I’d tell you to listen to more hearings. They’re designed to be professionally adversarial. There was some BS, but not as much as I think everyone thinks.
I don’t know what exact part you heard. But they ask VERY broad questions, so they may ask. Talk some more. And circle back. Ultimately, yes, always. THEY WANT AN ANSWER. They want you to disprove your own opponent. It’s just how it goes. It’s intellectuals.
But there was some behavior that I believe was inappropriate and not normally part of the judiciary stoicism.
I’d tell you to listen to more hearings. They’re designed to be professionally adversarial. There was some BS, but not as much as I think everyone thinks.
I don’t know what exact part you heard. But they ask VERY broad questions, so they may ask. Talk some more. And circle back. Ultimately, yes, always. THEY WANT AN ANSWER. They want you to disprove your own opponent. It’s just how it goes. It’s intellectuals.
But there was some behavior that I believe was inappropriate and not normally part of the judiciary stoicism.
Vocal fry? She was horrific. She was the most inappropriate and partisan. She was auditioning for deep state.