WarRoom Battleground EP 990: UK Tory Leader Smugly Celebrates Hungarian Nationalist Icon Viktor Orbán’s Election Defeat
Ben Hanwell and Peter McIlvena dissect Kemi Badenoch's "mask slipping" celebration of Viktor Orbán's defeat, exposing her bait-and-switch on family values versus EU sovereignty. They warn that the firewall against Germany's surging AfD party is unsustainable, while President Trump demands NATO allies hit 5% defense spending, exposing EU accounting fraud. Finally, they condemn Justice Sonia Sotomayor's unprofessional apology to Brett Kavanaugh as coerced classism, suggesting these events reveal a crumbling mainstream political consensus in Europe and America. [Automatically generated summary]
So let's start off with what I'm going to describe as putting in the category of the mask slipping, which is always the type of news article that I find particularly helpful.
Informing the correct narrative, and this is the leader of the UK Conservative Party, the British Conservatives, colloquially referred to, I think truthfully, as the oldest political party in the world.
And Kemi Badenoch, in an interview with the CEO of Axel Springer, which is just about the owner of Politico, but Peter, correct me if I'm wrong, I think they're about to buy the Daily Telegraph in the UK, and a sit down interview between these two people.
And to put this right, Axel Springer is a major German publishing venture.
It is right leaning.
It's unusual in the mainstream media.
It is both growing, very well read, and right leaning.
So in this interview, the future hopeful Tory, the next Tory prime minister, not, basically said that Orban's defeat gave her hope.
For the center right, that's why I say this is the mask slipping.
Because, of course, anyone who studied Viktor Orban's agenda will realize it was pretty center right in most respects.
I think, apart from the perhaps the immigration issue, which I always insist is traditionally a left wing issue rather than a far right issue, but with the wholesale abandonment of the traditional left by the traditional left, it's been the realignment of politics has left it for the.
The far right to take on the immigration issue.
Victor Auburn was also pretty strong on the traditional family values on the LGBT front.
And put apart from that, if you look at the things that his financing of conservative movements around the world, via the MCC and what have you, these weren't bringing in people who are commonly known as far righters.
They were sort of broadly conservative intellectuals.
And so for Kemi to come here and say that she thinks his defeat.
Gives her hope for the center right, and you're going to explain exactly what she said.
And what she said, I think, is an indication that the Toy Party has nothing center right about it, it is really just a globalist chapter, a chapter of the global, the international globalist elite.
And there's no real pretense of it being anything other than that anymore.
Um, tell me, Peter, what did she say, and what was she trying to pitch to Axel Springer?
And Ben, I think you've got it buying on the money.
The mask is slipping.
And she, I mean, Victor Orban, I'm sure he wouldn't have been able to stand at a Conservative Party candidate in the UK.
He would have been far too extreme, far too conservative for a liberal so called Conservative Party in the UK.
I give kind of give Kemi a little bit of leeway simply because she didn't, wasn't there right at the beginning of Cameron's time in 2010.
She came in, what, 2017, 2018, me in 2019.
She was dropped into a safe seat.
I used to watch her in City Hall whenever I was a senior researcher with the United Kingdom Independence Party back in 2017, 2018.
And she, I thought, was doing fairly well there, stand up conservative values.
But she now is leader of the Conservative Party in the UK.
And it is quite shocking that she would take a side swipe at Orban.
Maybe it's just she wants to get in with the new leader in Hungary.
Obviously, Peter.
Peter Miger, I can never pronounce his surname, but he has got a two thirds majority and there is absolute control, can change the constitution.
He has all the levers of power at his disposal.
Yet he was criticising Orban for having been in a powerful position.
And you simply go where the voters bring you.
But she is criticising and says that right wing populism won't dominate long term.
And this offers fresh hope for traditional conservatives in Europe and the UK.
What does she mean by traditional conservatives?
This is something that Nigel Farage's party reform.
I used to look early in the day at their pamphlets they used to put out, and they were maybe 80% on the financial conservative side and only 20% on the culture wars, on the issues that really affect people.
And my line was always it doesn't matter if you save a penny in the pound or a cent in the dollar in your income tax.
If your child is told that they're not a boy but a girl, or that sort of thing, that is really what concerns families, what concerns individuals.
And I don't think that Kemi really understands that.
And she goes down to talk about, you know, if a party is not centered on the economic side, and Hungary probably has stagnated a little bit in the last few years, then voters will not put them back in again.
But what Viktor Orban did, as you pointed out, Ben, focusing on the family.
Focusing on those cultural values that Hungary and traditional Christian countries would have held dear is vile and is a bulwark against the European Union.
But of course, the new leader who has been voted in with that huge majority is certainly much more pro the European Union.
And the whole issue of Russia also into the mix, because remember, Hungary traditionally got 80 90% of their energy from Russia.
You don't really attack a country that is going to keep you afloat.
And Viktor Orban realized that and he was very pragmatic.
Where you've got this new leader in power, very much aligned with the European Union, very much aligned with this anti Putin idea.
And that is going to be very destructive.
For Hungary.
So I really scratch my head and look at this interview and think, what on earth is Kemi thinking unless it's pure pragmatism and just jumping on the bandwagon of the new leader?
Because I can't see anything you would criticize against Orban unless you believe the lies the European Union put out.
It struck me that Peter Magyar, throughout the two years, just over two years, because I think up until February 2024, he was still a member of Fidesz, right?
Quite very recent then, in real terms, to leave a political party, set up your own, and then win with this huge majority.
First things, I think he has established a different brand, even though I think.
He tried hard to be the Orban not Orban candidate, Orban without the Orban, if you will.
And that's most noticeable, I think, with his relationship with regards to between Hungary and the European Union.
Specifically, I think they want to get, Hungary wants to get this 35 billion euros of its own donations, of its own taxpayer contributions to Brussels to have back, which have been totally illegally blocked.
Uh, via the EU to destabilize the, the, the Orban government.
I think he wants to get his hands on that money.
And so there are, certainly in terms of mood, there's a different tone with, and there has been for two years, with regards to what he will say, what would be Hungary's relationship with the European Union.
You mentioned Russia, and I have to say, the most recent remarks that he's come out with actually seemed very moderate with regards to Putin and indicated to me an intention, at least not to be pulled.
Automatically into the gravitational vortex of Brussels with regards to Ukraine, but specifically with regards to Russia, for the reasons that you mentioned, there were reasons of Hungary's national interest to keeping a bridge open to Moscow.
And I think I'm going to wait to see what Magyar does on that one.
What is Kemi doing here?
Is the question that you asked, the rhetorical question.
I will suggest, and you mentioned it in the first part of your answer.
Really, the answer to this is I think she's narrative framing.
And of course, she's on the back foot hugely.
I think they had their worst ever result in a century in 2014, just before she was elected leader.
And the reason for that is, of course, Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
And when she takes a swing, when she says explicitly that conservatism is being challenged more by the right now, the economic nationalists, the populists, but I don't think that's going to be long lasting.
She's obviously, I would suggest, engaged in narrative framing, trying to suggest that Viktor Orban ran out of steam pushing that agenda.
And even though Nigel Farage is pushing the same.
Sort of agenda in a UK context in the UK, that project for his will also run out of steam.
I think it's narrative framing, but I think it's completely missed the reality of what's taking place.
Lest we forget, and that's why when I was on the show with Steve on Monday, I think the day after the results have started to come in from Budapest, I really have an analysis on this that I haven't seen picked anywhere else, and that is it was always going to be very difficult, to be honest, very difficult for Viktor Orban to win after.
16 straight years, 16 continuous years in government, in governance as the head of the government.
He did four years, I think, before that, back in the 90s, but from 2010 to 2016, that's a heck of a long time.
And I sort of think he was challenging the laws of electoral gravity going for another mandate.
I think with hindsight, well, I mean, I was sort of saying this before, but I'll be gracious and say with hindsight, perhaps the last mandate he should have.
Been sort of choosing a successor, an anointed assessor, rather than letting the natural democratic process do that for him.
But that's what I think she's up to.
If you have any closing remarks on this, Peter, I'll give away to you now and then we'll move on to the next article that we're going to talk about.
No, I think it's just her trying to distance herself from someone who was linked to President Trump and someone who was linked, incorrectly, I think, to Putin.
And she's trying to put water there.
But But that doesn't connect with the British voters.
The British voters didn't wake up and think, oh, we've got a strong opinion, yes or no, on Orban.
It's really not affecting the UK.
So I don't understand why she jumps into this issue and makes an issue of something that doesn't affect the British voter.
And she's got enough to play with on an inept Labour Party, on the rising Green Party, on trying to put distance between her and Nigel Farage.
That should be her focus.
And yet she's what?
Going up in the polls a little bit to maybe 20% or so, or 19% from 15%.
Something that I say occasionally is that with our globalist overlords, our sociopathic overlords, it's impossible to know where incompetence ends and bad faith begins.
And that's where I flag this.
It's not complacency at all.
It's the fact that these guys are sociopathic, sociopaths.
They hate Western, the Judeo Christian, Western.
Civilization and they're actively trying to destroy it, and it's in your face.
It's not complacency, as if, oh, look, we're just ever so slightly incompetent.
This is a deliberate plan, a deliberate design that they're implementing.
And she says it again.
I think there's a lot of complacency.
That invitation, blaming Merkel now, that invitation to a million Syrian migrants to Germany was one of the reasons why people became more skeptical about the European Union project.
That again, it's bait and switch.
It's pretend that we're on your side.
That wasn't what's going on at all.
The invasion woke up people right across continental Europe that our so called centre right political parties have nothing conservative about them.
And that's why they took country by country by country the really drastic step of leaving the centre right and setting up whole new movements.
That's why we saw what's called the far right in the popular press.
It's not really at all.
It's really where the centre right was 50 years ago.
But we'll use the journalistic terms.
That's why we saw these.
Far right political groupings in 2015 on about three or four percent across the continental Europe, and now they're on 20 to 25 percent.
It's because of the invasion, people are sick of it.
They're just absolutely sick of their communities being destroyed by a system, an ideology that hates them.
Again, she dismisses it as complacency bait and switch.
And I think people are waking up.
They're not going to be confused by that any longer.
Well, this is a good news story from the confusion of the conservatives in Britain.
And I wait to hear Kemi Bednock coming out and attacking the AFD because they are very much in the mold of Viktor Orban, wanting to look at those traditional values.
And it's fascinating because I think it was earlier, I think it was earlier this, earlier last month, I think it was March, there were two elections in the West of Germany and the AFD doubled their share.
And Germany is basically still split.
West and East.
And the AFD are polling top and really everywhere in East Germany and traditionally have not performed, traditionally, they're a new party, really, but traditionally have not performed as well in the West, which is more liberal.
But that is also changing because the two elections they had in two of the regions last month, AFD doubled their share and won, they just over doubled.
And that shows that actually this understanding, this feeling of, Actually, what is the culture of Germans?
What traditionally does that mean?
And Germany don't want to be just taken over by the European Union.
They want their own identity, as traditionally most countries do want.
And that's why this is fascinating.
Of course, the next national election is two years away.
So it's got a while to go, but you'll have those regional elections, and they're going to keep putting AFD first, certainly in the east or in the west of Germany, maybe second.
And this is going to strike fear.
And this is going to be interesting to watch how the elite respond to this.
We saw how the elite responded to Marine Le Pen in France when they made sure that the vote was not split on the other side.
And they did that to make sure that she would not win an absolute majority and held her out of those conversations on setting up a government.
Same thing has happened in Austria with the Freedom Party.
They won the election.
For the first time since the Second World War, the leading party was not allowed, not invited to actually form a government.
My concern is that Germany is.
Too important.
This is not a small country.
This is at the heart of Europe.
And my worry is that despite, and I'm hoping and praying that we see each election bringing forward a landslide in two years.
But of course, Germany, as many countries in Europe, are coalitions.
And whether or not the AFD will have enough to actually win, but you saw with Gert Fielders in.
The PVV party in the Netherlands having to rely on many other parties to come together in a coalition.
And that provides chaos.
And in Germany, it's provided this confusion and the refusal to accept the AFD in any of those political conversations.
This firewall that the article refers to, that no matter how well the AFD do, the other parties refuse to engage.
At some point, that firewall has to break.
And at some point, the government has to deal with the parties.
That are being elected by the people.
So it'll be fascinating watching those election after election to see at what point does it happen that the governing party are forced to actually discuss with the AFD and how did the AFD respond?
So it's fascinating because Germany are the powerhouse of Europe and you've got a weak France, you've now got a weak Germany.
Imagine what would happen if you had AFD in Germany and Le Pen or Jordan Badeau in France actually.
Bringing that heartbeat of Europe to traditional values, national identity, and actually not letting the EU run the show, it'll be fascinating.
So, two years to go until national elections, we'll see what happens.
No, you've got all of these points there in your response.
Absolutely essential.
Firstly, that was Alice Vidal's remark when this Yuke of poll came out that it's time, it's been time for a long time, but it's now time to pull down what she calls this undemocratic firewall and bring.
the AFD fully integrated into the decision-making process.
But of course, the longer that the firewall stays up, the more powerful the AFD become because they're not tainted with the collaboration with these failing, unpopular, mainstream political parties.
For our largely American audience, I'll add that Germany is easily the largest in terms of population and economy of the member states of the EU.
EU member states, by far the largest, has critical, therefore, importance for the life and direction of the European Union.
Therefore, Pete, as you were indicating, it cannot be overestimated the importance of what is going to happen on continental Europe should that most, the largest and most important member state fall into the hands of the AFD.
It will be transformative.
And it's also worth mentioning that the CDU, which is the The Christian Democratic Union, the political party of Angela Merkel.
Political party of the present Chancellor Friedrich Merz is also the political party of Ursula von der Leyen, the low president of the European Commission.
Many things will change because Germany is incredibly well integrated.
Christian Democrats are very well integrated into the European governance structure via the European People's Party, which is the largest group in the European Parliament, which is the collection of all the so called Christian Democrats.
Political parties across Europe.
Very, very interesting things happening here.
Just very quickly, because you mentioned the elections in two years' time, do you have any idea if the firewall isn't brought down?
Do you have any idea, projections of what you think will happen?
I know it's some way off yet, but if they continue to be kept outside, do you think that will give them more credibility in the elections?
Well, President Trump has been putting huge pressure on the European members of NATO, America's great reliable allies, to hook up their defence spending from the agreed, I think it's 2% of NATO defence spending up to 5%.
And of course, this is having knock on consequences across Europe because.
The money doesn't exist.
The Financial Times article, but you see it on your screen.
I think Peter McIlverna really does do a disservice to the reality here.
And I'll just read the beginning sentence of this.
It says the EU and NATO are at odds in what officials describe as a turf war over how to manage an extra $1 trillion a year rearmament drive prompted by Donald Trump's threats to European.
Security.
That's a complete misdirection play, isn't it?
Because that's not what the issue is here.
I get why the FT is spending it like that.
But really, the issue is that $1 trillion comes from the increase in the charter of agreed spending to what America, the Trump administration, has been pushing for the 5%.
That's where that $1 trillion extra is coming from.
And the FT is trying to suggest, I mean, there's some truth.
That the war, the US Israel war in the Middle East, has created a lot of instability in continental Europe and continental Europe.
It's working out how much pressure, how much of that load it's going to shoulder for itself.
That is absolutely true.
That is part of the conversation.
But fundamentally, they've got to cough up this money because Donald Trump is trying to get a better deal for American taxpayers.
And they're trying to spin it as threats to European security.
I have to flag that up because that is an indication of how fundamentally dishonest the mainstream media is.
But you have to be hawk eyed about this to see this.
But what's going on between what the FT quotes someone here as calling a war between NATO and the EU right now?
Well, this, I mean, they are correct in that whenever you ramp up the spending, there will be a heated conversation in Europe that, I mean, it's traditionally been what?
Britain and France, really, who have had the military capability of building their own equipment, and most other countries haven't.
And you've had coalitions of countries building most things, certainly aircraft for decades going back.
So, The major problem is that Europe cannot be relied upon to actually have a military one.
Anything we ever had, we've sent to Ukraine.
So we no longer have anything left.
I think it was like nine months ago, the head of the British Army said that the UK had, I think, three days of armament or something like ludicrous.
That if we went into war, we could fight for three days and they would have to stop.
Compare that to the US and the position of the US in the war with Iran.
And it's non stop.
The US is prepared.
The European Union would have lasted three days in this war if they were involved with Iran and they would have stopped and obviously wouldn't have finished the job.
In fact, for the UK, whenever Cyprus was attacked, supposedly, although we don't know where those missile attacks came from because we're told they didn't come from Iran, who knows?
And then it took a month for Britain to send a warship.
In the meantime, the Spanish sent a single ship, I think.
The Greek government sent.
I think four aircraft to protect Cyprus.
The British had to find a ship that we had that was working.
Then we found HMS Dragon, a destroyer, and it powered its way to Cyprus.
And now, what, three days ago, had to dock because it had to have emergency repairs.
But we're told, don't worry, it's available to fight in the theatre, but it just can't go in the water.
What's the point of having a ship if it can't go in the water?
It's land based.
So it's sitting there.
I don't know what it's doing.
But that is an example of the situation in Europe.
And this article talking about the ramping up of spending.
Thank God President Trump has called out the other failings of the European Union and forced them to agree to this ramping up of spending.
But I don't know if one, they don't have the money, and two, they don't have the manufacturing capability to even ramp this up.
And you look at the amount of military projects across Europe that are years and years behind.
There is absolutely no way Europe, this is a decade long process.
They talk about, yeah, I think they talk about 2035.
So, it is a decade long.
I don't even know if by then they will be able to ramp up this spending.
So, it's fascinating.
It's scary to watch, really, because you'd expect where you live to have a military that could defend you.
But even if Europe had the military, do they have the governments to actually press the button and defend themselves?
I don't think so.
I think they would have sat in negotiations with Iran for a decade rather than do anything to antagonize them.
Europe always looks at.
Diplomacy from a weak position and don't get anywhere.
And that's why the strength that America has shown puts America in a situation that is above every single country.
And Europe would do well to look at America, to marvel, and maybe to go into agreements with.
I know we've got the F 35, Britain have bought that on our two aircraft carriers that don't work.
Traditionally, worked with the US on the military procurement side.
Europe have not.
But I think that will have to change if we're going to ramp up the spending across Europe for the European Union to be a military superpower.
But then the concern is do the European Union demand central control away from individual countries, individual governments?
That is also a debate that has been had in the past and I think will be had now.
Whenever this money begins to flow, whenever armaments are discussed, suddenly the European Union.
Will want a share of that and they will say, why don't we set up a European Union army?
That is my concern.
So there are many aspects to this, Ben.
The FT touch on that small side of the monies involved and the debate of who actually benefits from this.
But there are so many other facets to this conversation.
Let me start off with my response to your magisterial synthesis there by putting out this over responding to the 2035 deadline, which is when the Europeans are pretending they're going to have their defence spending at 5%.
Why 10 years?
Well, it's because President Trump will be a long, long, long way from power by the time 2035 rolls around.
I think they're just playing him out.
They're just saying, yeah, yeah, yes, yes, Mr. President.
Absolutely, yes, we agree with you.
We'll do it.
10 years' time, we'll be there at 5%.
Don't you worry about it.
And of course, full in the knowledge that he'll be long gone.
So call me cynical on that one.
But I think that's why we have the 2035 deadline, long time in the future.
I can't not mention here with regards, it's my favorite illustration of just how performative the European Union.
Countries are and saying, Oh, we're now getting close to five percent.
Uh, we're increasing our defense spending, defense expenditure by citing what is taking place here.
Um, in Italy, uh, phony Maloney, uh, has said, I think she said, Oh, we're gonna run out about four percent.
Um, but what they're doing, and this is the problem, right?
This is the problem that I think the administer the US administration should be spending a little more manpower on.
Scrutinizing these things, the reason they've got up to four percent is because this being Italy, they've gone in for dodgy accounting.
And what they're doing is they're counting things that were never defense expenditure for that they were spending money on anyway.
Because you know, the Italian government is very top heavy, so they're just imaginative accounting saying, Well, this is not defense.
So you're gonna say, Okay, Hanwell, that's like a bold claim.
Can you back that up?
Well, firstly, they've put out, I think, however many billions it is to build this.
Huge bridge between Sicily and the mainland of the peninsula.
It's a bridge to nowhere.
Huge, a huge boondoggle, I think the Americans term.
And God knows who's actually behind that and who's going to get the swiping money off there.
But I'll just mention again it's between Sicily and the peninsula.
So you can draw your own conclusions over who's pushing that.
And she's saying, oh, this is defence expenditure because there's a NATO base in Sicily and we're going to need to be able to get to it in the case of war.
So it's basically a transport infrastructure boondoggle that they're now offsetting against defence.
They're including pensions, Department of Defence pensions now as defence expenditure.
They're including the coast guards, the Italian coast guards.
On our defence expenditure, which is laughable, seeing as the Coast Guards haven't done anything to stop the actual invasion taking place in Italy right now.
So you have these press releases that are put out, and you have the get togethers, the heads of government, heads of state get togethers, and all these countries sort of preen themselves and push themselves to the front of the queue and say, Look how wonderful we are.
But if you look at what they're doing, so much of it is just BS.
And I think they're just trying to.
Wait the president out.
Peter, we're going to do the European story on there, which we saved to last in just a couple of moments.
First, I will give a quick shout out to our other sponsor of the war in this evening, and that is Patriot Mobile.
I realize there are many choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service, and there are new ones popping up all the time.
But here's the truth there's only one that boldly stands in the gap for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for, and that's Patriot Mobile for more than 12 years.
Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines fighting for Americans' god given rights and freedoms, whilst also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to all three of the main networks.
Just don't take our word for it, ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've made the switch and are now supporting causes they believe in.
Simply by joining Patriot Mobile.
Switching is easier than ever, activate in minutes from your comfort of your own home and keep your number.
Keep your phone or even upgrade Patriot Mobile's all U S base support team is standing by to take care of you.
Call nine seven two Patriot today.
Or go to Patriot Mobile dot com.
Forward slash Bannon, Patriot Mobile.
All one word there.
Use promo code bannon for a free month of service.
That's Patriotmobile.com.
Forward slash Bannon.
Or call 972 Patriot and make the switch Today.
So, Peter McElvena, I think it's pretty much unprecedented that a Supreme Court justice needs to publicly apologize to a colleague on the bench, and yet that's exactly what has happened.
The Obama appointed Justice, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, apologized to Trump.
Appointed Associate Justice Brett Kavanagh.
What did she say originally to upset Justice Kavanagh?
When I travel the US, I have my Patriot mobile phone.
So, a great sponsor that the Warren Posse have there.
But no, she said that she attacked Kavanaugh for his background.
Now, I thought that actually we are all individuals, and in this day and age, that our background is irrelevant and we make what we make in our life.
Shocking to have her say, she made the comment that this is from a man whose parents were professionals and probably doesn't know any person who works by the hour.
And this is to do with the ICE raids and deportations.
And so what if he's got a privileged background?
So what if he's got a non privileged background?
Everyone in the privileged background does not get to the high levels of the Supreme Court.
Those are nine individuals who are regarded as.
The highest legal minds in the US.
So he wasn't granted that just because his parents were well off or he had a privileged background.
But it is quite shocking for her to use that as a critique that actually, just because you've got a privileged background means that you want to deport people who are there illegally.
Surely, if you're there legally or illegally, you're breaking the law.
That should be an issue that concerns any.
Law abiding citizen.
Maybe she's less of a law abiding citizen.
Maybe she doesn't really worry.
I assume she doesn't really worry about people breaking over the border because her boss Obama actually put her in.
But I'm trying to get my head around this that you've got a Supreme Court justice that is attacking someone else simply for talking about deportations, sending back those who've broken in the country illegally.
And they should be returned.
And her criticism is because he had richer parents than she did.
So I'm perplexed at this, trying to work out.
And of course, she's apologized.
I don't think Kavanaugh has actually responded, which I thought was very magnanimous of him and shows that he can rise above and take the high road.
He's not going to engage in a fight.
I think he's stayed silent.
I'm sure the posse can correct us in the chat, but I think he stayed silent on this, which I think is a mark of a man that he doesn't engage in this.
He is just focused on his job as a Supreme Court justice, making sure that Americans get justice delivered at the highest score of the land.
So, yeah, man.
So again, this is very different from the UK because obviously we have, what, five very liberal judges in the Supreme Court in the UK.
We don't have the long tradition.
It was just put in, I think it was put in 20 years ago or so.
And I pass it every way on my way to Westminster.
But there isn't the focus in the UK on the Supreme Court as there is in the US.
But she's apologized for comments, but she hasn't said they were wrong.
It's one thing to say, you know, I'm sorry if it was hurtful or taken incorrectly.
But actually, she hasn't apologized for calling someone out because they have a more privileged background than someone else.
Would she attack someone who had a less privileged background for what they say?
Would she say if someone didn't have a good education, then they're wrong in thinking something?
Surely all those Supreme Court judges are very intelligent people, whatever their background is from.
And they come to all those rulings very carefully.
They don't rush into any rulings.
They come to them very carefully and they weigh up everything in those decisions.
And I've been certainly impressed, well, maybe more impressed by some of them, by Clarence Thomas, who, of course, is a judicial hero.
If only he had nine of Clarence Thomas.
But Samuel Alto as well, I've been really impressed by him and impressed by Kavanaugh whenever.
He was opposed by the media getting into that position and actually holding the line.
I'm getting in.
Some of the others are less impressed.
But I don't know what the US media have made of this.
I really have no idea because I haven't followed it closely.
I've just glanced at this story and read it at face value.
But I don't know if the US media have attacked her for her comments, for her attack on his background, or have backed Kavanaugh for his silence, or is this.
This attack on a class system you'd maybe expect in the UK, but maybe less so in the US.