearly not normal either.