ncluding the ladies, and they're not going to be intimidated. So good for them. You know, at least in that narrow sense, I like the fact that the intimidation had no impact as far as we could tell. I'm sure it had an impact on them personally, which is why you give them credit.

Keith Olbermann helpfully tweeted this. He said Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Clarence Thomas are domestic terrorists and should be approached and prosecuted as such. Keith Olbermann. Well, you can always count on Keith Olbermann to take the sane path, which I retweeted with hashtag hunted. Because every time somebody refers to people on the right as domestic terrorists that should be approached and prosecuted as such, it does feel like they're promoting something bad here.

All right. My question to you: Do you think it's fair that people are calling the Supreme Court justices who were most recently put on the court—is it fair to call them liars because they misled the Senate about their likelihood to overturn Roe? What would you say? Are they liars?

Now first of all, do you think that they misled? Do you think they intentionally misled and they knew all along that they would have done this? And do you think that most of you say no? And I'm going to take the other side. I'm going to take the other side of this. I would call them liars. Again, doesn't mean you don't like their decision. So let's separate whether you like the decision or not. All right, we're not talking about that now. We're talking about whether they lied to the Senate.

I'm going to say yes. You say yes, but they lied the way politicians lie, meaning that you knew they were lying, so did it matter, right? When politicians lie to you and you know they're lying, it's not exactly the same thing, is it? Now let me ask you this. When somebody selects a conservative Supreme Court justice, what do you think they were going to do? What did everybody—I even saw Al Franken. Even Al Franken was tweeting, we all knew what they were going to do. It didn't matter that it was settled law. Everybody knew that they were going to take a run at it.

So is it lying if you know exactly what's going to happen? Then there's no real ambiguity about it. It's a weird kind of lie. I would call it political lying. But I'm going to save my most criticism for the question askers. Are you telling me that when they were interviewed you couldn't ask the right question to find out exactly what they were going to do and have them essentially tell the public?

Now of course you can't ask them how they would rule on a hypothetical case. We're all smart enough to know that, right? You don't do that. They're not going to answer that question and shouldn't answer it. But you could get there easily. How about this question: Mr. Gorsuch, I'm not going to ask you how you would rule on any hypothetical kind of case, but I want to ask you to explain the field, the situation for us. Do you believe that there would be a path to overturn Roe versus Wade and that there could be a compelling argument made? Or do you believe that because it's settled law it could never be overturned? Which of those sort of general positions do you hold? That it's settled law and cannot be overturned, or that if somebody made a compelling argument the court would have that right and even responsibility to overturn it? Which one would you go with?

Now I'm pretty sure Gorsuch would either have to avoid the question, which is an answer, or he'd have to say, well hypothetically the court could overturn that under a certain set of variables. And that would be your answer. They're conservatives and they just told you it could be done. Would you need anything else? I mean that's about as clear as you can be.

So I think there was terrible question asking, and I would call them liars. I would call them liars because they knew. I mean I'm not a mind reader, right? So technically you could say to yourself, well they didn't know. No, because you know anything could happen and maybe somebody would have made a strong argument that changed their preconceived i