REPORT: CBS Correspondent Rips Clinton’s ‘Cheap’ Attack on Trump Judges
As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by FreeBeacon:
CBS correspondent Jan Crawford ripped twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, calling her statement on judicial confirmations “wrong on multiple levels.”
In response to Clinton claiming that Republican nominees had “no relevant experience,” Crawford said the former secretary of state was trying to score “cheap political points.”
The article goes on to state the following:
“You may have an issue with Bush/Trump nominees, but they generally (and certainly relatively speaking) are qualified and experienced,” Crawford wrote in a Twitter thread. “And no one should ever assume Republicans don’t take ‘seriously’ the selection of judges.”
Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton had appeared with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a lecture at the Georgetown University Law Center on Wednesday, where they discussed Bill Clinton appointing Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1993.
Hillary Clinton used the conversation to slam President Trump’s selection of judges, claiming he just appointed them because they were young, and declared they have “no relative experience.”
“I do think, though, when you’re making decisions as momentous as picking judges for the federal bench, the person you consider should have relevant experience and should be judged qualified to hold the positions. Obviously, that wasn’t a worry with Justice Ginsburg, but we’ve recently seen people largely chosen on the basis of age, and therefore longevity, and political ideology being pushed through despite having no relevant experience,” she said.
“We’ve recently seen people largely chosen on the basis of age, therefore longevity, and political ideology. Being pushed through despite having no relevant experience,” @HillaryClinton on recent judicial appointees.
— Georgetown Law (@GeorgetownLaw) October 30, 2019
Crawford blasted Clinton for her comments, tweeting, “This is just wrong on multiple levels: SEC. CLINTON: We’ve recently seen people largely chosen on the basis of age, longevity and political ideology being pushed through despite having no relevant experience. And, I think prior… people took seriously the selection of judges.”
“You may have an issue with Bush/Trump nominees, but they generally (and certainly relatively speaking) are qualified and experienced. And no one should ever assume Republicans don’t take “seriously” the selection of judges,” Crawford added.
You may have an issue with Bush/Trump nominees,but they generally (and certainly relatively speaking) are qualified and experienced.
— Jan Crawford (@JanCBS) October 31, 2019
Dismissing those judges as political hacks is a disservice and cheapens our discourse. And a Yale-educated lawyer not looking to score cheap political points should know better
— Jan Crawford (@JanCBS) October 31, 2019
Haha. Nope. You’re not doing that straw man crap with me. I said it was wrong to paint all these judges with a broad brush as unqualified, wrong to say Republicans don’t take judges seriously. That is factual and something everyone should be aware of https://t.co/KV5gpPaeDD
— Jan Crawford (@JanCBS) October 31, 2019
“Dismissing those judges as political hacks is a disservice and cheapens our discourse.”https://t.co/5n3vRolUW4
— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) November 1, 2019
To get more information about this article, please visit FreeBeacon. To weigh in, leave a comment below.
Trending on DML News
Sorry. No data so far.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.