Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh gave such a fiery, emotional testimony on Thursday that even a CBS panel conceded that he hit a grand slam and will serve on the Supreme Court, according to Newsbusters.
Following the hearing's conclusion, CBS chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford reported that "people [are] saying that she looked credible on both sides" but that Kavanaugh redeemed his confirmation following his convincing testimony.
He looked like a man who has been sitting there wanting to say something, and he said it and so you could really feel kind of the shift in the room as he began to give his opening statement and then as the senators on both sides started their questionings, Democrats were never able to kind of get the kind of traction, I think, that we expected and people were saying at the end of the morning that the prosecutor, that the Republicans had asked to do their questions, that she never really was able to lay a glove, as some people were saying, on Ford. This afternoon, it was the same I thought for Kavanaugh.
CBS and CNN contributor Bianna Golodryga noted that "[i]t was really a tale of two hearings" with Ford appearing credible and Kavanaugh fighting back with everything he had. Crawford conceded that Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court just like Clarence Thomas:
You saw Senator Leahy saying it brought back memories of Clarence Thomas. That's something I think both sides could agree on. Justice Thomas in the 1991 hearings, equally outraged, in much the way we saw Kavanaugh today, lashing out at Democrats, and ultimately, Justice Thomas, of course, is on the Supreme Court. I thought from what we saw from Republicans today, that Kavanaugh will be voted out of this committee. I thought that — we weren't really sure where Senator Flake might be. His comments suggested that he probably is a yes.
Video and transcript below provided by Newsbusters:
GLOR: Rikki, a tale of two hearings.
KLIEMAN: A tale of two hearings, and the advantage to going last. The last memory that goes into the public, if they'd been watching, is watching the emotional testimony of Brett Kavanaugh, who really does seem to be so authentic and so congruent and his anger and his sadness are all appropriate for what has gone on in his life and then the result of that, just by laws of rhetoric, what you hear last is what remains with you. The whole point of primacy and recency, and recency will always win the day that we will take away from this a bit of forgetfulness for many people of victimhood for Dr. Ford and move it to Brett Kavanaugh.
GOLODRYGA: You really saw a strategy with the Republicans not wanting to copy what had happened in 1991 by seemingly attacking Anita Hill. They, for the most part, were respectful of Dr. Ford, and took their anger and took their hostilities and aimed it towards the Democrats and said: “You have politicized this. You have been sitting on this information for so long. You could have taken this to the FBI,” to the point where Senator Feinstein, at the end, had to come out and once again defend her actions, once again defend it was not her staffer who had leaked the initial letter. So from that perspective, it seems as if, especially given Dr. — Kavanaugh's performance today versus what we even saw a few days ago on Fox, I think the strategy may have worked for the Republicans.
GLOR: Well, in the morning session they didn't ask questions. They all deferred to the prosecutor who was brought in, Rachel Mitchell.
CRAWFORD: Yeah, and I mean, in the morning, there was, obviously, some confusion, where she's asking kind of laying — trying to lay out the facts and kind of methodically taking Ford through what happened that day the best she could remember. You saw from the senators saying: “I'm not really sure where she's going with this.” But what she was doing and what I think was very helpful for the Republicans this afternoon was talking and asking her in a fair and proper way, which then gave Republicans this opportunity to kind of go at it with the Republicans — with the Democrats.