Ep. 632 - The Greatest Whine Of All

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode centers on the high-stakes Senate cloture and confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh, with Shapiro arguing that Democratic opposition has become increasingly partisan and weakly substantiated. He highlights new reporting about pressure on Christine Blasey Ford-related witnesses, Grassley’s demands for records, the chaos of street protests, media bias, and the broader political consequences for Republicans and the Supreme Court.

Main Topics: Kavanaugh cloture vote and confirmation math (Priority: 5/5): Shapiro breaks down the cloture vote, emphasizing that Kavanaugh advanced by a razor-thin margin and that final confirmation hinged on a few swing senators, especially Manchin, Collins, Flake, and Murkowski. New reporting on Christine Blasey Ford witness pressure (Priority: 5/5): He focuses on Wall Street Journal reporting that Ford allies allegedly pressured witness Leland Kaiser to change her account, arguing this raises serious questions about witness tampering and coordination. Chuck Grassley’s record requests and FBI investigation (Priority: 5/5): Shapiro cites Grassley’s letter demanding therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with senators or witnesses, presenting it as a sign Republicans believe damaging evidence may exist. Protests, media coverage, and institutional chaos (Priority: 4/5): The episode describes Senate-building protests, escorting senators through crowds, and Shapiro’s criticism of CNN and other media for framing the situation as a partisan moral test rather than a due-process issue. Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony and ‘temperament’ debate (Priority: 4/5): Shapiro argues that criticism of Kavanaugh for crying or sounding angry is unfair, since his emotional reaction followed serious accusations against his character and family, not routine political questioning. Republican backlash and electoral implications (Priority: 4/5): He claims the episode has unified Republicans, improved enthusiasm, and could help GOP midterm prospects, while weakening Democrats’ strategy on judicial confirmations. Culture-war framing and broader political theory of the Court (Priority: 3/5): Shapiro argues the left made the Supreme Court a political prize through decades of judicial policymaking, and that current outrage stems from Republicans trying to restore constitutional interpretation.

Key Arguments: The cloture vote showed Kavanaugh had enough support unless multiple senators switched, making confirmation likely despite intense pressure. Lisa Murkowski’s no vote and Joe Manchin’s yes vote illustrate the narrow and politically charged Senate landscape. Reporting that Ford allies pressured Leland Kaiser to revise her statement undermines confidence in the allegations and suggests possible witness tampering. Grassley’s demand for therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications implies Republicans suspect withheld evidence does not support Ford’s claims. Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony was a normal reaction to being accused of gang rape, not evidence of judicial unfitness. Media criticism of Kavanaugh’s tone and tears is portrayed as hypocritical because emotional displays are often treated as credible when coming from accusers. The protests and media narratives are framed as proof that the left treats the Supreme Court as a partisan policy lever rather than a neutral legal institution. Republican anger over the hearings could improve turnout and narrow the Democratic enthusiasm advantage in the midterms.

Data Points: Cloture vote threshold: 51 votes - Shapiro notes that after the filibuster change, Supreme Court nominations need a simple majority rather than 60 votes. Confirmed cloture outcome: Republicans and one Democrat voted for cloture - He describes the cloture vote as passing with bipartisan support, though narrowly. Senate vote margin: 51 to 49 - He frames Kavanaugh’s cloture passage as a razor-thin Senate outcome. Calendar date referenced: July 1, 1982 - Shapiro discusses debate over Kavanaugh’s calendar entry and whether it matched Ford’s allegations. Number of individuals interviewed by FBI: 11 total; 10 agreed to be interviewed - He summarizes the FBI’s post-hearing review and the witnesses contacted. Years of judicial service: 12 years - Used to argue Kavanaugh had a long, calm record on the federal bench before the allegations. Confirmation-related meetings: 65 senators - Kavanaugh’s op-ed says he met with 65 senators during the process. Hearing length: More than 30 hours - Kavanaugh’s written defense says he participated in over 30 hours of hearings. Additional written questions: Nearly 1,300 - Kavanaugh notes he answered almost 1,300 additional Senate questions. Senate enthusiasm gap: 10-point advantage for Democrats in July, down to statistical tie - Shapiro cites polling showing the Kavanaugh fight energized Republican voters. White women generic ballot: D+14 to D+1 - He cites Quinnipiac polling showing dramatic movement among white women over the summer. USC protest context: Hundreds of protesters - He references protests outside and in Senate-related spaces and compares security responses to other eras. China chip incident year: 2015 - In a later segment, he discusses the reported discovery of a microchip in Super Micro hardware. Hidden chip size: Not much bigger than a grain of rice - Bloomberg-reported description of the alleged Chinese implant in server motherboards.

Pivotal Quotes: "you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate" — Chuck Grassley: Grassley’s letter to Ford’s legal team demanding therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications. "My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me." — Brett Kavanaugh: Kavanaugh’s Wall Street Journal defense of his emotional Senate testimony. "What y'all have done is bullsh*t." — Lindsey Graham: Graham’s response to Democratic criticism of the FBI process and Kavanaugh investigation.

Implications: The episode argues Kavanaugh’s near-confirmation strengthened Republicans, exposed media bias, and intensified the Supreme Court as a partisan battleground. It also suggests future confirmation fights will be even more polarized and strategic.