In the third round of questioning, Cornyn was pretty darn good (a grade from me of about 94 out of 100) on asking her about her absurd speechr emarks denoncing objectivity and asking her about foreign law. She is weakening. I’ve been pretty hard on Republican senators, so credit where due: Cornyn in all three sessions has ranged from good to very good in his questioning. I STILL think the senators need to make definitive statements at the end of their question sessions, each time, summing up what THEY have gleaned from that round of questions in terms of what it means for the public. Declarative, not inquisitive. Like lawyers would do when trying to make juries understand their points. Still, Cornyn, who does have good trial experience, has done a mostly good job of eliciting information and getting his point across.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.