Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; Soho: Day: Close shot of 'Monogramy' sign in sex shop window Sign above shop, 'Simply Pleasure.Com'/ Reporter to camera
1970S TELEVISION SHOWS
The following is a list of David Susskind Shows possibly housed in a number off-site facilities--if they can be located at all. These listed programs HAVE NOT BEEN INSPECTED thus we cannot guarantee the existence, quality, duration or timely delivery of any of the material listed here. We offer access to these tapes on the following basis ONLY: All tapes are on their original 2" video format. The only way to verify the contents is to screen them, thus we will need to pull them from the inventory, ship and transfer them before we are able to verify content and quality. A $500 fee PER TAPE is required when ordering screening material from this collection. This fee is NON-REFUNDABLE. This fee will cover the cost of 2" tape handling, 2" Fed-Ex shipping (2-way) and 2" transfer. PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY SHOWS ARE ON TWO SEPARATE TAPES, THUS IT COULD COST DOUBLE ($1000) TO SCREEN SOME COMPLETE SHOWS. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF YOU ORDER A SHOW BASED ON THE CATALOG NUMBER AND TITLE FROM THIS DATABASE WE CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL GET THE TAPE YOU ORDER. THIS IS BECAUSE THROUGH THE YEARS TAPES MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE INCORRECT CASES AND THE WRITTEN INFORMATION ON THE CASES IS ALL WE HAVE TO ID A TAPE BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED. WHILE WE WILL USE ALL EFFORTS TO EXPEDITE YOUR REQUEST, BUT WE CANNOT RUSH THE PROCESS, AND YOU ORDER THESE AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF WE DO NOT LOCATE THE TAPE THERE IS NO CHARGE, BUT IF WE DO AND IT IS REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY FOR TRANSFER, YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE NON-REFUNDABLE FEES. THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1978-1979 06/24/78 09/24/78 PART I: BABIES FOR SALE -- THE BLACK MARKET IN CHILDREN DAVID LEAVITT, BETTY LIPMAN, LINDA, CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE, NANCY BAKER, ROBERT BURNS, JUNE MATZ 29243 CHICAGO 05/31/78 09/24/78 PART II: PORTRAIT OF A WELFARE MOTHER RENEE NATTER 29243 09/28/78 10/01/78 JOHN J. O' CONNOR 30703 CHICAGO 09/28/78 10/01/78 PART II: TURNING OFF THE TUBE -- LIFE WITHOUT TELEVISION A. CHILDREN: FRED IFRAH, DAWN KAYNO, DEREK LIPPNER, CHRISSY MAGLIOCCO, LEAH PIKE, DAVID STEINGLASS B. PARENTS & TEACHERS: JOYCE SUSSKIND, NANCY PIKE, BARBARA GOLDFARB, PAT MAGLIOCCO, JUDITY ROHN, TANYA KAUFMAN 30703 05/20/78 10/08/78 PART I: FED UP WITH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION - SIX ASEXUALS GAIL RACHLIN, BILL PRIEST, DANIELLA GIOSEFFI, RICHARD MILNER, MARIAN TESSA, GARY NULL 29240 CHICAGO, DC 06/24/78 10/08/78 PART II: HOW TO COPE WITH LONELINESS ERICA ABEEL, DR. JAMES LYNCH, BRUCE JAY FRIEDMAN, TERRI SCHULTZ, MARK KLINGMAN 29240 DC 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART I: WE'RE MAD AS HELL -- THE RADIO CALL-IN RAGE JERRY WILLIAMS, ED SCHWARTZ, IRV HOMER, HERB JEPKO, BERNARD MELTZER 30702 CHICAGO 09/23/78 10/22/78 PART II: THINK RICH -- BE RICH JERRY GILLIS, H. STANLEY JUDD, IAN ANDERSON 30702 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART I: CAN CARTER CUT IT IN 1980 HENRY GRUNWALD, NICHOLAS VON HOFFMAN, JERALD TER HORST, WILLIAM RUSHER 30706 CHICAGO 10/12/78 10/29/78 PART II: PSYCHICS WHO SOLVE CRIME DOROTHY ALLISON, BEVERLY JAEGERS, DAVID HOY, MIKE CASALE, SAL LUBERTAZZI 30706 CHICAGO 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART I: THE SWINGERS' PARADISE -- PLATO'S RETREAT MARY & LARRY LEVINSON, BONNIE & JACK, PHIL NOBILE 30709 CHICAGO, DC 10/21/78 11/05/78 PART II: "THE DOOMSDAY TAPES" BARDYL TIRANA, HERBERT SCOVILLE, LEONARD REIFEL, LEON GOURE 30709 05/31/78 11/12/78 THEY'RE STILL THE FUNNIEST MEN AROUND -- VETERAN COMICS MAC ROBBINS, JIMMY JOYCE, LARRY BEST, MICKEY FREEMAN, JOEY FAYE, LOU MENCHELL 29241 DC 11/04/78 11/19/78 PART I: DRESS FOR SUCCESS -- LOOK LIKE A MILLION -- MAKE A MILLION JOHN WEITZ, JOHN T. MOLLOY, EMILY CHO, WILLIAM THOURLBY, ROBERT L. GREEN 30710 CHICAGO 05/04/78 11/19/78 PART II: SUPER SALESMEN JOE GIRARD, LOIS BECKER, TOM WOLFF, BOB SHOOK 30710 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART I: STARTLING STORIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH DR. MAURICE RAWLINGS, CHARLES MCKAIG, VIRGINIA FALCY, KENNETH RING, HELEN NELSON, DR. MICHAEL SABOM 30712 CHICAGO 11/08/78 11/26/78 PART II: ANGRY CITIZENS VS THE POST OFFICE JAMES FINCH, BOB GRANT, ROBERT MEYERS, JAMES LAPENTA, PAT BRENNAN 30712 CHICAGO 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART I: SURGEON/SALESMAN -- BILL MACKAY 30714 DC 11/22/78 12/03/78 PART II: LONELY, UNHAPPY & BROKE -- DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS FLORENCE GRIFFIN, JACQUELINE BACHMAN, LESLIE WALD WALDHORN, SANDRA JACOBS, JANE LEE LITTLETON 30714 CHICAGO, DC 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART I: IF BETTY FORD COULD DO IT...ALL ABOUT FACELIFTS RICHARD KIELING, LILLIAM FRASER, D. RALPH MILLARD, M.D., DORIS LILLY, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D. 30716 CHICAGO 12/02/78 12/10/78 PART II: TO JOG OR NOT TO JOG DAVID BRODY, M.D., DAVID NOONAN, RICHARD A. SCHWARTZ, M.D., RICHARD RESTAK, M.D., PAUL FETSCHER 30716 CHICAGO 09/16/78 12/17/78 WE WANT A BABY -- NEW HOPE FOR INFERTILE COUPLES A. PATIENTS: SUSAN & LEE WELLING, CAROL & ERNEST D'ANGELO, CATHY & JOHN SCOTT B. EXPERTS: DR. WAYNE DECKER, DR. ALVIN GOLDFARB, DR. RICHARD SHERINS, BARBARA ECK MENNING, DR. LUIGI MASTROIANNI 30701 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART I: YOUR PAMPERED PET -- FROM SHRINK TO MINK DR. PETER BORCHELT, DR. DANIEL TORTORA, DR. ALBERT LAMPASSO, MORDECAI SEGAL, LOIS LANDAUER, KAREN THOMPSON, GEORGE JEWEL 30715 CHICAGO 11/29/78 12/24/78 PART II: MIND YOUR MANNERS -- THE NEW ETIQUETTE LETITIA BALDRIGE, JUDITH MARTIN, MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART 30715 CHICAGO 10/07/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART I: THE DIET THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE -- PRO & CON A. PATIENTS: BILL UTTAL, JULIE BREAKSTONE, FRED SILVER, DR. HARRY PARKER, JOE HUME B. EXPERTS: NATHAN PRITIKIN, DR. SAMI SASHIM, DR. ROBERT E. BAUER, DR. STEPHEN SCHEIDT 30704 CHICAGO 10/12/78 01/14/79 06/24/79 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH THE BRILLIANT PETER USTINOV 30704 CHICAGO 12/09/78 01/21/79 PART I: THE PRIEST WHO FIGHTS PIMPS FATHER BRUCE RITTER 30711 CHICAGO, DC 11/04/78 01/21/79 PART II: MAKING INFLATION WORK FOR YOU HARRY BROWNE, DAN DORFMAN 30711 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART I: LONG LINES, SHORT TEMPERS -- THE AIRPORT MESS KAY SLOMAN, HARRY KLETTER, ROB MANGOLD, FRED FORD, KAREN ZUPKO, STEVE BIRNBAUM 30717 CHICAGO, DC 12/09/78 01/28/79 PART II: ARE YOU REALLY IN LOVE? DR. DEBORA PHILLIPS, DR. CHARLIE SHEDD, DR. STANTON PEELE 30717 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 02/04/79 PART I: WE ARE BI-SEXUALS LARRY KANE, TONI TUCCI, DR. FRED KLEIN, "JULIA", "JOANNE" 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/04/79 PART II: TREASURE HUNTERS MEL FISHER, EUGENE LYON, ART MCKEE 30720 CHICAGO, DC 01/06/79 02/11/79 INSIDE THE CULTS: THE TERRIFYING TRUTH FROM EX-MEMBERS PART 1 - EX-MEMBERS: SUSAN SMITH, CHRIS EDWARDS, MORRIS DEUTSCH, STEVE HASSAN, ANDREW STUBBS PART II - EXPERTS: FLO CONWAY, JIM SEIGELMAN, GALEN KELLY, DR. JOHN CLARK 30718 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART I: MEN WHO ARE KEPT BY WOMEN: TRUE CONFESSIONS REAL, MICHEL, MARK, PAUL, LOU 30721 CHICAGO, DC 01/27/79 02/18/79 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT ASPIRIN DR. LOUIS ALEDORT, DR. THOMAS KANTOR, DR. DAVID CODDON, PAUL E. SCHINDLER 30721 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART I: BEAUTIFUL WOMEN SHARE THEIR SECRETS (HOSTED BY JOYCE SUSSKIND) BEVERLY SASSOON, ADRIEN ARPEL, CRISTINA FERRARE 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/03/79 02/25/79 PART II: WHEN YOUR PARENTS GROW OLD JOHN PERRY, RITA SIGLER, BARBARA FELDMAN, MARIE CARROLL, JERRY ORNSTEIN 30722 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 03/04/79 TRUMAN CAPOTE TELLS ALL TRUMAN CAPOTE 30723 CHICAGO (T), UCLA (2"), DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART I: WE CAN'T STOP DIETING -- VICTIMS OF ANOREXIA STEVEN LEVENKRON, KATIE, PATRICIA DE POL, ROBERTA, LISA WOLFF 30713 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/78 03/11/79 PART II: WHEN FEAR TAKES OVER -- AGORAPHOBIA JEAN ESTERBROOK, JOEL GREENBAUM, EILEEN WEBBER, MARIA WEBBER, DR. MANUEL ZANE 30713 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART I: WILD & CRAZY PAPARAZZI -- PHOTOGRAPHERS WHO SHOOT THE STARS RON GALELLA, ADAM SCULL, DICK CORKERY, GENE SPATZ 30725 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/79 03/18/79 PART II: IT'S NOT SO GREAT IN BRITAIN FRED HIFT, REX BERRY, ROBIN DUTHY, VALERIE WADE 30725 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/79 03/25/79 PART I: THINGS TO COME -- LIFE IN THE YEAR 2000 ISAAC ASIMOV, FRANK KENDIG, DR. JERRY POURNELLE 30719 DC 02/28/79 03/25/79 PART II: HAPPINESS IS A POSSIBLE DREAM DR. JONATHAN FREEDMAN, LYNN CAINE, JOAN, BOB DRESNER, BOB GOODRICH 30719 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/79 KHJ-TV, LA 04/01/79 THE TELEVISION CRISIS MICHAEL DANN, PAUL KLEIN, GRANT TINKER, NORMAN LEAR, DAVID GERBER 30726 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/79 04/08/79 HOT GOSSIP ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE RUDY MAXA, CLAUDIA COHEN, NEAL TRAVIS 30724 CHICAGO 03/31/79 04/08/79 PITY THE HAPPY HOUSEWIFE JUDITH VIORST, MARY KUCZKIR, ANN TOLAND SERB, JOAN WESTER ANDERSON 30724 CHICAGO 04/15/78 04/15/79 MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL -- THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE UGLY TELL ALL GUESTS -- MODELS AND SELF-PROCLAIMED UGLIES: MATT COLLINS, CATHY MORRIS, DANNY LEE MCCOY, JEAN SOKOL, SUZANNE FELZEN, SUSAN BRECHT EXPERTS: FRANCESCO SCAVULLO, MICHAEL HOGAN, M.D., ADRIEN ARPEL, SUSAN GREEN, PH.D 29232 CHICAGO, DC 04/14/79 04/22/79 IS CARTER A CATASTROPHE? ELIOT JANEWAY, WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., ROBERT H. MALOTT, WILLIAM W. WINPISINGER 30728 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART I: LEE MARVIN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? MARVIN MITCHELSON, MELVYN HABER, SUNNIE SOBEL, NORMAN M. SHERESKY, HERBERT A. GLIEBERMAN 30730 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 05/06/79 PART II: THE INCREDIBLE TRUTH ABOUT HOWARD HUGHES JAMES B. STEELE, DONALD L. BARTLETT 30730 DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART I: DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 30727 CHICAGO, DC 03/31/79 05/13/79 PART II: THE CULTS ANSWER BACK GADDAHAR PANDIT DAS, RABINDRA SWAROOP DAS, DIANE KETTERING, ARTIE MAREN 30727 CHICAGO, DC 05/11/79 KCOP, LA 05/20/79 THE MAN WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT: JERRY BROWN GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA 30732 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART I: WATCH OUT! HOWARD JARVIS IS COMING HOWARD JARVIS, JOHN L. LOEB, JR., JAMES FARMER, STEPHEN BERGER 30733 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/03/79 PART II: HOW TO SLASH YOUR FOOD BILLS IN HALF ARLENE STOLARSKI, PATTI UMLAND, MARY ANNE HAYES, SUSAN SAMTUR 30733 05/27/79 06/10/79 PART I: SHOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE NOW -- OR NEVER? DONALD I. HOVDE, BENNY KASS, WILLIAM WOLMAN, MICHAEL SUMICHRAST 30734 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/79 06/10/79 PART II: MALE SECRETARIES DONALD HARLEY, CHARLES W. BARKER, JOSEPH R. LICCARDO, ANTHONY ZATTI, KEITH M. WHITE 30734 DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART I: HOW TO LIVE WITH CONSTANT PAIN PATIENTS: HERBERT A. DIAMOND, BARBARA B. WOLF, ROSALIE TERRAVECCHIA DOCTORS: DR. GERALD ARONOFF, DR. DONALD M. DOOLEY, DR. NELSON H. HENDLER, DR. HAROLD CARRON 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/03/79 06/17/79 PART II: THE MAN WHO GIVES ADVICE TO ANN LANDERS DR. EUGENE KENNEDY 30736 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART I: OUT OF GAS -- WHO'S TO BLAME? LESLIE J. GOLDMAN, JAMES F. FLUG, CHARLES KITTRELL, SENATOR HOWARD M. METZENBAUM 30738 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 07/01/79 PART II: "THE FLYING WHITE HOUSE" COLONEL RALPH ALBERTAZZIE 30738 CHICAGO, DC THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1979-80 05/26/79 04/14/79 10/07/79 04/19/81 DAVID SUSSKIND MEETS THE MARTIANS A. LYDIA STALNAKER, BRYCE BOND B. RUTH NORMAN, THOMAS MILLER 30729 CHICAGO, DC 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART I: ORGANIZED CRIME: THE BIGGEST BUSINESS IN AMERICA HANK H. MESSICK, RICHARD E. JAFFE, RALPH F. SALERNO, JACK KEY, THOMAS RENNER 32101 CHICAGO 09/22/79 10/14/79 PART II: BATTLE OVER BLACK ENGLISH MICHAEL MEYERS, DR. GENEVA SMITERMAN, DR. ELAINE LEWNAU, ETTA LADSOM 32101 CHICAGO 10/13/79 10/28/79 THE BLACK-JEWISH CRISIS DR. JOSEPH E. LOWERY, ARNOLD FORSTER, RANDALL ROBINSON, HOWARD M. SQUADRON 32105 CHICAGO 11/03/79 10/28/79 THE KENNEDY-CARTER SHOWDOWN ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN, ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR., STUART EIZENSTAT, GERALD M. RAFSHOON 32109 CHICAGO, DC 10/27/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART I: SEX FOR SALE...4 "JOHNS' TELL ALL TOM, MARK, HUGH, GEORGE 32107 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/17/79 11/11/79 09/07/80 03/28/82 PART II: IS STRESS KILLING YOU? JOHN J. PARRINO, PH.D, KENNETH GREENSPAN, M.D. 32107 CHICAGO, DC 04/28/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 THE BARE FACTS: QUEENS OF BURLESQUE GEORGIA SOTHERN, ZORITA, SHERRY BRITTON, HOPE DIAMOND 30731 CHICAGO, DC 06/23/79 11/18/79 09/28/80 05/31/81 SUPER SALESWOMEN DOT COOK, ANDREA BERRITY, LINDA SCHMITT, SHIRLEY HUTTON 30731 CHICAGO 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART I: RICH & FEMALE - WOMEN WHO MAKE MILLIONS MURIEL SIEBERT, MARY ANN HALMI, EVA HORTON, DAISY TALLARICO, JOAN LEVINE 30737 CHICAGO, DC 06/09/79 11/25/79 07/06/80 PART II: GOTHIC WRITERS ROBERTA ANDERSON & MARY KUCZKIR (FERN MICHAELS), JANET DAILEY, PATRICIA MATTHEWS 30737 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/79 12/02/79 PART I: "BREAKING UP IS HARD TO TAKE" -- CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DON, CAREN, LIZ, GILLIAN, LISA 32102 CHICAGO 09/29/79 12/02/79 PART II: "THE WICKED TRUTH ABOUT STEP PARENTS" WILLIAM NOBLE, SUZY KALTER, MARCIA WYRTZEN, JEANETTE LOFAS, BOB MARTIN 32102 CHICAGO 10/27/79 12/09/79 PART I: LIARS BEWARE -- THE LATEST IN LIE DETECTION CHRIS GUGAS 32108 CHICAGO 10/06/79 12/09/79 PART II: THE RED BERETS -- TEENAGE VIGILANTES CURTIS SLIWA, DINO REYES, KATO, JEFF MONROE, JERRY MONROE, ET. AL. 32108 CHICAGO 11/10/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART I: HOW TO TEST YOUR DOG'S I.Q. AND PERSONALITY MATTHEW MARGOLIS 32115 CHICAGO 12/03/79 12/16/79 07/13/80 PART II: DAZZLING WOMEN FROM ABROAD LIVIA SLYVA WEINTRAUB, JACLINE MAZARD (JEAN MAHIE), REGINE, GEORGETTE KLINGER, PRINCESS SUMAIR 32115 CHICAGO 11/17/79 12/23/79 HOW TO PROSPER DURING THE COMING BAD YEARS HOWARD RUFF 32114 CHICAGO, DC 12/15/79 12/23/79 07/27/80 PART II: CHINA TODAY -- A CONVERSATION WITH HAN SUYIN HAN SUYIN 32114 32121 CHICAGO, DC 11/10/79 01/06/80 08/17/80 ARE YOUR TEENAGERS DRIVING YOU CRAZY? HELP IS HERE! DR. THOMAS J. COTTLE, ELIZABETH ROBERTS, DR. DAVID ELKIND, EDITH B. PHELPS, ELIOT DALEY 32110 CHICAGO 11/24/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART I: SHORT PEOPLE HAVE FEELINGS TOO! PAMELA BROWN, MIKE PARADINE, BILL GILE, NANCY HENKEL, IRWIN HASEN 32111 CHICAGO 10/17/79 01/13/80 10/26/80 PART II: LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE NORMAN COUSINS 32111 CHICAGO 12/15/79 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART I: OWNERS OF GREAT RESTAURANTS TELL THEIR SECRETS SHELDON TANNEN "21"; WARNER LEROY, MAXWELL'S PLUM, TAVERN ON THE GREEN; EDMUND LILLYS, THE GLOUCESTER HOUSE; SIRIO MACCIONE, LE CIRQUE; VINCENT SARDI, JR., SARDI'S; PETER ASCHKENASY, U.S. STEAK-HOUSE, LUCHOW'S, CHARLEY O'S, AND THE AMERICAN CHARCUTERIE. 32117 CHICAGO 01/12/80 01/20/80 07/20/80 PART II: MAITRE D'S OF GREAT RESTAURANTS JOSEPH GARNI, LE CIRQUE; BRUNO MOLINARI, THE PALM; GIANNI GARAVELLI, NANNI AL VALLETTO; JEAN-CLAUDE COUTELLER, LE PERIGORD EAST 32117 CHICAGO 09/29/79 01/27/80 A MEDIUM WHO TALKS TO THE DEAD -- DORIS STOKES DORIS STOKES 32103 CHICAGO 11/17/79 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART I: PROSTITUTES TELL ALL "NINA", "CATHERINE", AND "MELINDA" 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/80 02/03/80 10/05/80 PART II: WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY DOLORES ALEXANDER, JANE MCHUGH, FRANCES PATAI, AND BARBARA MEHRHOF 32112 CHICAGO, DC 01/26/80 02/10/80 WHAT'S NEW WITH JACKIE, SINATRA, STREISAND, BEATTY, MINNELLI AND REYNOLDS, TOO LIZ SMITH, CHICAGO TRIBUNE-NEW YORK DAILY NEWS; TAKI THEODORACOPULOS, ESQUIRE; DAVID SHEEHAN, DIANA MCLELLAN, "THE EAR", IN THE WASHINGTON STAR 32119 11/24/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART I: LIFE AT THE TOP -- WIVES OF FAMOUS MEN JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND, NANCY MEHTA, MARILYN FUNT, NORRIS CHURCH 32113 CHICAGO, DC 11/17/79 02/17/80 09/21/80 12/13/81 PART II: ALL ABOUT THE CIA THOMAS POWERS, "THE MAN WHO KEPT THE SECRETS: RICHARD HELMS AND THE C.I.A." 32113 DC 01/12/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 MOVIE STARS CAME TO DINNER -- GROWING UP IN HOLLYWOOD JILL ROBINSON, "BED TIME STORY" AND "PERDIDO"; MICHAEL KORDA, "CHARMED LIVES"; WARNER LEROY, LINDA JANKLOW, BROOKE HAYWARD, "HAYWIRE". 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 02/24/80 09/14/80 PART II: GARBAGE OF THE STARS A. J. WEBERMAN, GARBOLOGIST 32118 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 07/27/80 PART I: WE'RE HIGH ON BEING TALL GEORGE ANDREWS - 6'6", JUDY VOGEL - 6', CECILIA GARDNER - 6'1", KERRY KEANE - 6'6", TERRY LEE - 5'11", ALICE WHITE - 6' 32121 CHICAGO 02/02/80 03/02/80 PART II: SIZING UP THE NEWSCASTERS PHILIP MCHUGH 32121 12/03/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART I: 5 NEW YORK CABBIES TELL ALL MEL BENDOWITZ, EZRA CHITYAT, JAMES MORRIS, RICHARD CHEROL, LOIS DOYLE 32116 CHICAGO (T) 12/15/79 03/09/80 08/24/80 PART II: GOING BANANAS IN BEVERLY HILLS ELAINE YOUNG, JACK STARTZ, M.D., RONALD RICE, JUDY MAZEL 32116 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART I: WE TAKE IT ALL OFF -- MALE STRIPPERS JACK THE STRIPPER, SEBASTIAN, CAREY GORDON, SUNSHINE, BERNARDO 32123 CHICAGO, DC 03/01/80 03/16/80 05/03/81 11/13/83 PART II: MUSCLES AND CURVES -- WOMEN BODY BUILDERS DORIS BARRILLEAUX, LYNDE JOHNSON, LYNN CONKWRIGHT, APRIL NICOTRA 32123 DC 03/01/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART I: THE DATING SERVICE FOR WINNER 'THE GODMOTHER' , ABBY HIRSCH CLIENTS: BARBARA WRENN, DOUGLAS RIPPETO, MITCHEL MITCHEL, BABTTE GLADSTEIN 32126 CHICAGO 02/23/80 03/23/80 08/03/80 PART II: THE GIRL WHO HAD EVERYTHING - DORIEN LEIGH DORIAN LEIGH 32126 CHICAGO 01/26/80 02/09/80 03/30/80 08/10/80 THE NEW REVOLUTION IN FOOD AND FUEL - A CONVERSATION WITH DWAYNE ANDREAS MR. DWAYNE ANDREAS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY 32120 CHICAGO, DC 02/09/80 04/06/80 PART I: OUR HIDDEN SHAME: DYSLEXIA ARTHUR BIRSH, DELOS SMITH, EILEEN SIMPSON -- REVERSALS: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF VICTORY OVER DYSLEXIA, LYNNE HACKER, EMILY LANDAU, DANIEL GILDESGAME 32122 CHICAGO 02/23/80 04/06/80 PART II: THE NATIONAL LAMPOON P.J. O'ROURKE, GERALD SUSSMAN, TOD CARROLL, JOHN HUGHES 32122 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/13/80 GORE VIDAL UNCENSORED 32130 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 04/20/80 PART I: APOCALYPSE SOON: A CONVERSATION WITH WILLIAM SIMON WILLIAM SIMON, FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY 32127 CHICAGO 03/22/80 04/20/80 PART II: BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS CARL LEWIS, DETECTIVE ROBERT MAGONE 32127 CHICAGO 03/15/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART I: THE SHAME OF OUR HOSPITALS -- FIVE ANGRY NURSES 'CAROL', 'REBECCA', 'ELEANOR', 'RUTH' AND 'HELEN' 32129 CHICAGO, DC 03/29/80 04/27/80 01/31/82 PART II: DR. WILLIAM NOLEN WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 32129 CHICAGO 04/26/80 05/04/80 SEX IN AMERICA -- AN INTERVIEW WITH GAY TALESE GAY TALESE, AUTHOR: THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE 32135 CHICAGO 03/29/80 05/11/80 PART I: SOFT, SWEET AND SOUTHERN -- 6 BELLES FROM DIXIE PHYLLIS MACBRYDE, REBECCA SINGLETON, NANCY BELLE BRASS, MARY MCMILLAN, ROSEMARY DANIELL; AUTHOR: FATAL FLOWERS; MARY VANN HUNTER; AUTHOR: SASSAFRAS 32132 CHICAGO 04/19/80 05/11/80 PART II: SOUTHERN JOURNALISTS TALK ABOUT JIMMY CARTER AND OTHER GOOD OLE BOYS LARRY KING, AUTHOR: OF OUTLAWS, CON MEN, WHORES, POLITICIANS AND OTHER ARTISTS; MARSHALL FRADY, AUTHOR: SOUTHERNERS; ROY BLOUNT, JR., AUTHOR: CRACKERS 32132 CHICAGO 05/10/80 05/18/80 HOW DID IT HAPPEN -- CARTER VS REAGAN TOM WICKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES; ALBERT R. HUNT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL; WILLIAM A. RUSHER, NATIONAL REVIEW; HAYNES JOHNSON, THE WASHINGTON POST 32137 CHICAGO (T) 04/26/80 05/25/80 PART I: THE SPORTS EMPIRE OF SONNY WERBLIN SONNY WERBLIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORPORATION 32134 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 05/25/80 PART II: THE LAST OF THE COWBOYS -- 5 TRUCKERS RUSSELL "CAPTAIN ZIG-ZAG" PATE, GEORGE "WILDMAN" RAWLS, ED "SKY PILOT" WINTERSTEEN, MIKE "DOUBLE R" CRAKER, JAMES "BUCKY" BUCKOWSKI 32134 CHICAGO, DC 03/08/80 06/01/80 PART I: BEAT INFLATION WITH DIAMONDS, ART, STAMPS AND COINS NICOLA BULGARI, RICHARD L. FEIGEN, RAYMOND WEIL AND HARVEY STACK 32128 CHICAGO 03/15/80 06/01/80 PART II: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER -- JENNINGS LANG JENNINGS LANG 32128 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART I: INFLATION IS KILLING US! 5 ANGRY VICTIMS NITA DENNIS, JOE CURLEY, JOSEPH MULHOLLAND, ANNE AND GEORGE ANDREWS 32133 CHICAGO 04/19/80 06/08/80 PART II: MIND OVER BODY -- A DEMONSTRATION OF THE MARTIAL ARTS LINDA LUTES AND NELSON HOWE 32133 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART I: UPDATE ON MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS -- DR. ISADORE ROSENFELD ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 32140 CHICAGO, DC 05/24/80 06/15/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH CORINNA MARSH CORINNA MARSH 32140 CHICAGO, DC 06/07/80 06/22/80 WHY ARE THE BULLS RUNNING ON WALL STREET JOSEPH GRANVILLE, BURTON MALKIEL, DAVID DREMAN, RAYMOND DEVOE, JOHN NEFF 32142 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 06/29/80 PART I: WORKAHOLICS ON THE JOYS OF WORKING FLORENCE HASELTINE, M.D., RICHARD ROYCE, LIZ FILLO, FRANK S. BERGER, LAWRENCE A. SUSSER, M.D. 32141 CHICAGO 05/24/80 06/29/80 PART II: THE TWO PAYCHECK MARRIAGE JUDY HUNT, CHARLES MITCHELL, MEG WHITCOMB, JEANNE CANTEEN, PRATT 32141 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1980-81 10/06/80 10/12/80 A DESPERATE TIME -- WILLIAM SIMON ON THE STATE OF THE UNION FORMER TREASURE SECRETARY, WILLIAM E. SIMON 33605 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 10/19/80 A CONVERSATION WITH HAL GULLIVER HAROLD GULLIVER, EDITOR, ATLANTA CONSTITUTION 33606 CHICAGO 09/17/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART I: BIG, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN -- NO SIN TO BE A SIZE 18 MADALINE SPARKS, ILVIRA TORTORA, BARBARA BETZA, STELLA REICHMAN, LILLIAM NILSON 33602 CHICAGO, DC 10/06/80 11/02/80 07/05/81 PART II: IS THIN STILL "IN"? SUZIE BERTIN, JILL DIRKS, JOHNA JOHNSON, BARBARA PEARLMAN 33602 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART I: MEET AND MARRY THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS JUDI MCMAHON, BILL JAMES, STEPHEN T., HEYMANN, STEPHANIE KAPILIAN, BOB EVANS 32139 CHICAGO, DC 05/17/80 11/09/80 10/04/81 PART II: NO KIDS FOR US PLEASE ANNE SEIFERT, WALTER CALLAHAN, BARBARA COFFEY, DOROTHY WILSON, IVAN MENDELSON 32139 CHICAGO, DC 09/17/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART I: LIFE AFTER DARK -- NIGHT PEOPLE TELL ALL RICHARD WEXLER, CINDY CAPALDO, BLEECKER BOB PLOTNIK, ABLE ABEL, SAVARIO COSTANZA 33601 CHICAGO, DC 10/18/80 11/16/80 07/12/81 PART II: SUPER FANS OF THE STARS BETTY BRINKENHOFF (FRANK SINATRA), DENIS FERRARA (ELIZABETH TAYLOR), DOLORES TRANDAHL (ELVIS PRESLEY), NEAL PETERS (ANN MARGRET) 33601 CHICAGO, DC 05/03/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART I: WOMEN RATE MEN: LOVERS AND LOSERS NAN ROBERTSON, SUSANNA HOFFMAN, CAROL BOTWIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 06/04/80 11/23/80 09/20/81 PART II: MEN ANSWER BACK ANTHONY HADEN-GUEST, MARTIN SAGE, WILLIAMS HOOTKINS, HARRY STEIN 32136 CHICAGO, DC 09/27/80 11/30/80 PART I: THE JEANING OF AMERICA -- MODELS, MOGULS AND MAKERS JOSEPH NAKASH (JORDACHE), PAUL GUEZ (SASSON), WARREN HIRSH (GLORIA VANDERBILT) 33603 CHICAGO 11/19/80 11/30/80 PART II: NOT FOR WOMEN ONLY -- MEN'S COSMETICS TONY CARVETTE (GEORGETTE KLINGER), TOM DAY (CLINIQUE), JAN STUART (JAN STUART), CHIP TOLBERT (MEN'S FASHION ASSOCIATION), PAUL WILMOT (HALSTON) 33603 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART I: A MAN FOR ALL REASONS: YALE PRESIDENT, A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/07/80 08/02/81 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL THOMAS MICHAEL THOMAS, AUTHOR GREEN MONDAY 33609 CHICAGO 11/24/80 12/14/80 07/18/81 PART I: ARE LAWYERS RUINING OUR LIVES? PHILIP M. STERN, GEOFFREY C. HAZARD, FRANK R. ROSINY, ALAN B. MORRISON, JUDGE WILLIAM B. LAWLESS 33607 CHICAGO, DC 11/16/80 12/14/80 PART II: NORMAN DACEY, ROSEMARY FURMAN 33607 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART I: FEELING GOOD ALL UNDER -- THE ELEGANT NEW LINGERIE REBECCA ASPAN, BELL TICE, ORA FEDER, DAVID STIFFLER, SAMI 33613 CHICAGO 12/17/80 12/21/80 08/30/81 PART II: BEST FRIENDS AND BEST SELLERS CONSUELO BAEHR, SUSAN ISAACS, HILMA WOLITZER 33613 CHICAGO 12/14/80 12/28/80 THE REMARKABLE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ -- A SPECIAL PERFORMANCE JONATHAN SCHWARTZ 33612 CHICAGO, DC 12/03/80 01/04/81 PART I: A HOUSE IS NOT A HOME -- CONGRESSMEN WHO QUIT OTIS G. PIKE, JAMES P. JOHNSON, JOE WYATT, JR. 33610 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/80 01/04/80 PART II: A CONVERSATION WITH STUDS TERKEL STUDS TERKEL 33610 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART I: THE INCREDIBLE WORLD OF MOTHER TERESA JOYCE DAVIDSON SUSSKIND 33608 CHICAGO, DC 11/19/80 01/11/81 09/13/81 PART II: HOW TO SUCCEED? GO TO BUSINESS SCHOOL SUSAN THOMAS, JED DALY, ROBERT FRIEDMAN, JAY ESSEY, ELIZABETH CLOSTERMAN 33608 CHICAGO, DC 01/12/81 01/18/81 04/15/84 PART I: WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE JOHN SIMON, RICHARD MITCHELL, EDWIN NEWMAN 33611 CHICAGO 12/03/80 01/18/81 PART II: WHERE THE BODIES ARE BURIED -- WASHINGTON LOWDOWN DONALD LAMBRO, CHARLES PETERS, MICHAEL J. MALBIN, FRANK SILBEY 33611 CHICAGO 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART I: JUNK FOOD JUNKIES RICHARD SMITH, DAVID NOONAN, MAGGIE MULHEARN, BUFFALO GEORGE TOOMER 33616 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/81 01/25/81 PART II: HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR EATING HABITS RICHARD S. RIVLIN, M.D., RICHARD PASSWATER, DR. ROBERT PALMER, JOSEPH RECHTSCHAFFEN, M.D. 33616 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/01/81 THE BEST AND WORST MOVIES: FILM CRITICS JANET MASLIN, ANDREW SARRIS, JACK KROLL, GENE SISKEL 33617 CHICAGO (T) 01/07/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART I: TAKE THOSE INCHES OFF! SHAPE UP WITH EXERCISE MARJORIE CRAIG, LYDIA BACH, CHARLES GAINES, MARUSCHKA 33614 CHICAGO 01/24/81 02/08/81 08/23/81 PART II: THE ESTABLISHMENT LEONARD AND MARK SILK, STEPHEN BIRMINGHAM 33614 CHICAGO 02/11/81 02/15/81 CELEBRITY WATCHING WITH LIZ SMITH, TAKI, JAMES BRADY AND JODY JACOBS 33620 CHICAGO 02/18/81 02/22/81 HOW TO SURVIVE AND PROSPER IN THE 80s HOWARD RUFF, DOUGLAS CASEY, JEROME SMITH, THOMAS HOLT 33621 CHICAGO 02/11/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART I: PRETTY BABIES -- THE NEW TEEN-AGE MODELS BETTINA, LORI LOUGHLIN, CATHLEEN ESS, FELICE SCHACHTER, LENA REID 33619 CHICAGO 02/07/81 03/01/81 08/09/81 PART II: ARE YOUR CHILDREN BECOMING ADULTS TOO SOON? DR. AARON HASS, PATRICIA O'BRIEN, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D., ADELE HOFFMAN, M.D. 33619 CHICAGO 02/21/81 03/08/81 BIGOTRY RIDES AGAIN WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN, ARNOLD FORSTER, WILLIAM A. FUSHER, CONGRESSMAN JOHN CONYERS, DR. M. MORAN WESTON 33622 CHICAGO 03/07/81 03/15/81 THE BATTLE FOR SURVIVAL -- THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY WENDELL H. MILLER, STEPHEN I. SCHOLSSBERG, TOM HANNA, JERRY FLINT, DAVID HEALY 33623 CHICAGO 01/12/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART I: POURING OUT YOUR TROUBLES: BARTENDERS TELL ALL PADDY QUINN, CHARLIE SCHOENEMAN, RAY FOLEY, JOHN "SHIRTS" HUGHES, KITTY FITZKE 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/22/81 07/26/81 PART II: TWINS WHO MARRIED TWINS BARBI GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BRUCE GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., CHERYL GOLDENBERG, D.D.S., BARRY GOLDENBERG, M.D. 33615 CHICAGO, DC 03/18/81 03/29/81 09/27/81 THE MORAL MAJORITY ON THE WARPATH DR. TIM LA HAYE, DR. DAN C. FORE, SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, DR. DANIEL C. MAGUIRE 33624 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 PART I: WOMEN AND SUCCESS -- MAKING IT TO THE TOP JUDY MELLO, ANNE P. HYDE, SUSAN HOROWITZ, PAULA D. HUGHES, JO FOXWORTH 33625 CHICAGO, DC 03/28/81 04/05/81 08/16/81 05/06/84 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT SENILITY ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., DENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., DR. PETER DAVIES, DR. ROSE ROBROF 33625 CHICAGO, DC 04/04/81 04/12/81 PART I: BANKS ON THE BRINK MURIEL SIEBERT, LEE GUNDERSON, H. ERICH HEINEMANN, WILLIAM E. DONOGHUE, DR. SAUL B. KLAYMAN 33626 CHICAGO 04/04/81 04/12/81 05/20/84 PART II: DOCTORS' WIVES CARLA FINE, LINDA SHIPLEY, LINDA SEDA, LORI TAYLOR 33626 CHICAGO 4/25/81 04/26/81 THE AMERICAN MILITARY MACHINE: ARE WE READY FOR BATTLE? CONGRESSMAN JIM COURTER, BARRY R. POSEN, BRIGADIER GENERAL ALBION KNIGHT, JR., EDWARD LUTTWAK, GENERAL VOLNEY F. WARNER 33628 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART I: DUDLEY MOORE 33631 CHICAGO (T), UCLA 05/04/81 05/10/81 FROM HOLLYWOOD TO BROADWAY - PART II: MC CANN AND NUGENT NELLE NUGENT , ELIZABETH MCCANN 33631 CHICAGO (T) 05/09/81 05/17/81 PART I: HOMELESS AND HELPLESS -- PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS ANN MARIE ROUSSEAU, WILLIAM KUEHNE, ANTON GALENOS, SELMA (MARIE) PRICE, SYD ROLFS, VERONICA (VIRGINIA) WILLIAMS, GENE PALMER 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/04/81 05/17/81 PART II: SPORTS AMERICAN STYLE: BIG, BRUISING BUSINESS DICK SHAAP, PETER BONVENTRE, MIKE LUPICA, DAN JENKINS 33632 CHICAGO, DC 05/09/81 05/24/81 PART I: SURVIVALISTS: PREPARING FOR DOOMSDAY KURT SAXON, JOSEPH RUSTICK, M.D., ROBERT FIRTH, GENE AND PEARL TARMAN 33633 CHICAGO, DC 04/25/81 05/24/81 PART II: DELAYED MOTHERHOOD -- HAVING CHILDREN AT AGE THIRTY FIVE JULIE HOUSTON, LYNN POVICH, JACQUELINE PESUT, LUISA LA VIOLA, DR. PEGGY EWING 33633 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/07/81 12/09/84 PART I: WITHOUT TEARS -- CHILDREN COPING WITH CANCER CHILDREN: STEPHANIE ROBSON, JIM VOLPE, DOLLY MICONI, CRAIG HETZER, JENNIFER DALSEY MOTHERS: SHARON ROBSON, PEGGY VOLPE, BRITTA HETZER, MARTHA SMENTEK (JENNIFER DALSEY'S MOTHER) 33635 CHICAGO (T), DC 06/06/81 06/07/81 PART II: A VANISHING BREED -- THE PROFESSIONAL VOLUNTEER VIVIAN HARRIS, MARY LINDSAY, JEAN DELAFIELD, ISABELLE STEVENSON, GLORIA W. MILLIKEN 33635 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART I: THE MAGNIFICENT $20 MILLION YANKEE -- DAVE WINFIELD 33636 CHICAGO, DC 06/14/81 PART II: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TONY AWARDS ALEXANDER H. COHEN, HILDY PARKS 33636 CHICAGO, DC 05/02/81 06/21/81 PART I: REPORT FROM THREE DOCTORS: THE LATEST IN MEDICINE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D., DR. JOHN H. LARAGH, DR. JOSEPH WILDER 33630 CHICAGO, DC 05/18/81 06/21/81 PART II: HOW TO SUE WITHOUT A LAWYER JOHN STRIKER, ANDREW SHAPIRO 33630 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 06/28/81 PART I: SHOW BUSINESS COUPLES RENEE TAYLOR, JOSEPH BOLOGNA MARGE REDMOND, JACK WESTON 33634 CHICAGO 05/18/81 06/28/81 PART II: WHO REMEMBERS CARTER -- JOSEPH CALIFANO DOES, THAT'S WHO 33634 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1981-82 06/06/81 06/13/81 10/11/81 08/08/82 STARTING OVER AFTER DIVORCE: MIDDLE AGED SINGLES RICHARD SCHICKEL, ANNE PARK, MARTHA HUGHES, STEVEN BRALOVE, RITA MCDOWELL 33637 CHICAGO, DC 06/08/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART I: THE REAL CHORUS LINE: BROADWAY DANCERS DONNA DRAKE, BOB HEATH, MARYBETH KURDOCK, DAVID EVANS, RON SCHWINN, JOAN BELL, DEAN BADOLATE, MARYANN NILES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/81 10/18/81 08/01/82 PART II: FACES IN THE CROWD: MOVIE EXTRAS ROZ BRAVERMAN, ANDREW MURPHY, BARRY WISEMAN, SHANNON SORIN, VELA CERES 33638 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART I: MAKING MARRIAGE WORK: MARRIAGE COUNSELORS LAURA SINGER, DR. ROBERT RYDER, DR. MEL KRANTZLER, DR. FREDERICK HUMPHREY 35451 CHICAGO, DC 09/30/81 10/25/81 PART II: DIVORCE MEDIATORS DR. JOHN M. HAYNES, LAWRENCE GAUGHAN, SAMUEL MARGULIES, VIRGINIA STAFFORD 35451 CHICAGO, DC 10/24/81 11/01/81 WHAT PLASTIC SURGERY CAN DO FOR YOU DR. RALPH MILLARD, DR. CHRISTOPHER WEATHERLEY-WHITE, DR. BRUCE CONNELL, DR. MICHAEL HOGAN 35452 CHICAGO, DC 10/07/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 06/05/83 PART I: MODELS OVER 50 WHO LOOK GREAT KAYLAN PICKFORD, LILLIAN MARCUSON, CARMEN DELL 'OREFICE 35453 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/28/81 11/08/81 07/18/82 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF SLEEP DR. RICHARD BOOTZIN, DR. QUENTIN REGESTEIN, DR. ELLIOT WEITZMAN 35453 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART I: MOTHERS WITHOUT CUSTODY ELLEN KIMBALL, "JACKIE", "BARBARA" 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/07/81 11/15/81 PART II: CAMPUS CONSERVATIVES KEENEY JONES, JOHN GOODWIN, BENNETT COOPER, TERRY QUIST 35455 CHICAGO, DC 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART I: A TALK WITH FATHER THEODORE HESBURGH 34556 CHICAGO 11/18/81 11/22/81 PART II: UPDATE ON THE RADICAL LEFT LEWIS COLE, JOANNE LANDY, JANE ALPERT 34556 CHICAGO 11/21/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART I: THE SWINGERS PARADISE OF CLUB MED ROD FRANKEL, DOREEN WOODRUM, SUSAN FRAYTUS, RICKY DETRES, BOB LEIGHTON, CLAUDE KEBBE 35454 CHICAGO, DC 10/28/81 11/29/81 07/04/82 PART II: RETURN TO THE NEST STEPHANIE GANGI, TOM RIPP, FRANK SCHIRALLI, SCOTT MARTONE, ANGELA DIVERGILIO 35454 CHICGO, DC 11/25/81 12/06/81 08/22/82 WOMBS FOR RENT JULIE GALLIMORE, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, NOEL KEANE, DR. PHILLIP PARKER 35458 DC 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 PART I: DON'T GO NEAR THE WATER! ELEGANT NEW SWIMMER LIZA BRUCE, ANNE COLE, STANLEY REGENBOGAN, FRANK FRIEND, MIRIAM RUZOW 35459 CHICAGO 12/05/81 12/20/81 06/27/82 01/08/84 07/22/84 02/16/86 PART II: ALL ABOUT HANGOVERS DAVID OUTERBRIDGE, NELSON DEMILLE, PETER WALSH, HERBERT GOULD, M.D. 35459 CHICAGO 12/19/81 01/03/82 PART I: AN INTERVIEW WITH GLADYCE BEGELMAN: CO-AUTHOR OF "NEW YORK ON $1,000.00 A DAY" 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/03/82 08/29/82 04/01/84 PART II: CAN YOU ERASE THOSE WRINKLES? THE TRUTH ABOUT SILICONE AND COLLAGEN DR. LEWIS FEDER, DR. ROBERT AUERBACH, DR. JAMES LEYDEN 35457 CHICAGO, DC 12/05/81 01/20/82 07/25/82 PART I: TOUGHLOVE: PARENTS FIGHT BACK PHYLLIS AND DAVID YORK, LANE PEER, RICHARD SURVING, JEAN BAKER WUNDER 35459 CHICAGO, DC 12/19/81 01/10/82 07/25/82 PART II: ALL ABOUT CATS ANITRA FRAZIER, SIMON BOND, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND, JERRY BENISATTO, PATRICIA NELL WARREN, RICHARD GEBHARDT 35459 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 PART I: WEIGHT LOSS NORMA SKOPIN, STEVE SLIVA, GERALDINE O'CONNOR, ANNE MCCARTHY, IRENE CURTIN 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/13/82 01/17/82 08/15/82 03/25/84 09/16/84 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART II: 'LISA H.' OPERATION LINTON WHITAKER, M.D., JAMES KATOWITZ, M.D., DEREK BRUCE, M.D., CH.B 35462 CHICAGO, DC 01/20/82 01/24/82 "NO, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE NOT BETTER OFF" PART I: VICTIMS OF THE BUDGET CUTS MATILDE COLON, ZELDA WEINER, MARY GARBUTT, MURIEL ZGARDOWSKI, MARY GALE 35463 CHICAGO 01/20/82 01/24/82 PART II: FACING PERMANENT LAYOFF DAN SULLIVAN, DOUG FORD, BOB LONGWORTH, BILL AHSCROFT, (RON CARVER-P.R.) 35463 CHICAGO 01/27/82 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART I: BACHELORS OF THE MONTH MICHAEL JEFFREY GRIFFITH, PETER KUHN, O. STEVEN FREDERICKSEN, JIM ZERBE, JOEL DIAMOND 35465 CHICAGO, DC 12/16/81 02/07/82 09/26/82 PART II: CHIROPRACTORS VS. M.D.'S DR. STEPHEN BARRETT, LOUIS SPORTELLI, D.C., CHESTER WILK, D.C., REUBEN HOPPENSTEIN, M.D. 35465 CHICAGO, DC 01/30/82 02/14/82 LOOKING FOR LOVE: A GUIDE FOR SINGLES DR. MARTIN GALLITAN, JOE O'CONNELL, MARCY BOUCHER, GAYLE BOARD, KEN NELSON, MITCHEL MITCHEL 35466 CHICAGO, DC 02/10/82 02/21/82 WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT -- WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT -- THE LATEST GOSSIP MADELLEINE SCHAAP, MAXINE MESSINGER, LIZ SMITH JAMES BRADY, BOB COLACELLO 35467 CHICAGO, DC 02/28/82 PART I: ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHATS IN THE STARS FOR 1982 MARIA ELISA CRUMMERE, MARTIN SCHULMAN, DARRELL MARTINI, MAE WILSON-LUDLAM 35464 CHICAGO 02/28/82 PART II: SABINA SHALOM 35464 CHICAGO 02/24/82 03/07/82 THE WILD WORLD OF SPORTS DICK SCHAAP, DAN JENKINS, MIKE LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON, MIKE DOWNEY 35469 CHICAGO 02/27/82 03/07/82 TRAVELING SALESMEN JIM O'CONNOR, JOEL KATZ, JIM PRENDERGAST, DICK ORNSTEIN 35469 CHICAGO 02/13/82 03/14/82 07/11/82 CRIMINALS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER PHIL SEELIG, BILL CLARK, JUDGE EDWIN TORRES, SEYMOUR WISHMAN 35468 CHICAGO 03/10/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART I: ARE WOMEN THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES? MARY VANN HUNTER, MONIQUE VAN VOOREN, KATHRYN LIVINGSTON, DORIS LILLY 35471 DC 03/13/82 03/21/82 09/12/82 PART II: NICE GIRLS DO DR. IRENE KASSORLA 35471 DC 02/27/82 04/04/82 TROUBLED SKIES: THE AIRLINE MESS WILLIAM HOWARD, DON BURR, MEL BRENNER, MICHAEL ARMELLINO, SECOR BROWNE 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 04/04/82 08/29/82 SUPERMOMS COLETTE ROSSANT, KATHRYN DARROW, MEG WHITCOMB, PENNY HAWKEY 35470 CHICAGO, DC 03/13/82 04/11/82 PART I: LIFTING THE BAMBOO CURTAIN: THE URGENT NEED TO UNDERSTAND CHINA DR. JOHN KING FAIRBANK 35472 CHICAGO, DC 03/10/82 04/11/82 PART II: COLLEGE GRADS IN MENIAL JOBS CHAS HICKEY, JANE HANSTEIN, ED CRICHIO, MARK NUNBERG, CAREY HUNTER 35472 CHICAGO (T), DC 04/14/82 04/18/82 PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC RIP OFF? -- UTILITIES EDWARD LARKIN, EDWARD HYNES, THOMAS FITZPATRICK, KAREN BURSTEIN, CAROL BARGER, ALFRED NARDELLI 35473 CHICAGO 04/25/82 ON THE VERGE OF RUIN: AMERICA'S DESPERATE FARMERS NITA GIBSON, WAYNE CRYTS, JOHN STULP, PETER CURRA, VAREL BAILEY 35476 CHICAGO, DC 04/24/82 05/02/82 COUNTDOWN TO DOOMSDAY: THE NUCLEAR ARMS DEBATE ADMIRAL ELMO ZUMWALT, DR. DANIEL MAGUIRE, DR. SCOTT THOMPSON, JACK GEIGER, M.D. FRITZ ERMARTH, CONGRESSMAN THOMAS DOWNEY 35477 CHICAGO, DC 03/24/82 05/09/82 PART I: FAST AND FUNNY: COLLEGE DEBATERS DAVID BAILIN, HARRY WALTERS, LARRY EICHENFIELD, EDWARD O'TOOLE, DAVID KIDD, J.J. GERTLER, GRANT OLIPHANT, RICHARD SOMMER 35473 CHICAGO, DC 05/08/82 05/16/82 GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY DR. WILLIAM NISKANEN, JR., LEONARD SILK, DR. OTTO ECKSTEIN, DR. ALAN GREENSPAN, DR. JOSEPH PECHMAN 35479 CHICAGO (T) 05/05/82 05/23/82 10/03/82 "I'M ON WELFARE AND I HATE IT" -- A WELFARE MOTHER SHARON HUNT 35478 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART I: NOT FOR MEN ONLY -- BLUE COLLAR WOMEN TINA NANNARONE, LAURA SCHWARTZ, JANE KELLEY, SHARON HOLMES, JUDY HUGHES 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/19/82 05/30/82 PART II: OUT OF CASH? TRY BARTER ANNIE PROULX, JERRY WEINER, GENE HOLTZMAN, CONNIE STAPLETON 35480 CHICAGO, DC 05/22/82 06/06/82 09/19/82 AN INTERVIEW WITH THE REMARKABLE VIDAL SASSOON VIDAL SASSOON 35481 CHICAGO, DC 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART I: ADMINISTRATORS JAMES POWELL, STEPHEN TRACHTENBERG, WILLIAM MAXWELL, HARVEY GROTRAIN 35482 CHICAGO 06/13/82 WHO CAN AFFORD COLLEGE ANYMORE? -- PART 2: PARENTS JOSEPH ZULLO, JOHN KAUFMAN, FREDERIC KRAMER, GLORIA GATTI, ALEXANDRA GREELEY 35482 CHICAGO 06/20/82 NO MORE LAND OF PLENTY NORMAN BERG, KREKEL KARCH, NEIL SAMPSON 35484 CHICAGO 06/20/82 CAREER COUNSELORS JOHN CRYSTAL, STANLEY HYMAN, ROBERT SWAIN, IRENE ANSHER 35484 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1982-83 10/06/82 10/10/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART I 35486 CHICAGO, DC 10/09/82 10/17/82 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW -- 25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL - PART II MAUREEN STAPLETON, ANTHONY QUINN, NORMAN MAILER, TRUMAN CAPOTE 37027 CHICAGO (T), UCLA, DC 07/16/82 10/24/82 08/28/83 TOP TRIAL LAWYERS DEMONSTRATE THE ART OF JURY SELECTION PHILIP CORBOY, HAROLD PRICE FAHRINGER, AARON BRODER, BILL COLSON 35483 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 PART I: COCAINE: A 30 BILLION DOLLAR EPIDEMIC ROBERT MILLMAN, M.D., ANDY KOWL, TOM HENDERSON, "AMY", "A.J.", "LIZA" 35475 CHICAGO, DC 04/17/82 10/31/82 07/17/83 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART II: PARTY CRASHERS GARY WATSON, STEVE GOLDSTEIN, FRANK FUSARO, MIKE BURKE 35475 CHICAGO (T), DC 10/30/82 11/07/82 HERPES: THE VENEREAL DISEASE THAT CAN'T BE CURED PART 1: VICTIMS: OSCAR GILLESPIE, PHD., JANE RUBINSKY , RUSSELL WOOD, "SCOTT" PART II: DOCTORS: ANDRE NAHMIAS, M.D., HERBERT BLOUGH, M.D., JOHN GROSSMAN, M.D., DR. CARLOS LOPEZ 37028 CHICAGO (T), DC 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART I: WHY DON'T PEOPLE DATE ANYMORE? DOUG FOSTER, DOUG BERNSTEIN, SERENA BLISS, MICHAEL SELBY, LIZ CASTELLS, MAGGIE PETERS, SIGNE WARNER, BOB POLLAK 37029 CHICAGO (T) 11/03/82 11/14/82 08/21/83 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH HAMILTON JORDAN HAMILTON JORDAN 37029 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 01/26/86 05/25/86 08/17/86 PART I: DOLLAR A DANCE -- TAXI DANCERS ARIEL LUCAS, PAUL PRICKETT, PENNY PRUCHA, ELLEN STOKES, CAROL SUNDQUIST 37030 CHICAGO 11/06/82 11/21/82 03/18/84 PART II: THE MYSTERY OF THE FULL MOON ARNOLD L. LEIBER, M.D., CHARLES S. MIRABILE, M.D., DR. RALPH W. MORRIS, DR. DONALD P. LASALLE 37030 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 11/28/82 CONGRESSMEN WHO WERE DEFEATED DON CLAUSEN, GENE ATKINSON, TOBY MOFFETT, JOHN LEBOUTILLIER 37031 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/05/82 02/17/85 PART I: HOW TO MARRY A RICH MAN JACQUELINE THOMPSON, RITA LACHMAN, DIANE ACKERMAN 37032 CHICAGO 06/19/82 12/05/82 PART II: LONG DISTANCE MARRIAGE BRYNA SANGER, HARRY KATZ, KAREN AKERS, CATHERINE AND JIM FOSTER 37032 CHICAGO (T) 11/27/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 PART I: GROWING UP IN THE DEPRESSION WITH RUSSELL BAKER, ANNE JACKSON, ELI WALLACH AND ED KOCH 37035 CHICAGO (T) 11/20/82 12/12/82 07/10/83 01/20/85 01/19/86 PART II: THE EFFECT OF COLOR ON OUR LIVES JOHN OTT, DR. JAMES D'ADAMO, IRENE AUSTIN 37035 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART I: CHOCOLATE TOM KRON, LAURA BRODY, MILTON ZELMAN, AL PECHENIK, RUDOLF SPRUNGLI 37036 CHICAGO (T) 12/08/82 12/19/82 06/26/83 PART II: ENTERTAINING CHARLOTTE TREE, SANDRA KASPER, MARY MCFADDEN, GEORGE LANG 37036 CHICAGO 11/27/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART I: TV ANCHORWOMEN ROBIN YOUNG, MONICA KAUFMAN, SUE SIMMONS, PAT HARPER 37034 CHICAGO (T) 12/11/82 12/26/82 07/24/83 PART II: AMBASSADOR MALCOLM TOON 37034 12/11/82 01/02/83 10/16/83 07/29/84 02/16/86 07/13/86 PAR I: SELF DEFENSE FOR WOMEN: HOW TO FIGHT BACK DR. MARY CONROY 37039 CHICAGO 12/11/82 01/02/83 PART II: THE CAREER WOMAN'S DILEMMA: JOB VS. BABIES CAROL MASIUS, ANDREA DUNHAM, NANCY EVANS, MARIA CAMPBELL, SERINE HASTINGS 37039 CHICAGO (T) 12/18/82 01/09/83 HOW TO LIVE WITH ARTHRITIS PART I: PATIENTS DR. ROBERT GOULD, BOB NIRKIND, ROBIN MAY, JOHN MURPHY, MARTHA SCHORTTMAN PART II: DOCTORS GERALD WEISSMAN, M.D. FREDERIC MCDUFFIE, M.D., GEORGE EHRLICH, M.D., THOMAS KANTOR, M.D. 37038 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART I: WOMEN OF THE YEAR: BROADWAY'S LEADING LADIES ELIZABETH ASHLEY, ELLEN BURSTYN, JUDITH IVEY, BETTY BUCKLEY 37040 CHICAGO (T) 01/05/83 01/16/83 PART II: BANKS ON THE BRINK: THE FOREIGN LOAN MESS C.W. CARSON, JR., RICHARD ERB, JOHN G. HEIMAN, PETER KENEN, REP. CHARLES E. SCHUMER 37040 CHICAGO 01/15/83 01/23/83 PART I: WAITRESSES DEBORAH GRISORIO, KATHLEEN MCLANE, PAULA MURRAY, NANCY YOUNGBLUT 37041 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/83 01/23/83 PAR II: NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN ROME, NY EDWARD BURTON, ED CALLAHAN, COL. JOHN ENGELMANN, EMLYN GRIFFITH, IRWIN REDLENER 37041 CHICAGO 01/27/83 01/30/83 PART I: IS THIS BULL MARKET FOR REAL? STEVEN EINHORN, ELIOT FRIED, JOHN HINDELONG, THOMAS STILES, JOHN TEMPLETON 37044 CHICAGO 01/19/83 01/30/83 12/11/83 PART II: COOKIES ARE BIG BUSINESS DAVID LIEDERMAN, BARBARA KAFKA, MARNI MILLER, JAN VERDONKSCHOT 37044 CHICAGO 01/22/83 02/06/83 THE RICH AND FAMOUS -- THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, DIANA MCLELLEN, TAKE AND MAXINE MESINGER 37043 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 AMERICAN WOMEN WHO MARRY FOREIGN MEN JANA JAFFEE, KATHRYN JASON, SHARON COSTA DE BEAUREGARD, COUNTESS DE ROMANONES, MARTHA BURKE-HENNESSY 37045 CHICAGO 02/02/83 02/13/83 DOWNWARD MOBILITY -- THE END OF THE AMERICAN DREAM BOB SACCO, DAN RASUMSSEN, RHONA DROSSMAN, LLOYD SAVEL, HOPE POKRESS 37045 CHICAGO (T) 02/16/83 02/20/83 WHAT'S IN THE STARS FOR 1983 ASTROLOGERS POPE HILL, PATRIC WALKER, MARIA CRUMMERE, DEBBI KEMPTON-SMITH, JOELLE MAHONEY 37046 CHICAGO 02/16/83 02/27/83 12/02/84 05/04/86 PART I: STOPPING THE CLOCK? GEROVITAL EMILY WILKINS, BILL TICE, DORIS WHITEHEAD, JOHN COFFMAN, BARRY REISBERG, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO (T) 01/19/83 02/27/83 THE MYSTERY OF THE COMMON COLD STEVEN MOSTOW, M.D., R. GORDON DOUGLAS, M.D., SANFORD CHODOSH, M.D., HYLAN BICKERMAN, M.D., JOHN ABELES, M.D. 37042 CHICAGO 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART I: ANGRY CRIME VICTIMS DIANI MONTENEGRO, SHIRLEY BERNSTEIN, GUILIA PAGANO, ROBERT GRAYSON, DR. MICHAEL ROBINSON 37047 CHICAGO (T) 02/23/83 03/06/83 PART II: CRIME FIGHTERS SGT. JOSEPH DUNNE, DET. BILL CLARK, DET./LT. ROBERT GALLAGHER 37047 CHICAGO 03/05/83 03/13/83 FILM CRITICS PREDICT THE OSCARS DAVID DENBY, JANET MASLIN, REX REED, HOWARD KISSEL, STEWART KLEIN 37048 CHICAGO (T) 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART I: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES JAMES IRVIN GLOVER, GRADY O'CUMMINGS III, LESTER BYERLEY, GERARD HIMMELMAN 37049 CHICAGO 03/09/83 03/20/83 06/10/84 PART II: IS PSYCHIATRY IN TROUBLE? STEPHEN SONNENBERG, M.D., LAYTON MCCURDY, M.D., ALLEN FRANCES, M.D., STUART YUDOFSKY, M.D. 37049 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 06/24/84 PART I: SEMINARY AND CONVENT DROP-OUTS CATHERINE BRUNO, PAUL HENDRICKSON, THOMAS SMITH, MARY GILLIGAN WONG, CHARLES DEVLIN 37050 CHICAGO (T) 03/19/83 03/27/83 PART II: MID-LIFE VOCATIONS SARAH B. TAYLOR, THOMAS H. GAINER, JR., REV. FRANK KILCOYNE, REV. JAMES F. HINCHEY, REV. FRANCIS J. FAJELLA, MSS.A 37050 CHICAGO 03/23/83 04/03/83 10/02/83 A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT S. STRAUSS 37051 CHICAGO (T) 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 DEAR ANN LANDERS... ANN LANDERS 37052 CHICAGO 04/06/83 04/10/83 09/18/83 PART II: THE NEW YOUNG IMMIGRANTS CHRISTINA WACHTMEISTER, WILLIAM LEWIISHAM, ASHA PUTHLI, GIANNINA FACIO, FELIPTE PARAUD 37052 CHICAGO 04/13/83 04/17/83 09/25/83 S.R.O. HOTELS NAYNA VALDEZ, JOSEPH HOFFLER, LLOYD SMITH, ISMAEL RIVERA, ROBERT HAMBURGER, ALFRED GUNTHER, "ALICE" 37053 CHICAGO (T) 04/14/83 04/24/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY BURGESS 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 04/24/83 06/08/86 PART II: BARBARA CARTLAND 37054 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 PART I: MEN WHO WANT TO MARRY RICH JEAN MORBELLI, DARIUS DE LA ROUCHEFOUCAULD, PATRICK KELLY, ROWEN NEGRIN 37055 CHICAGO (T) 04/23/83 05/01/83 03/11/84 08/05/84 04/13/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 PART II: BEST PLACES TO LIVE DAVID SAVAGEAU, RICHARD BOYER, DR. RONALD MINGE, DR. THOMAS BOWMAN 37055 CHICAGO 04/27/83 05/08/83 05/13/84 10/14/84 WE USED TO BE GAY - FORMER HOMOSEXUALS WILLIAM ATHERTON, DAVID TWOMEY, REV. WAYNE PLUMSTEAD, BRUCE BLAUSTEIN, JOSEPH MEGLINO 37056 CHICAGO (T) 04/27/83 05/08/83 BURN OUT - HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND DEAL WITH IT MICHAEL CRAWFORD, DR. HERBERT FREUDENBERGER, GAIL NORTH, CONNIE DE NAVE, SYLVESTER KARAGIS 37056 CHICAGO 04/30/83 05/15/83 10/09/83 BASEBALL WIVES DANIELLE TORRES, NANCY MARSHALL, BOBBIE BOUTON, KAROLYN ROSE, DIANE PEPITONE 37057 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART I: LONLINESS JANE ADAMS, JOAN GOULD, JOHN HOLLANDER, MURRAY KELLMAN, MAURA SWANSON 37058 CHICAGO 05/07/83 05/22/83 08/07/83 PART II: PEOPLE MAD AT THE BANKS ALISON ROSENFELD, RON BANYAY, PAGE MELLISH, CALVET HAHN, GAYLE ESSAREY 37058 CHICAGO 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 01/27/85 BALLET - THE WORLD'S TOUGHEST SPORT CHRISTINE SPIZZO, MERRILL ASHLEY, CHRISTOPHER D'AMBOISE, KEVIN MCKENSIE 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/25/83 05/29/83 07/31/83 02/12/84 12/22/85 06/15/86 THE LATEST WORD ON FOOTCARE JAMES PARKES, M.D., A. LOUIS SHURE, D.P.M., JOHN WALLER, M.D., MURRAY WEISENFELD, D.P.M. 37060 CHICAGO (T) 05/21/83 06/05/83 DAVID SUSSKIND AND FRIENDS JEAN KENNEDY, DAN BERKOWITZ, SAMANTHA SUSSKIND 37059 CHICAGO (T) 06/08/83 06/11/83 08/14/83 DR. CHARLES CLEMENTS, AN AMERICAN DOCTOR IN EL SALVADOR 37061 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS DEANE W. LORD, MARY CAMERON LORD, LOIS WYSE, KATHERINE GOLDMAN 37062 CHICAGO (T) 06/11/83 06/19/83 09/11/83 PEOPLE WHO HAVE MOVED TO NEW YORK RAYNE BEAUDOIN, BONNIE KOLOC, KEVIN METHENY, MARY SUE MORRIS, KIM STEELE 37062 THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1983-1984 06/22/83 10/16/83 PART I: WHY CAN'T MEN SHOW AFFECTION?: MALE FRIENDSHIP RICHARD SCHICKEL, HERBERT GOULD, LARRY LEEDS, DAVID MICHEALIS 37063 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 10/23/83 07/15/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ANTHONY QUINN 37066 CHICAGO (T) 10/25/83 10/30/83 A MODERN MARK TWAIN: MAYOR ALFRED E. VELLUCCI OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 37068 CHICAGO (T) 10/15/83 11/06/83 FRIENDSHIP AMONG WOMEN JOANNA SIMON, CATHY CASH SPELLMAN, DEANE LORD, ALICE WHITE 37065 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/83 11/20/83 PART I: ANTHONY QUINN CONTINUED 37067 CHICAGO 11/23/83 11/27/83 PART I: HELEN GALLAGHER 37072 CHICAGO (T) 11/19/83 11/27/83 PART II: THE MAKING OF CARMEN PETER BROOK, ALEXANDER COHEN, HILDY PARKS 37072 CHICAGO 11/19/83 12/04/83 09/30/84 A PROBING LOOK AT THE RUSSIANS HEDRICK SMITH, DAVID SHIPLER 37071 CHICAGO (T) 11/23/83 12/11/83 07/29/84 PART I: BROADWAY AND HOLLYWOOD LAID BARE MILTON GOLDMAN, ANNA SOSENKO, RADIE HARRIS 37073 CHICAGO 12/10/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART I: RESTAURANTEURS SHELDON TANNEN, LELLO ARPAIA, SIRIO MACCIONI, ROBERT MEYZEN, GIANNI GARAVELLI 37069 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/83 12/18/83 09/09/84 PART II: PHOTOGRAPHER NORMAN PARKINSON 37069 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART I: CARD SHARK FRANK GARCIA 37077 CHICAGO (T) 12/17/83 12/25/83 PART II: SPECTACULAR EVENING GOWNS BY JANA JANA JAFFE DE ROSSELL 37077 CHICAGO (T) 11/30/83 01/01/84 PART I: BETTER THAN EVER: SHOW BUSINESS GREATS JOYCE BRYANT, SHERRY BRITTON 37075 CHICAGO 10/29/83 01/01/84 PART II: NOUVEAU IS BETTER THAN NO RICHE AT ALL MARYLIN BENDER, MONSIEUR MARC 37069 12/10/83 01/08/84 07/22/84 PART I: THE LATEST BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE TREATMENT OF HEART DISEASE MICHAEL DE BAKEY, M.D., ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 37074 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/83 01/15/84 DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL OURSELVES? VALERIA, DEREK HUMPHRY, DR. WILLIAM MARRA, PROFESSOR MARVIN KOHL, PROFESSOR DAVID BLEICH, DORIS PORTWOOD 37076 CHICAGO 01/11/84 01/22/84 08/19/84 WARNING: MEDICAL CARE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR WEALTH SENATOR LOWELL WEICKER, MARTIN CHERKASKY, M.D., JOHN LARAGH, M.D. 40029 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 01/29/84 NEW YORK: A WONDERFUL TOWN MAYOR EDWARD KOCH, LEWIS RUDIN, ANTHONY BLISS 40030 (NY TV MUSEUM) 01/25/84 01/29/84 PART II: "NO NICE GIRL SWEARS" - ALICE-LEONE MOATS 40030 CHICAGO(T) 02/04/84 02/12/84 PART I: FORGET THE FEAR OF FLYING CAPTAIN T.W. CUMMINGS, ANNA GILHULEY, BETSY BYRNE, CAROL LAWSON, FRANK SINK 40033 CHICAGO (T) 02/08/84 02/19/84 WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT - WHO'S HOT, WHO'S NOT: THE LATEST GOSSIP LIZ SMITH, MAXINE MESINGER, TAKI, SHIRLEY EDER 40034 CHICAGO (T) 02/22/84 03/04/84 FORMER CONGRESSMEN GIVE THE LOWDOWN ON POLITICS 40035 01/25/84 03/11/84 08/05/84 PART I: THE MAN WHO SAVED NEW YORK: FELIX ROHATYN 40032 CHICAGO (T) 01/21/84 03/18/84 PART I: FORECASTING THE FUTURE WITH "RUNES" RALPH BLUM, BRONWYN JONES, DR. ROBERT LORENZ 40031 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 03/25/84 09/16/84 PART I: CANCER PATIENT VOLUNTEERS KATHRYN STEIN, GERRY GEORGE, ALAN MATCOVSKY 40036 CHICAGO (T) 03/03/84 04/01/84 PART I: CLASS: WHAT IS IT? WHO HAS IT? BENITA EISLER, PAUL FUSSELL, TERRY NOEL TOWE 40038 CHICAGO 03/21/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART I: BIG TIME SPORTS ARE NOT FOR MEN ONLY DONNA DEVARONA, KATHERINE SWITZER, GINNY SEIPT, PATRICIA HALL 40037 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 04/08/84 08/12/84 PART II: "THE ULTIMATE SEDUCTION": AN INTERVIEW WITH CHARLOTTE CHANDLER 40037 CHICAGO 03/31/84 04/15/84 TOUGH JUDGES TALK ABOUT CRIME AND PUNISHMENT JUDGE BURTON ROBERTS, JUDGE HERBERT STERN 40039 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART I: EVERYTHING'S UP TO DATE IN KANSAS CITY MAYOR RICHARD L. BERKLEY, SANDRA DAY BERKLEY, ELLIS G. BRADLEY, BEVERLY BRADLEY, J.C. NICHOLS, JR., MARY NICHOLS 40043 CHICAGO (T) 04/16/84 04/22/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH SIR JAMES MURRAY 40043 04/09/84 04/29/84 09/16/84 AN INTERVIEW WITH A. BARTLETT GIAMATTI, PRESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY 40042 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/84 05/06/84 PART I: YES, MR. MEESE, THERE ARE HUNGRY PEOPLE TOBEY BERMUDEZ, MAGDA MARTIS, AUDREY MINNS, ERNESTINE ROYSTER, FRANK MONTGOMERY, CHARLES TAVENNER, NICK, MORRIS HACKNEY 40040 CHICAGO (T) 03/24/84 05/13/84 10/14/84 PART I: REAL LIFE TOOTSIES: MEN WHO DRESS AS WOMEN ARIADNE KANE, NAOMI, EILEEN, CHERYL 40041 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 05/20/84 PART I: SEX IS THEIR BUSINESS DR. IRENE KASSORLA, SHIRLEY LORD, DR. LONNIE BARBACHN 40045 CHICAGO 05/09/84 05/27/84 10/07/84 BRILLIANT MINDS, BRILLIANT CONVERSATION ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JOHN SIMON, BERNARD LEVIN 40047 CHICAGO (T) 04/25/84 06/03/84 08/26/84 VIETNAM: THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS JOHN CATTERSON, THOMAS LECKINGER, THOMAS BRINSON, LAWRENCE SMITH 40044 CHICAGO 05/23/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART I: WOMEN BEHIND BARS - FEMALE EX-CONS FRAN O'LEARY, CONNIE FLYNN, BARBARA JORDAN, ANN MARIE DELONE 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/17/84 10/28/84 PART II: ALL ABOUT ICE CREAM JOHN R. LESAUVAGE, REUBEN MATTUS, NANCY ARUM, CAROL T. ROBBINS 40050 CHICAGO (T) 06/12/84 06/24/84 A CONVERSATION WITH ROSALYNN CARTER 40052 CHICAGO (T) 06/04/84 07/01/84 PART I: BIG BUSINESSMEN TALK ABOUT EAST-WEST TRADE AND THE CORPORATE IMAGE DWAYNE ANDREAS, DONALD KENDALL 40051 CHICAGO (T) 05/23/84 07/01/84 06/01/86 PART II: OLDER WOMEN FIGHT AGE DISCRIMINATION JEAN PHILLIPS, BETTY ROSEN, DR. JANE PORCINO, SHIRLEY KARNES 40049 CHICAGO (T) 11/16/83 07/08/84 THE POPE OF MODERN ADVERTISING - DAVID OGILVY 37070 CHICAGO (T) THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1984-1985 10/20/84 11/04/84 STRICTLY PERSONAL: MEETING AND MATING THROUGH THE PERSONAL ADS ANNE ROSEN, HY FINKELMAN, RICHARD KATZ, RITA HALLEY, LOU SPIER, JOAN LERNER, DON FEAREY, URSULA GARRISS 40054 CHICAGO 05/16/84 11/11/84 TOP DIVORCE LAWYERS A. ROBERT ZEFF, WILLIAM G. MULLIGAN, JULIA PERLES, MARVIN MITCHELSON, ROY COHN 40048 CHICAGO (T) 04/28/84 11/18/84 PART I: GLAMOROUS MODELS FROM THE 50s DORIAN LEIGH, NANCY BERG, DOVIMA, CARMEN 40046 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 11/18/84 PART II: RISING STARS OF THE 80s CINDY WAITE, VICTORIA PROUTY, CAROL ALT, SAMANTHA PHILLIPS, CARRIE MILLER 40046 CHICAGO 10/27/84 11/25/84 IS THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION OVER? THE RETURN TO CHASTITY SUE ATCHESON, BOB POLLAK, ROBERT MASELLO, SARA NELSON, PAT SKIPPER 40055 CHICAGO (T) 10/27/84 11/25/84 PART II: EXPERTS DR. JUDITH KURIANSKY, DR. CAROL FLAX, ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D. 40055 10/31/84 12/02/84 PART I: THE MALE MID-LIFE CRISIS: AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM A. NOLEN, M.D. 41000 CHICAGO (T) 11/10/84 01/05/86 04/06/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH HAROLD GENEEN - AUTHOR OF "MANAGING" 41001 CHICAGO 11/10/84 12/09/84 10/27/85 PART I: CHILDREN OF WAR RONNY AL-ROY, DANNY KUTTAB, MAO PANHA, ANNA MARIA LOPEZ, ARN CHORN 41002 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 PART I: BOXERS' WIVES TELL ALL VIKKI LA MOTTA, REBA SMITH, JANE COSTELLO, EDNA MAE ROBINSON 41004 CHICAGO (T) 11/28/84 12/16/84 01/12/86 04/27/86 PART II: HOW TO MEASURE LOVE - AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. ROBERT STERNBERG 41004 CHICAGO (T) 10/31/84 12/23/84 PART I: "TAKE MY WIFE, PLEASE": AN INTERVIEW WITH HENNY YOUNGMAN 40053 CHICAGO (T) 10/13/84 12/23/84 PART II: AN INTERVIEW WITH ARTIE SHAW 40053 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 02/02/86 PART I: THE EXERCISE MYTH HENRY SOLOMON, M.D., RALPH ORISCELLO, M.D., GEORGE SHEEHAN, M.D., RICHARD STEIN, M.D. 41003 CHICAGO (T) 11/13/84 01/06/85 11/10/85 02/02/86 08/03/86 PART II: THE NEW OFFICE ETIQUETTE MARJABELLE YOUNG STEWART, LETITIA BALDRIGE, GEORGE MAZZEI 40113 CHICAGO 12/01/84 01/13/85 THE TRAGEDY OF ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PART I: CHILDREN AND SPOUSES BERNARD NATHANSON, MILLIE SEIDEN, MARION ROACH, LONNIE WOLLIN, MARILYN HERMAN PART II: DOCTORS MIRIAM K. ARONSON, M.D., ROBERT N. BUTLER, M.D., KENNETH L. DAVIS, M.D., JOHN P. BLASS, M.D., PHD. 41005 CHICAGO 01/12/85 01/20/85 TOP ASTROLOGERS PREDICT WHAT'S IN STORE FOR 1985 POPE HILL, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, NAN HALL LINKE, MARY ORSER, HENRY WEINGARTEN 41009 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 03/02/86 07/20/86 BIG-TIME DRUG SMUGGLERS "RICHARD DICKMAN", TOM KIMBALL, WAYNE GREENHAW 41006 CHICAGO (T) 12/19/84 01/27/85 05/18/86 07/27/86 GET RID OF YOUR FAT - SUCTION LIPECTOMY NORMAN HUGO, M.D., DICRAN GOULIAN, JR., M.D., EUGENE CURTIS 41007 CHICAGO (T) 12/22/84 02/03/85 11/17/85 PART I: SEX FOR SALE - MALE PROSTITUTES JOE, ANTHONY, BILL, PATRICK, ANTONIO 41008 CHICAGO (T) 01/12/85 02/17/85 PART I: YOLANA - A PSYCHIC DEMONSTRATION 41010 CHICAGO (T) 01/15/85 02/24/85 SOME PEOPLE STAY MARRIED LARRY AND NORMAN STORCH, JOEY AND CINDY ADAMS, DAN AND JUNE JENKINS 41011 CHICAGO THE DAVID SUSSKIND SHOW 1985-1986 09/24/85 10/20/85 06/29/86 THE MARILYN MONROE STORY - AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR ANTHONY SUMMERS 41034 CHICAGO (T) 05/11/85 10/27/85 PART I: HOW TO GET YOUR TEENAGERS OFF DRUGS JOHN WHITE, LOIS WHITE, BRIAN MAZZIA, JOHN MAZZIA, ANN, ROBERT 41028 CHICAGO (T) 10/22/85 11/03/85 EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT PORNO MOVIES SAMANTHA FOX, CANDIDA ROYALLE, JACK WRANGLER, MARC STEVENS, GLORIA LEONARD 41036 CHICAGO (T) 10/17/85 11/10/85 08/03/86 PART I: OUR CHILDREN ARE HOMOSEXUALS AMY ASHWORTH, BOB BENOV, "ARTHUR", "GLORIA", "JOE" 41035 CHICAGO (T) 11/06/85 11/24/85 THE FIRST AMENDMENT COMEDY TROUPE BARBARA CONTARDI, PAT BAILY, JANE BRUCKER, NANCY LOMBARDO, BILL MCLAUGHLIN, JOE PERCE, MICHAEL SHAFFER, ELLEN MANDEL, STEPHEN PATTERSON 41038 CHICAGO (T) 10/29/85 12/01/85 04/20/86 09/07/86 HOW YOU CAN PREVENT ALMOST EVERY DISEASE ISADORE ROSENFELD, M.D. 41037 CHICAGO 12/03/85 12/08/85 PART I: THE LAST TABOO - OLDER WOMEN AND YOUNGER MEN BOB MERRILL, JUDY CARNE, CHRISTOPHER KADISON, ROSEMARY ROGERS, JACK WRANGLER, MARGARET WHITING 41040 CHICAGO (T) 12/10/85 12/15/85 PART I: HAVE YOU EVER LIVED BEFORE - REINCARNATION JUNE WHITAKER, CAREY WILLIAMS, ALAN VAUGHAN, SHALA MATTINGLY, PROF. HANS HOLZER 41041 CHICAGO (T) 04/17/85 12/15/85 PART II: DETAILS ON AVENUE MAGAZINE - UPTOWN AND DOWNTOWN JUDITH PRICE, MICHAEL SHNAYERSON, ANNIE FLANDERS, STEPHEN SABAN, BEAUREGARD HOUSTON-MONTGOMERY 41041 12/19/85 12/22/85 PART I: CREATORS OF THE HOTTEST NEW DIETS BARBARA EDELSTEIN, M.D., STUART M. BERGER, M.D., SYBIL FERGUSON, LAURA STEIN 41044 CHICAGO (T) 10/20/85 01/05/86 PART I: TAIWAN - THE OTHER CHINA JOSEPHINE WANG, DOUGLAS TONG HSU, LIN YU-HSIANG, DR. WEI YUNG, DR. WU JING-JYI 41045 CHICAGO (T) 12/14/85 01/12/86 PART I: MARRIED WOMEN - EXTRAMARITAL LIASONS "MARILYN", "JEAN" 41042 CHICAGO (T) 01/11/86 01/19/86 PART I: ASTROLOGY - WHAT THE STARS SAY ABOUT 1986 POPE HILL, MARY ORSER, JOELLE K.D. MAHONEY, DEMO DI MARTILE, DIANE WEBB 41046 CHICAGO 12/14/85 01/26/86 08/17/86 PART I: STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF AIDS, TOO SYDNEY ANDERSON, ELAYNE KAHN, TOM DOE-BARE, URSULS GARRISS, GARY NULL 41043 CHICAGO (T) 01/25/86 02/09/86 07/06/86 PART I: MY SON COMMITTED SUICIDE SUSAN WHITE-BOWDEN 41049 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 02/16/86 PART I: THE BATTLE AGAINST SMOKING BOB GREENE, EVA BRENT, JOHN BANZHAF, FRAN LEE 41048 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 02/23/86 07/13/86 PART I: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41991 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 03/02/86 07/20/86 PART II: THE WAR AGAINST THE MAFIA EDWARD MCDONALD, NICHOLAS PILEGGI, BOB LUCCI, RONALD GOLDSTOCK, TOM SHEER 41992 CHICAGO 02/06/86 03/09/86 SHOULD YOU HAVE A FACE LIFT? LET THE COMPUTER TELL YOU ROO BROWN, DORIS WHITEHEAD, FRANK OLIVE, CHICKEE JAMES, ELLIOT JACOBS, M.D. 41993 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/85 03/09/86 PART II: TRENDY RESTAURANTS ELAINE KAUFMAN, HOWARD STEIN, JIM MCMULLEN, BRIAN MCNULTY 41993 02/09/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 PART I: THE JOY OF ITALIAN FOOD LAURA MAIOGLIO, GIANNI GARAVELLI, NICOLA CIVETTA, ADI GIOVANETTI, SIRIO MACCIONI, GAEL GREENE 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/85 03/16/86 08/10/86 THE ART OF FINE DINING JAMES VILLAS, DAVID SCHOENBRUN, JOHN MARIANI 41014 CHICAGO 03/13/86 03/23/86 GAY RIGHTS: PRO AND CON MATT FOREMAN, PASTOR JESSE LEE, RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN, DR. WILLIAM A. MARRA, DAVID P. ROTHENBERG, THOMAS B. STODDARD 41994 CHICAGO (T) 01/16/86 03/30/86 PART I: FOREIGN WOMEN RATE AMERICAN MEN LILIANE MONTEVECCHI, HELGA WAGNER, JOANNA KIMBERLEY, ASHA PUTHLI 41047 CHICAGO 05/01/85 03/30/86 PART II: TITLED EUROPEANS PRINCE MICHAEL OF GREECE, COUNTESS DONINA CICOGNA MOZZONI, PRINCE DIMITRI OF YUGOSLAVIA, BARON FRANCOIS DE SAMBUCY, PRINCESS KATALIN ZU WINDISCH-GRAETZ 41047 CHICAGO 03/19/86 04/06/86 PART I: HOW TO BECOME A MILLIONAIRE TOM FATJO, JR., VICTOR KIAM, LANE NEMETH, THOMAS MONAGHAN, RICHARD THALHEIMER 41995 CHICAGO (T) 02/04/86 04/13/86 PART I: DIVORCED BUT FRIENDLY MARTI SCHULZ, BRYCE BOND, EDWARD BOTWIN, CAROL BOTWIN 41050 CHICAGO (T) 03/25/86 04/27/86 DOCTORS REVEAL THE LATEST IN SEX THERAPIES HELEN SINGER KAPLAN, M.D., HAROLD LIEF, M.D., CLIFFORD SAGER, M.D., MAJ-BRITT ROSENBAUM, M.D. 41996 CHICAGO (T) 03/31/86 05/04/86 THE MALE POOL - OLDER WOMEN SHARE THEIR RESOURCES LYNN TENDLER GILBERT, FRAN MANDELL, DEANNA WALLACH, DORIS BASS, GLORIA NEUWIRTH 41997 CHICAGO 04/22/86 05/11/86 CATCH A RISING STAR: NEW COMEDIANS MICHAEL HAMPTON-CAIN, BARRY STEIGER, TAYLOR MASON, RICHARD MORRIS, RANDY KLEIN 41999 CHICAGO (T) 05/01/86 05/18/86 07/27/86 THE WORLDS GREATEST SPAS RICHARD SCHMITZ, DR. SIGRUN LANG, DEBORAH SZEKELY, TONI BECK 42001 CHICAGO 03/13/85 05/25/86 ARE WOMEN FOOLS FOR LOVE? DIANE ACKERMAN, CAROL BOTWIN, ALEXANDRA PENNEY, DR. MELVYN KINDER, DR. CONNELL COWAN 41017 CHICAGO (T) 04/29/86 06/01/86 AN INTERVIEW WITH JOSEPH A CALIFANO, JR.: WHO LIVES, WHO DIES, WHO PAYS 42000 04/26/86 06/08/86 BADINAGE WITH BILL COSBY AND GIANNI GARAVELLI 42002 CHICAGO (T) 04/10/86 06/15/86 I DO, I DO, I DO - MANY TIMES MARRIED BARBARA TOBER, DIANA HUFF, SY KABACK, FRANKLIN B. ZIMMERMAN, RUTH BATCHELOR, "CARMEN" 41998 CHICAGO (T) 06/05/86 06/22/86 08/24/86 GROWING UP IN BROOKLINE MIKE WALLACE, JOHN D. SPOONER, RCHARD N. GOODWIN 42003 CHICAGO (T)
US Ashley Madison QA (NR)
U.S. Government Workers Used Cheating Website
NYC TRANSGENDER RALLY FOR ISLAN NETTLES - WABC PKG
NYC TRANSGENDER RALLY FOR ISLAN NETTLES - WABC PKG It's been six months since Islan Nettles, a 21-year-old transgender woman, was beaten to death in Harlem and still no one has been charged with her murder. The lack of progress in the case has outraged many, including Nettles' family and other LGBT communities across the country, leading them to hold a rally in Manhattan on Thursday to call for accountability in the case. The rally will be held Thursday at 4pm at One Police Plaza in New York City. The Trans Women of Color Collective of Greater New York issued the follwing press release: "We will not be silent, we will not stand by while trans youth are murdered without recourse." says Lourdes Ashley Hunter, Community Organizer & Co-Founder of Trans Women of Color Collective (TWOCC) of Greater New York. "The NYPD and the District Attorney's office must be held accountable for their biased and botched investigation of Islan Nettles' murder." Activists have raised many troubling questions about the District Attorney & NYPD's negligence and mishandling of the case: It was revealed that no DNA evidence was collected from Paris Wilson at the scene of the crime, nor were witnesses rigorously questioned. Nor has it been explained why Simone Wilson, the suspect's mother, was never held accountable for falsifying evidence when she persuaded a friend of her son to make a false confession which was later recanted. And perhaps most inexplicably, the D.A.'s office is claiming that all 10 surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the beating that lead to Islan Nettles' death were broken. "Having survived a violent assault, I know what a struggle it can be to get justice in NY. Not one of my attackers was charged - and I was almost treated by the police as though I deserved to be assaulted," says Madison St. Claire, Co-Chair of Membership for TWOCC. "Now, the same thing is happening in the Islan Nettles case - and that sends the wrong message: that trans women of color are disposable - that our lives don't matter." says Madison. "Today, we send our own message NYPD & the DA's office: TRANS LIVES MATTER! As the press release notes, there were ten surveillance cameras in the vicinity of Nettles' August beating, but officers have reportedly said that none were working. Stay tuned.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: KAVANAUGH NOMINATION: GOP ISO 1510 - 1610: KAVANAUGH TESTIFIES
1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG GOP FS1 79 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.
STARTING POINT CLEAN 7AM
Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; ENGLAND: London: INT Professor Peter Sommer (Cyber Security Expert) LIVE STUDIO interview SOT
US Ashley Madison QA (CR)
U.S. Government Workers Used Cheating Website
PEOPLE'S CHOICE AWARDS POOL FASHION CAM
Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; ENGLAND: London: Soho: EXT 'Sex and Misch' product displyed in shop window Illuminated Sex Shop sign/ Jo Hemmings (Behavioural Psychologist) interview SOT
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: KAVANAUGH NOMINATION: WITNESS ISO 1510 - 1610: KAVANAUGH TESTIFIES
1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG HEAD ON FS3 81 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.
Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; Professor Peter Sommer LIVE STUDIO interview SOT
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: KAVANAUGH NOMINATION: DEMS ISO 1510 - 1610: KAVANAUGH TESTIFIES
1450 FORD KAVANAUGH HRG DEM FS2 80 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 5) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 27, 2018 TIME: 10:00 AM LOCATION: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226 PRESIDING: Chairman Chuck Grassley AGENDA: September 17, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. September 21, 2018 POSTPONEMENT NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States scheduled to continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building has been postponed. By order of the Chairman. September 23, 2018 RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) WITNESSES: PANEL VI Professor Christine Blasey Ford, Ph.D. Palo Alto University Palo Alto, CA PANEL VII The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh Nominee to Serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Chevy Chase, MD 3:07:33 PM [Kavanaugh enters the room] Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh, we welcome you. Are you ready? I have something I want to clear up from the last meeting that doesn't affect you. So before I swear you, I would like to explain my response to senator Kennedy right after the break. At that time I entered into the record the statements of three 3 3:08:32 PM witnesses Dr. Ford said were also at the party. These statements were provided to us under penalty of felony, by if you lie to congress. As soon as my team learned the names of these three potential witnesses, we immediately reached out to them, requesting an interview. In response all three submitted statements to us denying any knowledge of the gathering Dr. Ford described. If we had calls with them, we would have invited the minority to join. Every time that we've received any information regarding judge Kavanaugh, we've sought to immediately follow through and investigate. The minority staff sat on Dr. Ford's letter for weeks and staff told us that they believed it is, quote, highly 3:09:33 PM inappropriate to have these follow-up calls before the FBI finishes its investigation, end of quote, even though the FBI had completed its background information. When we followed up with judge Kavanaugh after we received Dr. Ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. They joined other calls with the judge but they didn't participate or ask any questions. Would you please rise, si do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? Judge Kavanaugh >> I do. Sen. Grassley >> And like we offered to senator -- or to Dr. Ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement and then we'll go to questions. So proceed. 3:10:33 PM Judge Kavanaugh >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to make my statement. I wrote it myself yesterday afternoon and evening. No one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. This is my statement. Less than two weeks ago Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford's long-time friend miss Kaiser, have said they recall no such event. Her long-time friend, miss Kaiser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me 3:11:33 PM and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here is the quote from miss Kaiser's attorney's letter. Quote, simply put, miss Kaiser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and does not recall being at a party present with or without miss think about that fact. The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. In those ten long days, unfortunately and as I predicted, my family and my name have been 3:12:32 PM totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and I've cooperated fully. I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, FBI, Mon -- Montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people who have known me my whole life. Listen to the people I've grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. Listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to miss Keyser. 3:13:41 PM She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford.. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The constitution gives the senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. Since my nomination in July, there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the democratic senate leader said he would, quote, "oppose me with everything he's got." A democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those who supported me were, quote, complicit in evil. 3:14:42 PM Another democratic senator on this committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst a former head of the democratic national committee said, quote, Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. I understand the passions of the moment, but I would say to those senators your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family, to send any violent e-mail to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me and against my friends to blow me up and take me down? 3:15:43 PM You showed the wind. For decades to come I fear the whole country will reap the whirlwind. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. At least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at bourquin. Those efforts didn't work when I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation released and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford's wishes. And then -- And then as no doubt was 3:16:47 PM expected, if not planned, came a long series of false, last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on 3:17:50 PMa behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around . I am an optimistic guy. I always trying to on the sunrise side of the mountain, to be optimistic about the day that is coming. But today I have to say that I fear for the future. Last time I was here I told this committee that a federal judge 3:18:53 PM must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. I said I was such a judge and I am. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. You've tried hard. You've given it your all. No one can question your effort, but your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote but you'll never get me to quit. Never. I'm here today to tell the truth. I've never sexual assaulted anyone, not in high school, not in college, not ever. Sexual assault is horrific. One of my closest friends to this day is a woman who was 3:19:15 PM sexually abused and who in the 1990s when we were in our 30s confided in me about the abuse and sought my advice. I was one of the only people she consulted. Allegations of sexual assault must always be taken seriously, always. Those who make allegations always deserve to be heard. At the same time, the person who is the subject of the allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law. Due process means listening to both sides. As I told you at my hearing three weeks ago, I'm the only child of Martha and Ed Kavanaugh. They are here today. When I was 10, my mom went to law school and as a lawyer she 3:20:55 PM worked hard and overcame barriers, including the workplace sexual harassment that so many women faced at the time and still face today. She became a trail blazer, one of Maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. She and my dad taught me the importance of equality and respect for all people and she inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge. Last time I was here I told you that when my mom was a prosecutor and I was in high school, she used to practice her closing arguments at the dining room table on my dad and me. As I told you, her trademark line was "Use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false. Her trademark line is a good reminder as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred, when there is no 3:21:56 PM corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there. After I have been in the public arena for 26 years without even a hint, a whiff of an allegation like this and when my nomination to the supreme court was just about to be voted on at a time when I'm called evil by a democratic member of this committee, while democratic opponents of my nomination say people will die if I am confirmed. This onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true. I'm not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done this to her or to anyone. That's not who I am. It is not who I was. I am innocent of this charge. 3:23:00 PM I intend no ill will to Dr. Ford and her family. The other night Ashley and my daughter liza said their prayers and little liza all of ten years old said to Ashley, we should pray for the woman. (chokes up) That's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. We mean no ill will. First let's start with my career. For the last 26 years, since 1992, I've served in many high-profile and sensitive government positions, for which the FBI has investigated my 3:24:01 PM background six separate times. Six separate FBI background investigations over 26 years. All of them after the event alleged here. I have been in the public arena and under extreme public scrutiny for decades. In 1992 I worked for the office of solicitor general in the department of justice. In 1993 I clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy. I spent four years at the independent counsel's office during the 1990s. That office was the subject of enormous scrutiny from the media and the public. During 1998, the year of the impeachment of president Clinton, our office generally and I personally were in the middle of an intense national media and political spotlight. I and other leading members of can Starr's office were 3:25:00 PM opposition research from head to toe, from birth to the present day. Recall the people who were exposed that year of 1998 as having engaged in some sexual wrongdoing or indiscretions in their past. One person on the left even paid a million dollars for people who report evidence of sexual wrongdoing and it worked. Exposed some prominent people. Nothing about me. From 2001 to 2006 I worked for president George W. Bush in the white house. As staff secretary I was by President Bush's side for three years and was entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets. I traveled on air force one all over the country and the world with president Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham palace to the Vatican. Three years in the west wing, 3:26:04 PM five and a half years in the white house. I was then nominated to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. I was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the FBI, the American bar Association and this committee. I sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. For the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job, I've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. I've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting the lives and liberties of the American people. I have been a good judge. And for this nomination, another FBI background investigation, another American bar association investigation, 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1,200 written questions, more 3:27:06 PM than all previous supreme court nominees combined. Throughout that entire time, throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct. No one. Ever. A lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of high-profile public service, at the highest levels of American government and never a hint of anything of this kind. And that's because nothing of this kind ever happened. Second, let's turn to specifics. I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind 3:28:03 PM with Dr. Ford. I never attended a gathering like the once Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I've never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone. Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexual assaulted by some person in some place at some time, but I have never done that to her or to anyone. Dr. Ford's allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old between my Junior and Senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous, all boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girl high schools: Stone ridge, Holy 3:29:09 PM Child, Visitation, Emaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever and my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee 3:30:08 PM under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this. Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted. Third, Dr. Ford has said that this event occurred at a house near Columbia country club, which is at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and the east/west highway in Chevy Chase, Maryland. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said there were four other people at the house, but none of those people nor I lived near Columbia country club. As of the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford was 15 and could not drive yet. And she did not live near Columbia Country Club. She says confidently that she had one beer at the party but she does 3:31:13 PM not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was. Fourth, I've submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy to put it mildly. 3:32:14 PM Christmas time we sit around and he would regale us with old stories, milestones, old wed willings, old events from his calendars. In ninth grade -- in ninth grade in 1980 I started keeping calendars of my own, for me also it's both a calendar and a diary. I've kept such calendars and diaries for the last 38 years. Mine are not as good as my dad's in some years and when I was a kid, the calendars are about what you would expect from a kid, some goofy parts, some embarrassing parts, but I did have the summer of 1982 3:33:15 PM documented pretty well. The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the Summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes presumably happened on a weekend. If it was a weekend, my calendars show that I was out of town almost every weekend night before football training camp started in late August. The only weekend nights that I was in D.C. were Friday, June 4, when I was with my dad at a pro golf tournament. And had my high school achievement test at 8:30 the next morning. I also was in D.C. On Saturday 3:34:16 PM night August 7th, but I was at a small gathering at Becky's house in rockville with Matt, Denise, Lori and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won't use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrett's with Pat and Chris as we did final preparations for football training camp that began on Sunday the 22nd. As the calendars confirm, that weekend before a brutal football training camp schedule was no time for parties. So let me emphasize this point. If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there. During the weekdays in the 3:35:16 PM summer of 1982, as you can see, I was out of town for two weeks of the summer for a trip to the beach with friends and at the legendary five-star basketball camp in Holmesdale, Pennsylvania. When I was in town, I spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends as we talked about life and football and school and girls. Some have noticed that I didn't have church on Sundays on my calendars. I also didn't list brushing my teeth, and for me, going to church on Sundays was like brushing my teeth, automatic. Still is. In the summer of 1981 I had worked construction. 3:36:16 PM In the summer of 1982 my job was cutting lawns. I had my own business of sorts. You see some specifics about the lawn cutting listed on the August calendar page when I had to time the last lawn cuttings of the summer of various lawns before football training camp. I played in a lot of summer league basketball games for the Georgetown prep team at night at Blair high school in silver spring many nights I worked out with other guys at Tobin's house. He was the great quarterback on our football team, and his dad ran workouts. Or lifted weight at Georgetown prep in preparation for the football season. I attended and watched many 3:37:17 PM sporting events, as is my habit to this day. The calendar shows a few gatherings at friends but none of those gatherings include the group of people Dr. Ford has I've had. As my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there, very precise. Keep in mind my calendars also were diaries of sorts, forward looking and backward looking, just like my dad's. You can see, for example, I crossed O missed workouts and the cancelled doctor appointments and that I listed the precise people who had shown up for certain events. The calendars are obviously not dispositive on their own, but they are another piece of evidence in the mix for you to consider. 3:38:10 PM >> Fifth, Dr. Ford's allegation is radically inconsistent with my record and my character from my youth to the present day. As students at an all-boys catholic jesuit school, many of us became friends and remain friends to this day with students at local catholic all-girls schools. One feature of my life that has remained true to the present day is that I've always had a lot of close female friends. I'm not talking about girl friends. I'm talking about friends who are women. That started in high school. Maybe it was because I'm an only child and had no sisters. But anyway, we had no social media or text or e-mail and we talked on the phone. I remember talking almost every night it seems to my friends Amy 3:39:23 PM or Julie or Kristen or Karen or Suzanne or Mora or Megan or Nikki. The list goes on. Friends for a lifetime built on a foundation of talking through school and life starting at age 14. Several of those great women are in the seats right behind me my friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexual assaulted anyone. 3:40:26 PM There is a bright line between drinking beer, which I gladly do and which I fully embrace, and sexual assaulting someone, which is a violent crime. If every American who drinks beer or every American who drank beer in high school is suddenly presumed guilty of sexual assault, it will be an ugly new place in this country. I never committed sexual assault. As high school students, we sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we're alone in looking back at high school and cringing at some things. For one thing, our year book was a disaster. I think some editors and students wanted the year book to be some combination of "Animal House", Caddie Shack" and "Fast times at Ridgemont High," which 3:41:25 PM were all movies in that time. Many of us went along with the year books at times to the point of absurdity. This past week my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other. One thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would admire and went to 3:42:37 PM dances with had her name used on n the yearbook page with the term alumnus. But in this circus, the media has determined the team was related to sex. It was not related to sex. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that year book reference. This may sound a bit trivial given all that we are here for, but one thing I want to try to make sure of in the future is my friendship with her. She was and is a great person. As to sex, this is not a topic I 3:43:35 PM er imagined would come up at a judicial confirmation hearing. But I want to give a full picture of who I was. I never had sexual intercourse or anything clo to it during high school or for many years after that. In some crowds I was probably a little outwardly shy about my inexperience. I tried to hide that. At the same time I was also inwardly proud of it. For me and the girls who I was friends with, that lack of major or rampant sexual activity in high school was a matter of faith and respect and caution. The committee has a letter from 65 women who knew me in high school. They said that I always treated 3:44:35 PM them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night 35 years after graduation while a sexual assault allegation was pending against me in a very fraught and public situation where they knew -- they knew they'd be vilified if they defended me. Think about that. They put themselves on the line for me. Those are some awesome women and I love all of them. You also have a letter from women who knew me in college. Most were varsity athletes. They described that I treated them as friends and equals and supported them in their sports at a time when women's sports 3:45:37 PM was emerging in the wake of title 9. I thank all of them for all of their texts and their e-mails and their support. One of those women friends from college, a self-described liberal and feminist sent me a text last night that said, quote, "deep breaths, you're a good man, a good man, a good man." A text yesterday from another one of those good women friends from college that said, quote, "Brett be strong, pulling for you from my core." A third text yesterday from yet another of those women I'm friends with from college said, "I'm holding you in the light of God. 3:46:40 PM As I said in my opening statement the last time I was with you, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. I felt that love more over the last two weeks than I ever have in my life. I thank all my friends. I love all my friends. Throughout my life I've devoted huge efforts to encouraging and promoting the careers of women. I will put my record up against anyone's, male or female. I am proud of the letter from 84 women. 84 women who worked with me at the bush White House from 2001 to 2006 and described me as, quote, "a man of the highest integrity." Read the op-ed from Sarah Day from Yarmouth, Maine. 3:47:39 PM She worked in Oval Office Operations outside of President Bush's office. Here's what she recently wrote in centralmaine.com and today she stands by her comments. Quote, "Brett was an advocate for young women like me. He encouraged me to take on more responsibility and to feel confident in my role. In fact, during the 2004 Republican National Convention, Brett gave me the opportunity to help with the preparation and review of the President's remarks, something I never -- something I never would have had the chance to do if he had not included me. And he didn't just include me in the work, he made sure I was at Madison Square garden to watch the President's speech instead of back at the hotel to watch it on TV." end quote. 3:48:39 PM As a judge since 2006, I've had the privilege of hiring four recent law school graduates to serve as my law clerks each year. The law clerks for federal judges are the best and brightest graduates of American law schools. They work for one-year terms for judges after law school and then they move on in their careers. For judges, training these young lawyers is an important responsibility. The clerks will become the next generation of American lawyers and leaders, judges and senators. Just after I took the bench in 2006, there was a major "New York Times" story about the low number of women law clerks at the supreme court and Federal appeals courts. I took notice and I took action. A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been 3:49:41 PM women. In a letter to this committee, my women law clerks said I was one of the strongest advocates in the Federal Judiciary for women lawyers. They wrote that the legal profession is fairer and more equal because of me. In my time on the bench, no federal judge, not a single one in the country, has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the supreme court than I have. Before this allegation arose two weeks ago, I was required to start making certain administrative preparations for my possible transfer to the supreme court, just in case I was confirmed. As part of that I had to, in essence, contingently hire a first group of four law clerks who could be available to clerk at the supreme court for me on a moment's notice. I did so and contingently hired 3:50:44 PM four law clerks. All four are women. If confirmed, I'll be the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all women law clerks. That is who I am. That is who I was. Over the past 12 years I've taught constitutional law to hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard law school. I was hired by then Dean and now Justice Elana Kagan. One of my former women students, a Democrat, testified to this committee that I was an even-handed professor who treats people fairly and with respect. In a letter to this committee, my former students, male and female alike, wrote that I displayed a character that impressed us all. I love teaching law, but thanks 3:51:46 PM to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again. For the past seven years I've coached my two daughters' basketball teams. You saw many of those girls when they came to my hearing for a couple of hours. You have a letter from the parents of the girls I coached that describe my dedication, commitment and character. I coach because I know that a girls' confidence on the basketball court translates into confidence in other aspects of life. I love coaching more than anything I've ever done in my whole life, but thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to coach again. 3:52:48 PM I've been a judge for 12 years. I have a long record of service to America and to the constitution. I revere the constitution. I am deeply grateful to President Trump for nominating me. He was so gracious to my family and me on the July night he announced my nomination at the White House. I thank him for his steadfast support. When I accepted the President's nomination, Ashley and I knew this process would be challenging. We never expected that it would devolve into this. Explaining this to our daughters has been about the worst experience of our lives. Ashley has been a rock. I thank god every day for Ashley and my family. 3:53:53 PM We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a person's life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system and our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father, your husband, your brother or your son. My family and I intend no ill 3:54:50 PM will towards Dr. Ford or her family. And I swear today under oath before the Senate and the Nation, before my family and god, I am innocent of this charge. Sen. Grassley >> Thank you, Judge Kavanaugh. Before we start questions, I won't repeat what I said this morning, but we'll do it the same way as we did for Dr. Ford in five-minute rounds, and so we will start with Ms. Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Good afternoon, judge Kavanaugh. We have not met. My name is Rachel Mitchell. I would like to go over a couple of guidelines for our question and answer session today. If I ask a question -- 3:55:57 PM Kavanaugh >> Yeah, I'm ready. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Rachel Mitchell >> Thank you. Rachel Mitchell >> If I ask a question -- If I ask a question that you do not understand, please ask me to clarify it or ask it in a different way. I may ask a question where I incorporate some information you've already provided. If I get it wrong, please correct me. I'm not going to ask you to guess. If you do estimate, please let me know you're estimating. I want to make sure that all of the committee members have gotten a copy of the definition of sexual behavior. Sen. Grassley >> Yes. At least I have one. >> I don't. >> We all do. Rachel Mitchell >> And you have that as well? Judge Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh >> Yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. First of all, have you been given or reviewed a copy of the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anyone told you the questions that I will be asking you? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want you to take a moment to review the definition that's before you of sexual 3:56:55 PM behavior. Have you had a chance to review it? Kavanaugh >> I have. I may refer back to it if I can. Rachel Mitchell >> Yes, please. I would like to point out two specific parts. Among the examples of sexual behavior, it includes rubbing or grinding your genitals against somebody clothed or unclothed, and I would also point out that the definition applies whether or not the acts were sexually motivated objection for example, horse play. Do you understand the definition I've given you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> And, again, if at any time you need to review that, please -- please let me know. Dr. Ford has stated that somewhere between five or six people were present at the gathering on this date. You, Mark Judge, Leland Ingham or the time or Leland Keyser now, Patrick P.J. Smith, 3:58:27 PM Dr. Ford and an unnamed boy. Do you know Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> How do you know him? Kavanaugh >> He was a friend at Georgetown Prep starting in ninth grade. He's a -- uh.. someone in our, you know, group of friends. We were a very friendly group in class. You saw the letter that's been sent by my friends from Georgetown Prep. Funny guy. Great writer. Popular. Developed a serious addiction problem that lasted decades, near death a couple of times from his addiction, suffered tremendously from -- Rachel Mitchell >> What is your relationship with him like now? 3:59:29 PM Kavanaugh >> I haven't talked to him in a couple of years. We've probably been on mass e-mails or group e-mails that go around among my high school friends. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. And how did you know Patrick Smith? Kavanaugh >> Also ninth grade. Georgetown Prep. Went by P.J. Then. He and I lived close to one another, played football together. He was defensive tackle. I was a cornerback and receiver. We carpooled to school along with D. Davis. Every year, the three of us for two years. I didn't have a car. So one of the two of them would drive every day, and I would be in -- you know, they would pick me up. Rachel Mitchell >> What's your relationship like with him now? >> He lives in the area. I see him once in a while. I haven't seen him since this -- this thing. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Kavanaugh >> Do you know Leland Ingham or 4:00:31 PM Rachel Mitchell Leland Keyser? Kavanaugh >> I know of her. It's possible I, you know, saw or met her in high school at some point at some event Yeah I know her -- I know of her, and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with 4:00:48 PM her in high school. Rachel Mitchell >> Similar to your statements about knowing Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> Correct. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Sen. Grassley >> Senator Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein >> Judge Kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick, is that correct? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Sen. Feinstein >> All three of these women have asked the FBI to investigate their claims. I listened carefully to what you said. Your concern is evident and clear, and if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the FBI to investigate these claims. Kavanaugh >> Senator, I'll do whatever the committee wants. I wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. I wanted to be here that day. 4:01:50 PM Instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that I'm in gangs, I'm boats in Rhode Island. I'm in Colorado, you know, I'm cited all over the place, and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. You know, I wanted a hearing the next day. My family's been destroyed by this, senator. Destroyed. >> And I'm -- and -- Kavanaugh >> And whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know. I'm -- I'm all in. Sen. Feinstein The question is -- Kavanaugh Immediately. I'm all in immediately. Sen. Feinstein >> And the terrible and hard part of this is when we get an allegation we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. Therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. And it would just seem to me then when these allegations came forward that you would want the FBI to investigate those claims 4:02:51 PM and clear it up once and for all. Kavanaugh >> Senator, the committee investigates. It's not for me to say how to do it. But just so you know, the FBI doesn't reach a conclusion. They would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. So I'm here. I wanted to be -- I wanted to be here the next day. It's an outrage that I was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say I didn't do this and give you all this evidence. I'm not even -- I'm not even in D.C. On the weekends in the summer of 1982. This happened on a weekday, I'm not at high school for a summer league game -- I'm not at Tobin's house working out, not at a movie with Suzanne. You know I wanted to be here right away. Sen. Feinstein >> Well, the difficult thing is -- these -- these hearings 4:03:49 PM are set and -- set by the majority, but I'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at and I don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the FBI isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts, so all we have -- Kavanaugh >> You're interviewing me. You're interviewing me. You're doing it, senator. I'm sorry to interrupt. But you're doing it. There's no conclusions reached. Sen. Feinstein >> And what you're saying if I understand it is that the allegations by Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnick are wrong. Kavanaugh >> That is -- that is emphatically what I'm saying, emphatically. The Swetnick thing is a joke. 4:04:48 PM That is a farce. Sen. Feinstein >> Would you like to say more about it? Kavanaugh >> No. Sen. Feinstein >> Okay. >> That's it, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years? Kavanaugh >> Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls, yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age as I noted was 18 so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school people were legal to drink, and, yeah, we drank beer and I said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had team beers. We drink beer. We liked beer. Rachel Mitchell >> What do you consider to be too many beers? Kavanaugh >> I don't know. You know, we -- whatever the 4:05:50 PM chart says, blood-alcohol chart. Rachel Mitchell >> When you talked to Fox News the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you? Kavanaugh >> Sure. Rachel Mitchell >> Okay. Have you ever passed out from drinking? Kavanaugh >> Passed out would be -- no, but I've gone to sleep, but I've never blacked out, that's the allegation and -- and that -- that's wrong. Rachel Mitchell >> So let's talk about your time in high school. In high school after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going Kavanaugh >> No. No. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? Kavanaugh >> No, no. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you ever tell -- did 4:06:53 PM anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? Kavanaugh >> No. We drank beer and did I think the vast majority of our age at the time but in any event we drank beer and -- and still do, so whatever -- yeah. Rachel Mitchell >> During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smith and Leland Ingham also were present as well as an unknown male and that the people were drinking to varying 4:07:54 PM Degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? Kavanaugh >> No, as I've said in my opening statements, opening statement. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and Mark Judge. Have you ever been alone in a room with Dr. Ford and Mark Judge? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. Have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. Have you ever covered Dr. Ford's mouth with your hand? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Dr. Ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. Have you ever tried to remove her clothes? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Referring back to the definition of sexual behavior that I have given you, have you ever at any time engaged in sexual behavior with Dr. Ford? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Have you ever engaged in 4:08:55 PM sexual behavior with Dr. Ford, even if it was consensual? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the written calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you? Kavanaugh >> I do. Rachel Mitchell >> Did you create these calendars in the sense of all the handwriting that's on them? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >> Is it exclusively your handwriting? Kavanaugh >> Yes. Rachel Mitchell >>When did you make these entries? Kavanaugh >> In 1982. Rachel Mitchell >> Has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? Kavanaugh >> No. Rachel Mitchell >> Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document, in other words, prospectively. Kavanaugh >> Right. Rachel Mitchell >> Or do they document what actually occurred more like a diary? 4:09:57 PM Kavanaugh >> They are both forward looking and backward looking. As you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor's appointments that didn't happen or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out because I obviously didn't make it that night, so you can see things that I didn't do. I crossed out in retrospect, and also when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward looking. Rachel Mitchell >> You explained that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. Kavanaugh >> Mm-hmm. Rachel Mitchell >> That's why you kept them, in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time? Kavanaugh >> Well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so I -- he's a good role model. Sen. Grassley >> Miss Mitchell. You'll have to stop. Rachel Mitchell >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sen. Grassley >> Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a a 15-minute break.
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION - COMMITTEE ISO 1145 - 1250
1145 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 89 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH 11:45:14 AM his outstanding records so many our colleagues across the aisle have announced their opposition even before he was nominated. The level of disingenuousness and hyperbole even by today's standards is extraordinary. Members from the other side of the aisle including some who serve on this committee have claimed that confirming judge Kavanaugh would somehow be complicit in evil and the result in the destruction of the constitution. Some have even claimed that you testified falsely. We've already heard that alluded to before the committee when you were serving our country in the bush white house. I hope you'll have a chance to explain the apparent misunderstanding on the part of some senators. And I sincerely hope this week we can all take a deep breath. We're not doing very well so far and get a grip and treat this process with the respect and 11:46:17 AM gravity it demands. The American bar association which some have called the gold standard for judicial evaluations have unanimously rated you as well-qualified for service on the supreme court and as we've heard a number of lawyers and judges across the spectrum have talked about your qualifications and sung your praises and I'm confident at the end of this hearing your stellar credentials and body of work as a judge will demonstrate that you properly understand the role of a judge under the constitution and I'm confident you will demonstrate that you will faithfully and fairly interpret the text of the law and the constitution and dutifully apply them to the disputes that come before you. I expect we'll have a conversation or two about this book which you contributed to and the law of judicial precedent because I know that there's a number of questions by members of the senate about how you will regard previously 11:47:17 AM decided cases in the supreme court and I trust you'll give us a scholarly and detailed explanation of that and demonstrate that many of the concerns expressed about the new justice coming on the court somehow wiping away previous decisions single handily not even with the help of other members of the court is just plain ridiculous and we look forward to asking those questions and getting your answer. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY >> Senator Durbin? DURBIN >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh, it's good to see you again. I thank the members of your family who are weathering this hearing. Thank you very much for being here today. This is a different hearing for the supreme court than I've ever been through. It's different in what's happened in this room just this morning. What we've heard is the noise of democracy. This is what happens in a free country when people can stand up and speak and not be jailed, 11:48:20 AM imprisoned, tortured or killed because of it. It is not mob rule. There have been times when it is uncomfortable, I'm sure it was for your children. I hope you can explain this to them at some point, but it does represent what we are about in this democracy. Why is this happening for the first time in the history of this committee? I think we need to be honest about why its happening. I think its the same reason why when I go home to Illinois after being in this public service job for over 30 years I hear a question that I've never ever heard before repeatedly as people pull me off to the side and say, senator, are we going to be all right? Is America going to be all right? They're genuinely concerned about the future of this country. You come to this moment of history in a rare situation. You are aspiring to be the most decisive vote on the supreme 11:49:21 AM court on critical issues, justice Kennedy did that for 12 years and you are called to that responsibility and we realize the gravity of that opportunity and that responsibility. Secondly, of course, your record and the statements of others suggest there's real genuine concern about changing life and death values in this country because you see things differently. We've heard that over and over again and I think you must understand the depth of feeling about that possibility and third, try as they might, I'm afraid the majority just can't get beyond the fact that there are parts of your public life that they want to conceal. They don't want America to see them. I think that's a serious mistake and I'm going to I think that's a serious mistake, and I'm going to make a suggestion at the end of my remarks. Over and above all those things 11:50:22 AM are this. You are the nominee of president Donald John trump. This is a president who's shown us consistently he's contemptuous of the rule of law. He's said and done things as president which we've never seen before in history. He dismissed the head of the FBI when he wouldn't bend to his will. He harasses his attorney general on almost a daily basis in the exercise of his office, and I didn't vote for Jeff sessions, but I have to tell you there should be some respect at least for the office he serves in. And it's that president who's decided you are his man. You're the person he wants on the supreme court. You are his personal choice. So are people nervous about this? Are they concerned about it? Of course they are. I'm sure there will be a shower of tweets sometime later in the day. Harassing people on the cabinet, people in the white house, maybe dismissing them. And maybe he'll go after me 11:51:22 AM again. Be my guest. But the point I'm getting to is if you wonder why this reaction is taking place, because what's happening in this country, there are many of us concerned about the future of this country and the future of democracy. And you are asking for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land where you will make decisions, the deciding vote on things that'll decide the course of history and where we are headed. The senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate your nomination. We do know that before you became a judge, you were faithfully advancing the Republican party agenda. I jokingly said in one of your previous appearances that you're like the forest gump of Republican politics. You always show up in the picture. Whether it's the Ken Starr investigation, bush versus gore, the bush white house, you've been there. We also know that before naming you, president trump made it clear that he would appoint justices, only appoint justices 11:52:23 AM to the supreme court who would overturn roe versus wade and the affordable care act. Those were his litmus tests. Now, he didn't ask the question. What he did was to delegate this responsibility to two special interest groups, the federalist society and the heritage foundation. The other groups that are spending millions of dollars in support of your candidacy, they're confident you're going to favor the interest of corporations over workers and give the president wide berth when it comes to executive authority. And your own law clerks, men and women you chose, men and women who wrote the words that had your signature at the bottom of the page, have told us what they think of you. One wrote in an article entitled, quote, Brett Kavanaugh said Obamacare was unprecedented, unlawful. That's from one of your clerks. Another wrote, when it comes to, quote, enforcing restrictions on abortion, no court of appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record than judge Brett Kavanaugh. Big corporate interests solidly behind your nomination, chamber 11:53:23 AM of commerce, full support, and president trump, whose lawyers say they will fight any effort to subpoena or indict him all the way to the supreme court, that president seems personally eager to have you confirmed as quickly as possible. Why are your supporters so confident you'll rule on these issues as they wish? Why do they think you're such a sure bet to take their side? In the words of one of your former clerks, this is no time for a gamble. Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to tell us much this week. It's interesting to me that people in your position write all these law review articles, make all these speeches, and come to this room and clam up. Don't want to talk about any issues, but that's what I expect. Instead, we'll be asked to trust that if you're confirmed, you'll have an open mind, that you'll follow the law, rather than move the law in the direction of your views. I'd like to trust you, but I agree with president Ronald Reagan. Trust but verify. I wanted to trust you the last time you testified before this 11:54:23 AM committee in 2006, but after you were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, reports surfaced that contradicted your sworn testimony before this committee. You said to me unambiguously under oath the following, I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants. But later, just a week or so ago, you acknowledged to my office you were involved. For 12 years, you could have apologized and corrected this record, but you never did. Instead, you and your supporters have argued we should ignore that simple declarative sentence which you spoke and how conclude your words mean something far different. You are committed textualist, judge Kavanaugh. If you're going to hold others accountable for their words, you should be held accountable for your own word. After my personal experience, I start these hearings with a question about your credibility as a witness. I know from my history with you the things you said need to be carefully verified. That brings us to a major 11:56:26 AM passed. The bush administration did everything in its power to stop John McCain's torture amendment. Then after we passed it 90-9, a veto-proof margin, president bush issued a signing statement asserting his right to ignore the law that John McCain had just passed in congress. When we met in my office, you acknowledged you worked on that signing statement. Yet, we've been denied any documents disclosing your role or your advice to president bush. I asked you if you wrote, edited, or approved documents. Time and again you said, I can't rule it out. Judge Kavanaugh, America needs to see those documents. We cannot carefully review, advise, and decide whether to consent to your nomination without clarity on the record. The period of time when you worked in the Republican white house led to a change in position on an issue which we have to address directly. Your views on executive power and accountability have changed dramatically. 11:57:27 AM When you worked for special counsel Ken Starr in the late 1990s, you called him, quote, an American hero for investigating president Bill Clinton. And you personally urged Starr to be aggressive, confrontational, and even graphic in his questions. We've seen your memo on that one. But a few years later after working in the Republican white house, you totally reversed your position and argued the president should be above the law and granted a free pass from investigation while in office. What did you see in that bush white house that dramatically changed your view? What are your views about presidential accountability today? Judge Kavanaugh, at this moment in our nation's history with authoritarian forces threatening our democracy, with the campaign and administration of this president under federal criminal investigation, we need a direct credible answer from you. Is this president or any president above the law? Equally important, can this president ignore the constitution and the exercise of 11:58:28 AM his authority? You dissented in the seven sky case when the D.C. Circuit upheld the affordable care act's constitutionality. You criticized the law, a law this president has said many times he wants to ignore and abolish. You said, quote, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems -- when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. This statement by you flies in the face. It gives license to this president, Donald John trump, or any president who chooses to ignore the constitution, to assert authority far beyond that envisioned by our founding fathers. There are many people who are watching carefully. I'm going to make a suggestion to you today, and it won't be popular on either side of the aisle. If you believe that your public record is one that you can stand behind and defend, I hope that 11:59:30 AM at the end of this, you will ask this committee to suspend until we are given all the documents, until we have the time to review them. And then we resume this hearing. What I'm saying to you is basically this. If you will trust the American people, they will trust you. But if your effort today continues to conceal and hide documents, it raises a suspicion. I'll close, Mr. Chairman. I know you're anxious. When I was a practicing lawyer a long time ago in trial, and the other side either destroyed or concealed evidence, I knew that I was going to be able to have a convincing argument to close that case. What were they hiding? Why won't they let you see a speed tape on that train or the documents they just can't find? You know that presumption now is against you because of all the documents held back. (12:00:15) For the sake of this nation, the sanctity of the constitution that we both honor, step up, ask this gathering to suspend until all the documents of your public career are there for the American people to see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SWITCH TO FOX CC MIKE LEE >> You might think you also, Ashley and Margaret and Eliza for being here. I'm going to start by saying, the fact that there is so much angst over a single nominee, a single judicial nominee tells you everything you need to know about why it is that we need judges now more than ever were willing to read the law and interpret based on what the law says based on the basis of something else. It also tells you more than anything else you could need to 12:01:17 PM know about the need to restore a discussion of civics in this country, to restore a discussion about federalism and separation of powers. Where power is concentrated and where it shouldn't be. What the role of each branch of the federal government is and is not. Many of the comments, many of the outburst we've had today suggest that we need to return to some of those fundamental principles that I don't care whether you liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican or something in between. These principles apply and principles that I think we would do well to restore and focus on once again. If ever to return to an air of civility, we will return to that era on the basis of those foundational structural principles within our constitution. Over the next few days, a few members of this committee are going to ask you a few questions on cases that you've handled as a lawyer, cases that you've 12:02:17 PM decided as a judge, about your record, about your qualifications. On that point about your record in your qualifications, this suggestion that you misled this committee at any point in your previous hearings is absurd and the absurdity of that suggestion will be brought out in the coming days, I am certain of it. Some of the questions that will be asked about you will in fact be fair and others will be unfair. I think it's important for us to acknowledge that at the outset. You look back at history, answering these kinds of questions, this is sort of how the practice of holding these hearings began so the senators could ask nominees how they might vote, how they might rule in particular cases. But this didn't always happen. In fact, it wasn't until 1916 that this even started. 12:03:20 PM There have been 113 justices confirmed to the supreme court so far, the first 66 were confirmed without even holding a hearing. The idea of a hearing is relatively new, about 102 years old, we went from between 125 and 135 years under a constitutional republic without ever a hearing but regardless, we started having hearings just over a century ago. The first supreme court nomination hearing occurred in 1960. Some called for hearing freedom if we are honest with ourselves, honest about history, I think a lot of this might have to do with some sentiment and that he was jewish. But they wanted to determine whether he would use his seat on the supreme court to advocate for some of the things that he had advocated for as a private 12:04:21 PM citizen, as a public interest attorney. They wanted to know how he might vote in particular cases. They didn't ask him to testify significantly, but they did in fact asked that Mike asked some outside witnesses what they thought about his nomination. The next important moment one could argue occurred in 1939 when Felix frankfurter became the first nominee to himself testify before the committee. He was controversial in part because he was born overseas but senators also worried that he was a radical based on his defense of anarchists in court. Again, senators wanted to share emphasis about how he might rule in particular cases and in particular, what results he might reach in a particular type of case. 12:05:21 PM He significantly declined to engage with senators on those topics and incentives that his public record spoke for itself. His nomination in 1959 was another turning point. Senators seeking to resist brown versus board of education, wanted to grill Stewart on his views on integration. Others still wanted to grill Stewart on his views on national security. So senators turned up the heat a little bit more in that hearing, like frankfurter before him, just a Stuart did not provide substantive answers to the questions. When they wanted to know how he might rule in particular cases, he appropriately declined. Just as his predecessors had. 28 years later, 28 years after justice Stewart came through this committee, the senate considered Robert bork's confirmation. In my view, it remains something 12:06:22 PM of a rock-bottom moment for the senate. Without getting into the gory details here, I think it suffices to say that senator Ted Kennedy and judge bork did not agree on certain matters of constitutional law. And Kennedy's response was to savage unfairly, in my opinion, the results that judge bork would reach if confirmed to the court. History shows over the better part of a century, they've gradually created something of a new norm, a norm in which nominees demand that they speak about specific cases in return for favorable treatment from the committee as a jurist are going through this process. Nominees for the most part have have gracefully resisted confirmation in exchange for promises about how they will vote in particular cases. To give two famous examples, justice Scalia refused to say whether marbury v. Madison was settled law on the ground it could come before him and sure enough in Ortiz visit united States, they implicated the scope of mar bury. Likewise, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had no previews, no forecasts, no hints. Every current member of the supreme court has adhered to a similar principal of what we might call the Ginsburg standard. Even though nominees have not caved to the pressure, I still 12:08:14 PM believe that there is some aspects of the senate's approach here that might do it disservice to the country and might be frowned upon by future historians. If senators ask about outcomes, the public will be more sbiltsd or at least more inclined to think judges are supposed to be outcome mind and the whole approach is to judging and supposed to be what judging is about. This undermines the very legitimacy of the courts themselves. The injury legitimacy of the tribunal you have been nominated by the president to serve on. No free people would accept a judiciary that imposes its own policy preferences on the country, absent fidelity to legal principal. There is a better way for the senate to approach its work. This process, in my opinion, should be about your 12:09:15 PM qualifications about your character and most importantly about your approach to judging. Your own view about the role of the federal judiciary. It should not be about results in a select number of cases. Now, you are obviously exceptionally well qualified. Even your staunchest critics would not claim ourselves. Your experience as a practicing lawyer and your experience in government and 12 years of experience sitting on what many refer to as the second highest court in the land, the U.S. Cower of appeals for the D.C. Circuit. You are independent and have written that some of the greatest mosts in American judicial history have been when judges too up to the other branches. You said that judges cannot be buffaloed, influenced or pressured into worrying too much about transient popularity when we are trying to decide a case. 12:10:17 PM One of the most important duties of a judge is to stand up for the unpopular party who has the correct position. And you have lived up to your words during your time on the bench. Everyone knows that you served in the bush administration. And yet when you became a judge, in only two years, you ruled against the bush administration a total of eight times. For you it simply doesn't matter who the parties are. It simply doesn't matter that you may have worked for an administration before you became a judge. The only thing that matters is your commitment to correctly applying the law to the facts of any particular case. As far as your approach to judging, you have appropriate respect for precedent. You co authored an 800 page book that among other things explain 12:11:17 PM that is a change in a court's membership alone should not throw former decisions open to reconsideration or justify their reversal. You explained that for precedent to be overruled, it must not be just wrong, but a case with serious practical consequences. You voted to overturn circuit precedent only four times during your time on the D.C. Circuit and each of those cases involved a unanimous decision reached by your colleagues and you followed abiding precedent if you believed that binding precedent was wrongly decided. You decided cases based on legal merits and not the identity of the parties and certainly not based on any political beliefs that you may harbor. We have already heard that your nomination will somehow be bad for women, for the environment, 12:12:18 PM for labor unions, for civil rights and a host of other things that Americans hold near and dear. I have a laundry list of cases for which people in each of those groups, but there is a more fundamental point that needs to be made. The judiciary's decisions are legitimate. Only to the extent that they are based on sound legal principal and reasoning. And ruling for a preferred party is not itself a sound legal principal. It's quite to the contrary. Jury rigging decisions and backfilling legal reasoning to reach a particular result, a particularly politically acceptable result in a particular case. No matter how desirable that result might be in the instance is not a legitimate mode of judicial decision making and no free people purporting to have 12:13:18 PM an independent judiciary should ever be willing to settle for that. My plea to my colleagues today is we ask judge car gnaw hard questions. I believe we are required to do so. The senate is not and never should be a rubber stamp when it comes to issuing lifetime appointments, each lifetime appointments on the highest court in the land. If you disagree with an opinion he's written, make a legal argument as to that issue. Explain why you think it's wrong. Don't complain about the results. As if the result itself is proof that he's wrong when you separate out the result from the legal analysis. From the faxes and how they interact with the law in that particular case. Don't ask him to make promises about outcomes in particular cases. If it's unacceptable for the 12:14:19 PM president to impose a litmus test, it is surely unacceptable for the United States senate to do so. Judge Kavanaugh, I look forward to your testimony and I'm grateful to you and your willingness to serve our country and be considered for this important role. >> Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When is pattern evidence of bias? In court, pattern is evidence of bias all the time. Evidence on which juries and trial judges rely to show discriminatory intent, to show a common scheme, to show bias. When does a pattern prove bias? I wish this were an idle 12:15:20 PM question. It's relevant to the pattern of the Roberts court when its Republican majority goes off on partisan excursions through the civil law. That is when all five Republican appointees, the Roberts five we can call them, go raiding off together and no democratic appointee joins them. Does this happen often? The Roberts five has gone on almost 80 of these partisan excursions since Roberts became chief. That's a lot of times. And there is a feature to these 80 cases. They almost all implicate interests important to the big funders and influencers of the Republican party. When the Republican justices go 12:16:21 PM off on these five justice partisan excursions, there is a big Republican corporate or partisan interest involved 92% of the time. The tiny handful of these cases that don't implicate an interest of the big Republican influencers is so flukishly few, we can set them aside. Let's look at the 73 cases that all implicate a major Republican party interest. Again, 73 is a lot of case at the supreme court. Is there a pattern to these 73 cases? Oh, yes, there is. Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins. Every time. Let me repeat. In 73 partisan decisions where 12:17:23 PM there is a big Republican interest at stake, the big Republican interest wins, every damned time. Thus the mad scramble of big Republican interest groups to protect a Roberts five that will reliably give them wins. Really big wins sometimes. I note that when the Roberts five saddles up, these so-called conservatives are anything but judicially conservative. They readily overturn precedent, toss out statutes passed by wide bipartisan margins, and decide on broad constitutional issues that they need not reach. Modesty, originalism, stare decisis. All these principals all have 12:18:24 PM the hoof prints of the Roberts five all across their backs, wherever those principals got in the way of those wins for the big Republican interests. Be the litany of Roberts five decisions explains why big Republican interests want judge Kavanaugh on the court so badly. So badly that Republicans trampled so much senate precedent to push him through. So let's review the highlights real. What do big Republican interests want. What has the Roberts five delivered? Respect Republicans Jerry mapped -- gerrymandering elections. Help them keep minority voters away from the polls. Shelby county 5-4 and Bartlet V Stickland 12:19:24 PM and Abbott V Perez 5-4 despite the trial judge finding the Texas legislature actually intended to target and suppress minority voters. And the big one. Help corporate front group money flood elections. Big money interests love unlimited power to buy elections, lobby, and threaten and bully congress. McCutchen, 5-4 counting the concurrence. Bullock, 5-4, and the infamous 5-4 citizens united decision which I believe stands beside Lockner on the court's role of shame. What else do big influencers want? To get out of courtrooms. Big influencers hate courtrooms because they are lobbying and election earring and threatening doesn't work or at least it's not supposed to. In a courtroom, big influencers 12:20:25 PM are used to getting their way and have to suffer the indignity of equal treatment. So the Roberts five protects corporations from group class action lawsuits, Wal-Mart V Dukes, 5-4. Comcast, 5-4 and this past term epics systems, 5-4. The Roberts five steers customers and workers away from courtrooms and into mandatory arbitration. Conception. Italian colors and represent a center, all Roberts five. Epic systems does double duty because workers can't even arbitrate as a group. Hindering access to the courthouse generally. Protecting corporations from being taken to court by employees. Harmed through pay discrimination, Ledbetter 5-4. Age discrimination, 5-4. 12:21:27 PM Vance, 5-4 and retaliation Nassar, 5-4. From liability from international human rights violations, jessner, 5-4. Corporations are not in the constitution. Juries are. Juries are the one thing designed to protect against encroachments by private wealth and power. Of course the Roberts five rules for wealthy corporations over jury rights every time. With nerry a mention of the 7th amendment. A classic, helping big business bust unions. Harris V Quinn, 5-4 and Janice V affect me with a 40-year precedent. Lots of big influencers are polluters who like to pollute for free. The Roberts five delivers 12:22:31 PM decisions who let polluters pollute. 5-4. National association of home landlorders weakening for endangered species. 5-4. Michigan versus air polluters, if 5-4. There is the procedural abhorrent decision to stop the EPA clean power plan. Pattern. Then come Roberts five bonus decisions advancing a far right social agenda. Upholding and hobby lobby granting religious rights over the health care rights of employees. Letting states deny truthful information about reproductive choices. All 5-4, all Republican. Reanimating for the gun industry, a former chief justice called a fraud. Both decisions 5-4. Trump V Hawaii 5-4. 12:23:32 PM Hubber stamping the Muslim tramp ban. In case Wall Street was being left out, Janice capital, 5-4. Pattern. No wonder the American people feel the game is rigged. Here's how the game works. Big business fund the federalist society which picked Gorsuch and now you. As the white house counsel admitted, they insourced the federalist society for this selection. Exactly how the nominees were picked and who was in the room where it happened and who had a vote or a veto or promise, that's all a deep dark secret. Then dig business and part an groups fund the crisis network that runs dark money to influence senators in confirmation votes as they have done for Gorsuch and now for you. Who pays millions of dollars for that? What their expectations are is a 12:24:33 PM deep dark secret. These groups also fund Republican election campaigns with dark money and keep the identity of big donors a deep dark secret and 90% of your documents are to us, a deep dark secret. Then once the nominees on the court, the same groups with ties to the Koch brothers and the other political machine file friend of the court to signal their wishes to the Roberts five. Who was behind those friends is another deep dark secret. It has gotten so weird that Republican justices now even sent hints back to big business interests about how they would like to help them next and big business lawyers rush out to lose cases, to lose cases just to rush up before the friendly court pronto. That's what happened in the Fredericks Janice episode. 12:25:34 PM The U.S. Chamber of commerce is the biggest corporate lobby of them all. Big oil, big tobacco, big pharma, big guns. With justice Gorsuch riding with the Roberts five, they won nine out of 10 cases they weighed in on. Since 2006, they have given the chamber more than three quarters of their total votes N. All civil cases they voted for the chamber position fully 90% of the time and in these 5-4 cases I highlighted, 100%. People are noticing. They describe the court's service to Republican interests. Toobin wrote green house said the Republican appointed majority is committed to harnessing the supreme court to an ideological agenda. Ornstein described the new reality of today's supreme court 12:26:37 PM polarized along partisan lines where it paralyzes institutions and the rest of society in a fashion we have never seen. And the American public knows it, too. The American public thinks the supreme court treats corporations more favorably than individuals compared to vice-versa by a 7-1 margin. 49% of Americans think corporations get special treatment there. Let's look at where you fit in. A Republican political operative your whole career who never tried a case. You made your political bones helping the salacious prosecution of president Clinton and leaking information to the press. As an operative in the second bush white house, you cultivated relationships with insiders like nomination guru Leonard Leo, the federalist society architect of your court nominations. On the D.C. Circuit, you gave 12:27:38 PM more than 50 speeches to the federalist society. That looks like auditioning. On the D.C. Circuit, you showed readiness to join the Roberts with big political wins with Republican and corporate interests. Unleashing special interest money and protecting corporations from liability and helping polluters pollute and striking down common sense gun regulations and keeping plaintiffs out of court and perhaps more important for the current occupant of the oval office, expounding a nearly limitless vision of presidential immunity from the law. Your alignment with right wing groups as friends of the court, 91%. When big business trade associations weighed in, 76%. This to me is what corporate capture of the courts looks like. There are big expectations for you. The shadowy dark money front group that the network is spending tens of millions of 12:28:38 PM dark money to push for your confirmation, they clearly have big expectations about how you will rule on dark moan. The NRA poured millions into your confirmation, promising members that you will break the tide. They clearly have big expectations on how you will vote on guns. White house counsel don mcgahn admitted there is a coherent plan here where the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are the flip side of the same point. Polluters have big expectations for you on their deregulatory effort. Finally, you come before us nominated by a president named in open court as directing criminal activity and a subject of ongoing criminal investigation. You displayed views on executive immunity from the law. If you are in that seat because the white house has big 12:29:39 PM expectations that you will protect the president from the due process of law, that should give every senator pause. Tomorrow we will hear a lot of confirmation etiquette. It is mostly a sham. You know the game. You coached judicial nominees to just tell senators that they have a commitment to follow supreme court precedent and they will adhere to statutory text that they have no ideological agenda, end quote. Fairy tales. At his hearing, justice Roberts said he just called balls and strikes, but this pattern, 73-0 of the Roberts five qualifies him to have nascar-style corporate badges on his ropes. Alito said what a strong principal stare decisis was. It means to leave things decided 12:30:39 PM when it suits our purposes. Gorsuch delivered the key fifth vote in the busting Janice decision. He too pledged in his hearing to follow the law of judicial precedent. Assures us he was not a philosopher king and promised to give equal concern to every person poor or rich, mighty or meek. How did that turn out? Great for the rich and mighty. Gorsuch is the single most corporate-friendly court already full of them. Ruling for corporate interests in 70% of the cases and in every single case where his vote was determinative. The president assures Evangelicals his 56 would attack roe vs. Wade. Despite assurances about precedent, your words said it is not settled law since the court can overrule its press depth. 12:31:42 PM Mr. Chairman, we have seen this movie before. We know how it ends. The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the committee fairy tales about sdis us and riding off with the Roberts five, train across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those dig Republican interests keep winning 5-4 partisan decisions. 73-0, Mr. Kavanaugh. Every damned time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Senator Cruz. CRUZ >> Chairman, I have documents to support this. May I ask they be entered? GRASSLEY >> Without objection. So entered. CRUZ >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh. Welcome. Welcome to your family and friends. Demonstrating your good judgment, your wife was born and raised in west Texas and you and 12:32:43 PM she have been friends of Heidi and mine for 20 years. Thank you for your decades of public service and I'm sorry that your daughters had to endure the political circus of this morning. That's the last of the world that is Washington in 2018. I want to discuss what this hearing is about and what it's not about. First, this hearing is not about the qualifications of the nominee. Judge Kavanaugh is by any objective measure unquestionably qualified for the supreme court. He is one of the most respected federal judges in the country. He has impeccable academic credentials even if he did go to Yale and you served over a decade for the D.C. Circuit, often referred to as the second highest court in the land. Our colleagues are not trying to make the argument that he is not qualified. 12:33:43 PM I evaporate heard any attempt to make that argument. Second, this hearing is not about his judicial record. Judge Kavanaugh has 3 hundred published opinions that amount to over 10,000 pages issues in his role as a federal appellate judge. A judge's record is by far the most important of what kind of justice that nominee will be. And tellingly we have heard very little from democratic senators about the actual substance of judge Kavanaugh's judicial record. Third, it's important to understand today is also not about documents. We heard a lot of arguments about documents. There is an old saying for trial lawyers. If you have the fax, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. We are seeing a lot of table pounding this morning. The Democrats are focused on procedural issues because they don't have substantive points 12:34:45 PM strong enough to derail this nomination and substantive criticism with judge Kavanaugh's actual record so they are trying to divert everyone with procedural issues. Let's talk about the documents for a moment. The claims that the Democrats are putting forward on documents don't with stand any serious scrutiny. Judge Kavanaugh has produced 511,948 pages of documents. That includes more than 17,000 pages in direct response to this committee's written questionnaire which is the most comprehensive response ever submitted to this committee. The more than half million pages of documents turned into this committee is more than the number of pages we received for the last five supreme court nominees combined. Listen to that fact again. The over half million documents turned over to this inquiry is more than the last five nominees 12:35:49 PM combined. So what's all the fuss over the do you mean that is not turned over? Most concern the three years as the staff secretary for president George W. Bush. Many people don't know what a staff secretary does, but that's the position in charge of all of the paper that comes into and out of the oval office. Critically, the staff secretary is not the author of the paper coming into and out of the oval office. That paper is typically written by the attorney general, secretary of state and other cabinet members and other white house officials. The staff secretary is is the funnel for collecting views and transferring the paper back and forth. In other words, those documents written by other people say nothing, zero about judge Kavanaugh's views and say nothing, zero about what kind of justice judge Kavanaugh would make. But they are by necessity the most sensitive and confidential 12:36:50 PM documents in the white house. They are the documents going to the president. This is the advice and deliberations of the president at the senior level and the staff secretary is the conduit for the documents. Why are the Democrats putting so much energy in saying hand over all of those documents? Because they know beyond a shadow of doubt that president George W. Bush's white house team is not going to allow every piece of paper that went to the president to be made public any more than any other white house would. Republican or Democrat, no white house would allow every piece of paper that went to and from the president to be made public. Indeed there are rules and laws and procedures for when and how presidential papers become public it is utterly irrelevant to what judge Kavanaugh thinks, believes, or have said. 12:37:51 PM It would open up fishing expeditions to relitigate George W. Bush's record as president and what cabinet members and advisers may or may not have said. But it is at the end of the day an attempt to distract and delay and indeed the multiple motions we have seen to delay the confirmation reveals the whole joke. Their objective is delay. So what is this fight about? If it's not about documents or judge Kavanaugh's credentials or judicial record, what is this fight about? I believe this fight is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by colleagues to relitigate the 2016 presidential election. 2016 was a hard fought election all-around and it was the first presidential election in 60 years where American Americans went to the polls with a vacant seat on the supreme court that the next president would fill. 12:38:54 PM Americans knew who had been in that seat. The late justice Antonin Scalia. The supreme court seat was directly on the ballot. Both candidates knew the experience of the vacant seat and it was a major issue of contention in the presidential election. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were both clear about what kind of justices and judges they would appoint. During all three debates, both were asked what qualities were important to them when selecting a justice. Secretary Clinton's answer was clear. She wanted a justice who would be a liberal Progressive willing to rewrite the constitution and impose liberal policy agendas that she could not get through the democratic process and the congress of the United States would not adopt. That she hoped five unelected 12:39:54 PM lawyers would force on the American people. That's what Hillary Clinton promised for her nominees. Candidate trump said he was looking to appoint judges in the mold of justice Scalia and judges to interpret the constitution based on the original public meeting for the statutes according to the text and uphold the rule of law and treat parties fairly regardless of who they are and where they come from. Then candidate Donald Trump also did something that no candidate has done before. He published a list of nominees he would choose from when filling the seat, providing unprecedented transparency to the American people. All of this was laid before the American people as they went to the polls on November 8th, 2016. And the American people made a choice that night. My democratic colleagues are not happy with the choice of American people made, but as 12:40:55 PM president Obama said, elections have consequences. Because of American people had the chance to vote a national referendum on the direction of the supreme court, I said a number of times that justice Gorsuch's nomination and judge Kavanaugh's nomination have almost a super legitimacy in that they were ratified and decided by the American people in a direct vote in 2016. The democratic obstruction is trying to reverse the obstruction. They are unhappy with the choice the American people want. There is a reason that the American people want strong constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme court. Most Americans, and I know the overwhelming majority of texans want judges to follow the law and not impose policy preferences on the rest of us and will be faithful to the constitution and the bill of rights. Justices who uphold liberties 12:41:56 PM like free speech like religious liberty and the second amendment. That's what this election was about. If you look at each of these, let's take free speech. It's worth noting that in 2014, every democratic member of this committee voted to amend the United States constitution to repeal the free speech provisions of the first amendment and sadly every Democrat in the senate agreed with that position. Voting to give congress unprecedented power to regulate political speech. It was a sad day for this institution. Years earlier, Ted Kennedy, the great liberal lion opposed a similar effort and said we haven't amended the bill of rights 200 years and now is not the time to start. Not a single Democrat had the courage to agree with Ted Kennedy and support free speech. 12:42:57 PM Indeed they voted party line to repeal the free speech provisions. That is radical and extreme and part of the reason the American people voted for a president who would put justices on the court who will protect our free speech. How about religious liberty? That's another fundamental protection that the Democrats in the senate have gotten extreme and radical on. Indeed our colleagues want justices who will rubber stamp efforts like the Obama administration's efforts litiing against the little sisters of the poor and against catholic nuns trying to force them to a pay for abortion inducing drugs and others. That is a radical and extreme proposition and to show how dramatic Democrats have gotten, every senate Democrat a few years ago voted to gut the religious freedom restoration act. Legislation that passed congress with overwhelming bipartisan 12:44:00 PM support in 1993 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton and two decades later, the party determined that the freedom is inconvenient for policy and political objectives and want justices that will further that assault on religious liberty. Let's take the second amendment. The presidential debates, Hillary Clinton promised to nominate justice to overturn Helder versus district of Columbia. Heller is the landmark decision issued by justice Scalia, likely the most significant decision of his tenure on the bench and it upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. Hillary Clinton was quite explicit. She wanted judges to overturn Heller and a number of colleagues, that's what they want as well. Overturning Helder would be a radical proposition. You have to understand what they inside Heller. They said that the second amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms 12:45:00 PM whatsoever. It protects merely a collective right of the militia. The consequence of that proposition would mean that congress could pass a law, making it a felony, a criminal offense for any American to own any firearm and neither you nor I nor any American would have any individual right whatsoever under the second amendment. It would effectively erase the second amendment from the bill of rights. That is a breathtakingly extreme proposition. It is what Hillary Clinton promised they would do and at the end of the day what this fight is about. We know that every democratic member of this committee is going to vote no. We don't have to speculate. They publicly announced they are voting no. Doesn't depend on what they read in documents and what judge Kavanaugh says in this hearing. They announced ahead of time they are voting no and most of the Democrats in the senate 12:46:03 PM announced that. But everyone should understand judge Kavanaugh handed over more documents than any nominee, more than the last five combined, Republican and democratic nominees. This is not about documents and not about qualification or record. What it is about is politics. It is about democratic senators trying to relitigate the 2016 election and just as importantly, working to begin litigating the 2020 presidential election. We had an opportunity for the American people to speak and they did. They voted in 2016 and they wanted judges and justices who will be faithful to the constitution. That's why I'm confident at the end of what Shakespeare would describe as a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, I am confident that judge Kavanaugh will be justice Kavanaugh and confirm to the United States supreme court. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> We are going to take a break 12:47:05 PM now. And -- wait a minute! We are going take a break now and 30 minutes is what the Democrats would like to have. We will return at 1:17. Gorsuch returned about 10 minutes later than that. So be on time. BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES
Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; INT Professor Peter Sommer (Cyber Security Expert) interview SOT
Ashley Madison adultery website hack: Names of users released on internet
Ashley Madison adultery website hack: Names of users released on internet; ENGLAND: London: INT Professor Peter Sommer (Digital forensics expert) interview SOT
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION - WITNESS ISO 1315 - 1525
1130 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG WITNESS FS2 90 1325 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG WITNESS FS2 79 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives. When uninsurance rate goes up -- when insurance rates go down rather, more people without healthcare often lose their lives. There are -- there is not one senator on the Republican side or Democratic pride (ph) who has not seen -- I've only been here five years and I've seen the culture of Washington change because of the obscene amount of dark money pouring into our political process, corrupting our political exhausts (ph), rigging the system. This -- this nomination will have an effect on that. I've seen Americans all over this country, it's the bipartisan work that I've done with senators on either side who feel entrapped by a broken criminal justice system, one that is, we know and unassailably disproportionally targets black and brown Americans. Where many Americans believe, and one famous American said we have a system that now treats you better than if you're rich and guilty than poor and innocent. These issues are in the balance now, and everyone who's concerned about these issues and more are wondering
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION - SIDE CAM 2 1315 - 1525
1140 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG SIDE2 FS4 73 1335 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG SIDE2 FS4 81 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives.
Ashley Madison adultery website hack: Names of users released on internet
Ashley Madison adultery website hack: Names of users released on internet; Peter Cohen (MWR Information Society) interview SOT
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION - COMMITTEE ISO 1315 - 1525
1145 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 89 1345 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 78 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives. When uninsurance rate goes up -- when insurance rates go down rather, more people without healthcare often lose their lives. There are -- there is not one senator on the Republican side or Democratic pride (ph) who has not seen -- I've only been here five years and I've seen the culture of Washington change because of the obscene amount of dark money pouring into our political process, corrupting our political exhausts (ph), rigging the system. This -- this nomination will have an effect on that. I've seen Americans all over this country, it's the bipartisan work that I've done with senators on either side who feel entrapped by a broken criminal justice system, one that is, we know and unassailably disproportionally targets black and brown Americans. Where many Americans believe, and one famous American said we have a system that now treats you better than if you're rich and guilty than poor and innocent. These issues are in the balance now, and everyone who's concerned about these issues and more are wondering
Ashley Madison website hacked
Ashley Madison website hacked; LIB (T21051509) ENGLAND: EXT Anonymous shots of couples away along road holding hands
Ashley Madison dating website hacked
Ashley Madison dating website hacked; INT Camilla Wright (Editor, Pop Bitch) interview SOT
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING: BRETT KAVANAUGH NOMINATION - COMMITTEE ISO 0930 - 1130
0930 KAVANAUGH HRG CMTE STIX FS1 78 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 2) Full Committee DATE: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION: The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue tomorrow, September 5, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216 9:30 a.m. INTRODUCERS: The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt Lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN Panel III MAJORITY: Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT MINORITY: The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY Panel IV MAJORITY: Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA MINORITY: Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Hamilton, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA MINORITY: Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH 9:35:39 AM GRASSLEY >> Good morning, everybody. And we welcome everybody back again and especially judge Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley. Yesterday each senator made their opening remarks. We also heard from three people who had the honor of introducing judge Kavanaugh, secretary rice, senator portman and attorney Lisa blatt. And we heard for the first time directly from judge Kavanaugh. He made a powerful, compelling and convincing statement, demonstrating his exceptional background and qualifications to serve our nation's highest court. NBC news reported that democratic members of the committee plotted with minor leaders to disrupt the hearing yesterday. Democratic senators interrupted the hearing 63 times before lunch and in the audience, 70 people were arrested yesterday who were following their lead. 9:36:42 AM All probably very constitutionally prepared to do that. Doing what the constitution says the right of freedom of speech, but we also were able to finally conduct our hearing the way it should be conducted. Yesterday was -- it was our time as committee members that we wasted and disruption and disorder over proceal matters. But today is different. [Yelling in audience] [Audience disruption] 9:37:55 AM [uknown protestor in wheelchair] >> Senator grassley, I take offense. I called out Senator Durbin. I don't see how you can say that I was working with senator Durbin, I'm from his state and i called him out specifically. We are not working with the Democrats. We are working for ourselves. GRASSLEY >> It was our time as committee members yesterday to make our case. Today is different. Today is the day that the American people are supposed to hear from the nominee. This morning we'll begin our questioning of judge Kavanaugh. We will get through all members' first rounds of questions today no matter how long it takes. Members are allotted 30 minutes for the first round. If your time expires, your remaining questions may be continued, of course, in the second round tomorrow. We'll take a lunch break, as well as probably two other 15 minute breaks throughout the day. For now,, let's plan our first break after five senators or so have completed their questions. There is a floor vote that's already scheduled. This would be a 30-minute break for vote and lunch but judge if you would like to take a break any other time, let us know. 9:39:41 AM With that, I'll start the questioning of my 30 minutes. Judge. For the last 12 years you have served as a federal circuit judge on one of the most influential circuits in America. You have offered 307 judicial opinions totaling more than 10,000 pages of record. You have decided some of the most pressing legal issues facing our country. The supreme court of the united States, the one you're nominated to be on has adopted a legal position, your legal position from at least 12 opinions. The senate judiciary committee has received dozens of strong 9:40:43 AM letters of support from hundreds of people, many of whom you know best from all across the political and ideological spectrum and the American bar association has given you its highest rating, unanimously well qualified. My democratic colleagues have said that this is the gold standard of judicial nomination. There is no dispute that you're one of the most qualified supreme court nominees. Some people say the most qualified, and I don't disagree with their judgment. And that could be for anybody coming before the United States senate. I'm not the only one who says that because we have a letter from Robert Bennett. Surprisingly president Clinton's attorney and your opposing counsel during the independent counsel investigation of president Clinton. He wrote a very strong letter in support of your confirmation. Quote, "Brett is the most 9:41:44 AM qualified person any Republican president could possibly have nominated. With the senate fail to confirm Brett it would not only mean passing up the opportunity to confirm a great jurist but it would undermine civility and politics twice over. First in plain politics with such an obviously qualified nominee and then again in losing the opportunity to put a strong advocate of decency and civility on our nation's highest court." Mr. Bennett also speaks highly of your integrity and to your fairness and open mindedness and so without objection I would enter that letter into the record. Now to a question. I would imagine your 12 years of judicial service on the second highest court in the land has given you plenty of opportunity to think about my first question 9:42:46 AM which is what makes a judge a good one and what influences in your life have shaped your vision of how a judge could go about doing his job? KAVANAUGH>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the first quality of a good judge in our constitutional system is Independence. Independence comes directly from article 3 of the constitution. The Independence of the federal judges is guaranteed by the framers in our life tenure and our protection from pay reduction so because we have life tenure we are independent and immune from political or public pressure. So I think the first thing that makes a good judge is Independence not being swayed by political or public pressure. That takes some backbone. That takes some judicial fortitude, the great moments in 9:43:47 AM American judicial history. The judges had backbone and Independence. You think about Youngstown steel, you think about "Brown V. Board of education" where the court came together and knew they were going to face political pressure and still enforced the promise of the constitution. (09:43:55) You think about United States versus Nixon which I've identified as one of the greatest moments in American judicial history where chief justice burger, who had been appointed by president Nixon, brought the court together in a unanimous decision to order president Nixon in response to a criminal trial subpoena to disclose information. KAVANAUGH>> There's great moments of Independence and unanimity are important. Respect for precedent is another one. Precedent is not just a judicial policy. It's sometimes stated that it's just a policy. 9:44:49 AM Precedent comes from article 3 of the constitution. Article 3 of the constitution refers to the judicial power. What does that mean? What does that judicial power mean? Judicial power, you look at federalist 78 and what's described there as a system of precedent. So precedent is rooted right into the constitution itself and is dictated to pay heed and rules to precedent. Beyond that, being a good judge means paying attention to the words that are written. The words of the constitution, the words of the statutes that are passed by congress. Not doing what I want to do. Not differing when the executive rewrites the laws passed by congress but respect for the rules passed by congress, respect for the words put into the constitution itself. That's part of being a good judge, that's part of being independent, that's part of precedent. I would say being a good judge 9:45:52 AM there are human qualities in interaction. Although these confirmation processes focus on one person, as if you're making all the decisions. As I said yesterday, I'm joining a team of 9 if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed. And that means something. It means something in sports, it means something in judging. I don't make decisions by myself. For the last 12 years I have not been making decisions by myself. Every case has been in a panel of at least three judges. And you learn from each other when you're deciding cases, you work from each other when you're deciding cases and so having collegiality and civility as justice Kennedy showed us so powerfully repeatedly with how he conducted himself over the years. That's very important because those great moments I was talking about at the beginning, like US vs Nixon like brown v. board. The court came together in unanimous decisions, and the unanimity of the decisions added force. That took personal interaction that took collegiality. 9:46:52 AM So I think I've tried to be a very collegial judge. I've tried to be civil. I want, Mr. Chairman, the losing party, the losing party in every case to come out and say Kavanaugh gave me a fair shake, he was well prepared, he wrote a clear opinion, he explained everything, I disagree but at least I get it so I want the losing party and both parties to walk out at oral argument saying he has an open mind, he gave me a share fake and I think I've done that for 12 years. Everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge -- oral argument, writing opinions, how you decide. So those are the qualities. The last thing I always remember is the thing my mom told me in the first instance. Judging is not just about theory. It's not theory. It's not just what a law review 9:47:55 AM article is. Judging is real people in the real world in every decision we make no matter how high-minded it might sound affects real people in the real world with real interest and we have to remember that and how we explain the decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY>> Following up on the wise words of senator sass yesterday on separation of powers, your record before the senate includes more than 10,000 pages of a judicial writing over your dozen years. We have over 440,000 pages of e-mails and other records from your legal service at the white house and judge Starr and you have written extensively on the issue of our constitution's separation of power among three branches and a key component of the separation of powers is the 9:48:56 AM independent judiciary. Obviously everybody learns in eighth grade civics about judges interpreting law. The judiciary must continue to be the least political and least dangerous branch. A judge's sole job is to find and apply the law evenly and fairly without regard to the president who nominated him, the senators who voted for him, the parties before him and the political consequences of his judicial decision. So, judge, let's discuss judicial Independence from the executive branch. No one, not even the president, is above the law. Some of my colleagues have criticized your views of presidential authority suggesting wrongly in my opinion that your views of presidential authority would not allow any meaningful check on the president. Please tell us what judicial 9:49:57 AM Independence means to you including whether you have any ruling against a president who appointed you and against the executive branch in any case before you. You partly talked about Independence, but apply it specifically to ruling against a president or executive branch generally. KAVANAUGH>> Thank you, Mr. chairman. You're correct, no one is above on the law in our constitutional system. Federalist 69, Hamilton makes clear all the ways that the executive branch is designed by the framers of the constitution was different from the monarchy. Under our system of government, the executive branch is subject to the law, subject to the court system, and that is an important part of federalist 69, it is an important part of the constitutional structure. In general so too as judges we are separate from the congress. We are not supposed to be 9:50:58 AM influenced by political pressure from the executive or from the congress. We are independent. We make decisions based on law, not based on policy, not based on political pressure, not based on the identity of the parties no matter who you are in our system. No matter where you come from. No matter how rich you are, how poor you are, no matter your race, your gender, no matter your station in life, no matter your position in government. It is all equal justice under law. And again, we'll get our examples in history. I always will go back to the great moments in our history where these principles which sound abstract if you are just describing them were actually implemented. I go back to Youngstown steel where the supreme court rules 9:51:58 AM that president Truman has violated the law by seizing steel mills. This is a time of war where lots of Americans were killed. And the supreme court is under pressure to defer to the president's war effort. And in a 6-3, but what is interesting to me justice Clark, we don't usually talk about justice Clark in that decision. Why is he important? He was appointed by president Truman to the supreme court. What a moment of judicial Independence there to rule in that case. You think about justice Jackson who had been working for president Roosevelt and he dissents and says letting racism like this is like letting a loaded weapon lie around. Dissents against president Roosevelt's decision. [ Yelling ] Justice Jackson's -- FEINSTEIN>> Ask him to suspend. 9:53:06 AM KAVANAUGH>> Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown which is of course what has become the law of that three part test, category one, two and three. But again he writes about concurrence in Youngstown, why is that a moment of judicial independence. He had taken positions contrary to that one when heed had worked in the executive branch in the roosevelt administration, yet when he is a judge, he sees it differently as an independent judge. How about chief justice Berger? United States versus Nixon. Writes the opinion, unanimous. Moments of judicial Independence. So it is resisting public pressure, political pressure, it is treating everyone equally no matter where you are, what station. When I became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, I had a case homdon versus the United States. Who is homdon -- [ yelling ]. 9:54:10 AM PROTESTOR>> Mr. Kavanaugh, this is a position of integrity. This is a position of protecting the rights of all persons within this country. If you are a man of integrity, you yourself would cancel these hearings. You yourself would remove yourself. [ Yelling ] PROTESTOR>> This is not a plantation. {yelling] You work for us, we don't work for you. 2.8 million more of us than there are of you and we deserve a justice who represents us. KAVANAUGH>> So in the homdon case, it is one of bin laden's associates. You will never have a nominee -- Mr. Chairman, should I proceed? GRASSLEY>> This is coming out of my time, but that is okay. Let these people have free speech and interrupt the other 300 million people listening. This is your opportunity to speak to the American people and for them to make a judge about it. If they want to affect what the 9:55:10 AM other 300 million people hear from you, then that is just too bad. You proceed now. KAVANAUGH>> Homdon is one of bin laden's associates involved before September 11th, worst attack ever on American soil. He is prosecuted before a military commission, signature prosecution of the bush administration. Comes to the D.C. Circuit. I'm on the panel. I write the opinion saying that his military commission prosecution is unconstitutional, violates expo Facto principles. You will never have a nominee ruled for a more unpopular defendant than ruling for Homdon. Why did I do that in that case? Why did I rule for someone who had been involved in the September 11th? Because the law compelled it. Justice Kennedy showed us in the Texas versus Johnson case. We don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy 9:56:13 AM preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law. Justice Kennedy's example of Independence is something that I have tried to follow. And it means you are not a pro -- as I said yesterday, not a pro plaintiff, pro defense, pro prosecution or pro defense judge. I'm a pro law judge. I've ruled for parties based on whether they have the law on their side. That is part of being an independent judge is ruling for the party no matter who they are so long as the party is right. If you walk into my courtroom and you have the better legal arguments, you will win. GRASSLEY>> I think you answered my next question based upon what you said about homdon, but there are probably other examples, you don't need to go into detail, but you have -- >> [ Yelling ]. 9:57:16 AM GRASSLEY>> President bush a pointed you. Are there other cases that -- there has been other cases presumably that you've ruled against the administration of the person that appointed you. KAVANAUGH>> Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. There were a slew of cases on everything from freedom of information act to some of the administrative law cases. The homdon is the one that comes to mind most because of the importance of that case yet I ruled that it was unlawful. GRASSLEY>> Now, did anyone ask you to make any promises or assurances about the way that you would rule in certain cases? KAVANAUGH>> No. GRASSLEY>> Were you asked about your views on roe V. Wade? KAVANAUGH>> No. >> [ Yelling ]. Save Roe, vote no, save roe, vote no. GRASSLEY>> We were talking about separation of powers. Have you ever written any decisions where you used the 9:58:16 AM 10th amendment? I'm talking about division of powers between federal and states. KAVANAUGH>> Most of the cases that come to the D.C. Circuit are at the national level therefore involving questions of separation of power between the legislative, executive, judicial branches. Of course federalism is a critical part of our constitutional structure as well. The genius of our system federalist 39 described by Madison that we have both a national and federal government simultaneously. And the house of representatives really represents in some ways the national part, proportional representation. This body with two senators from each state represents in many ways the federal part. Each state represented equally. And the federalism system by which the states are allowed to regulate local matters in some of the commerce clause cases 9:59:17 AM such as United States versus Lopez and United States versus Morrison reinforce the idea that there is a core of authority that is exclusively in the province of the states an beyond the scope of the federal government. The 10th amendment -- >> [ Yelling ]. KAVANAUGH>> The 10th amendment reinforces the structure of federalism that is in our constitutional system. It is important always to remember the role of the states in our constitutional systems, and it is important to recognize as individual citizens something we often forget particularly in a process like this. Our rights and liberties are protected by the federal constitution and by the federal court, but they are also protected by state constitutions and state courts. A great judge on the 6th circuit has written a new book about using state constitutions to help protect your individual liberties and rights too. This whole document through the separation of powers of 10:00:21 AM federalism tilts toward liberty. >> [ Yelling ]. GRASSLEY>> We've talked about your Independence from a president. There is also the question of Independence from the legislative branch equally as important. You're going to be asked about your personal views on a variety of topics and whether you believe various supreme court cases were correctly decided, presumably this is because senators are going to try to predict how you will rule in cases before you. The idea is that if you agree with your personal views on -- if they agree with your personal views on particular issues of more withdrawality or on supreme court precedent, they maybe would vote to confirm you. If not, they might not. 10:01:01 AM Of course that is improper. Judges should never promise their future votes in exchange for a senator's vote for them. If you answer these questions about your views on specific supreme court cases or public controversies of the day, you'd be showing the opposite of Independence from the legislative branch, politicians can make promises about how they will vote on issues, judges by their very nature of the job should never promise any outcome. If a nominee answers these questions, it threatens the undermining judicial Independence. Of course there may be times where it is appropriate to reconsider certain decisions especially if more recent opinions have called into question the rationale of the original decisions. So with this in mind, I'd like to explore the approach that you would take towards supreme court precedent. Could you tell us your views on the value of precedent? 10:02:02 AM I think you've already done that. But if you want to expand on it, go ahead. Have you ever followed precedent of the supreme court when doing so conflicted with your personal beliefs? KAVANAUGH>> My personal beliefs are not relevant to how I decide cases. The role of precedent in our system which is rooted in article 3 of the constitution, not just a judicial policy, it is to ensure stability in the law which is critically important. It is also to ensure predictability of the law. People who order their fairs around judicial decisions need to know that the law is predictable whether an individual or business or worker. People rely on the decisions of the courts. So reliance interests are critically important to consider as are matter of precedent. They are one of the reasons we have the system of precedent so 10:03:04 AM that people can rely on the decisions. Precedent also reinforces the impartiality and Independence of the judiciary. The people need to know in this country that the judges are independent and that we're not making decisions based on policy views. Part of that is to understand we're following a system of precedent, of what has been done before. The court every time someone gets on, it is not just bouncing around to what do I think is best. It is what is the precedence of the supreme court is always part of the analysis and an important part. And for 12 year, I've been applying precedent of the supreme court and of my court. Every day for 12 years, I haven't been getting up saying how can I rewrite the law. I've been getting up for 12 years saying okay, how can I apply this fourth amendment precedent to this fact pattern that dos before me. Or how can I apply this first 10:04:04 AM amendment precedent to this fact pattern that comes before me. So precedent is the foundation of our system, it is part of the stability. It is ensuring predictability and it is foundational to the constitution is article 3 and federalist 78 make clear. GRASSLEY>> You'll be asked by other members what precedent you like and don't like, but you know it is inappropriate for a nominee to answer those questions. And this refers to justice Ginsburg, she said a judge sworn to decide impartiality can offer no forecast, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. The underlying reason for this of course is that making promises or giving hints 10:05:06 AM undermines the very Independence that we discussed. Would you agree with that? KAVANAUGH>> I do, senator, Mr. Chairman. And one of the things that I have to remember sitting in this seat is that this moment is a moment of judicial Independence with how I interact with this committee. And what I've done and in each of the jobs I've had and particularly as a judge over on the last 12 years, but also in the executive branch, I always ask myself can I tell people I'm working with how has it been done before. How has it been done before. So as a judge, how has it been done before is precedent. When I'm site sitting here, I studied all the nominee precedence. I read Thurgood Marshall's hearing and I've rid the hearings of the eight justices currently sitting on the supreme court. 10:06:06 AM It is what I call nominee precedent. So all the nominees currently, all the justices have made clear a couple things. First of all, they can't discuss cases or issues that might come before them. As justice Ginsburg said, no hints, no forecast, for previews. That also means with respect to at least the vast body of supreme court precedent going back, you can't give a thumbs up or thumbs down on the case. Justice Kagan said repeatedly no thumbs up or thumbs down when she was asked what do you think about this case, what do you like about that case. I liked her formulation, no thumbs up or thumbs down. That nominee precedent is part of the Independence of the judiciary and and that is what I need to adhere to. One of my jobs is not to advance my own interests, but remember I'm a representative of the judiciary as a whole and I have 10:07:07 AM a responsibility to do judicial Independence right here right now as a nominee. So following that nominee precedent will be critical. There is an exception that the eight justices have drawn currently sitting on the court if you read all the hearings for some older cases, and I'll be happy to -- older cases that where nominee precedent has allowed them to talk about a few older cases. And again, why do we do this, why is this nominee precedent there, when eight justices of widely ranging views do this, there must be a reason. The reason is judicial Independence. What does that mean? It means two things in this context. One, the litigants who come before us have to know we have an open mind, that we don't have a closed mind, that we haven't committed something in this process that is going to effect how we decide a case because we feel bound by what we promised to this committee. And believe me, judges do feel bound by what they said to this committee. 10:08:07 AM So if I say something and a case comes before me five years from now, I'm going to feel morally bound by what I said here. And if I've crossed the line of what I should say, then I'm not going to have an open mind in that case. That is a violation of judicial Independence. Secondly as chief justice Roberts described, if I get into a process that appears to be a bargaining process where I say I'll agree with this decision in exchange for your vote, it is never that explicit, but as chief justice Roberts described it, that is kind of what seems to be going on sometimes. Well, that is a complete violation of judicial Independence because then the judges aren't making the decisions based on their reading of the law, it is really as chief justice Roberts described it, it is the senate or senate judiciary committee really sending a nominee as a delegate to the judiciary and doing what the senate judiciary committee 10:09:09 AM thinks is the right thing to do. Chief justice Roberts says doing that would be a violence of judicial Independence. That nominee precedent weighs heavily on me as a nominee here because it is rooted in judicial Independence. And I've said repeatedly already that I'm going to be an independent judge. Well, I have to be an independent nominee as well, so I will have to adhere to the lines drawn by those prior nominees, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY>> With only 25 seconds left, I'll reserve that time and go to senator Feinstein. FEINSTEIN>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, judge. I'm sorry about the circumstances but we'll get through it. I wanted to talk to you this morning about guns and go back to roe V. Wade if I might. My office wrote the assault weapons legislation in 1993. It was law from '94 to 2004. 10:10:10 AM And essentially it prohibited the transfer, sale and manufacture of assault weapons. It did not at the time affect possession. I happen to believe that it did work and that it was important. And I have watched case after case and I think I mentioned earlier school shootings which I never thought this would happen in our country, that someone would bring a semi automatic assault weapon into a school and just mow down children and staff. So I've been very interested in your thinking on assault weapons. You specifically argued that the D.C. Assault weapons ban was unconstitutional and I think because you said the weapons were in common use. What did you base your conclusion that assault weapons 10:11:11 AM are in common use and what evidence or study did you use to do that? GRASSLEY>> Thank you, senator Feinstein for the question. I understand of course your role on that issue and your long leadership on that issue. Appreciate that. I've faced a decision whereas in every other decision just about on the D.C. Circuit, I had to follow precedent. Precedence of the supreme court. I don't get to pick and choose which supreme court precedents I get to follow. I follow them all. And so in the second amendment context, the supreme court in the heller decision written by justice Scalia had a held that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. And then in explaining what that meant and what exceptions would be allowed to that right, 10:12:14 AM justice Scalia's opinion in part three went through this does not mean that there is no gun regulation permissible. So that was an important part of the opinion, part three of the supreme court's opinion, where it pre-identified a number of exceptions that would be allowed. Felony possession laws, conceal carry, laws possession of the mentally ill, possession of guns in schools, possession in certain kinds of buildings. He pre-identified that. As to the weapons, the way I understood what he said there and what was said in the McDonald case later was that dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited. And what he referred to specifically is machine guns could be prohibited. So it is very important to recognize under the heller decision machine guns can be prohibited. And machine -- FEINSTEIN>> They were in the firearms act 10:13:18 AM a long time ago. KAVANAUGH>> Yes, senator. And justice Scalia's opinion did not disturb that regulation and in fact specifically reaffirmed that machine guns could be prohibited. The court in heller, supreme court, struck down a D.C. Ban on handguns, most of which are is semi automatic. FEINSTEIN>> Let me interrupt you. I think we're on totally different wavelengths. I'm talking about your statement on common use, common use being a justification. And assault weapons are not in common use. KAVANAUGH>> And justice Scalia's opinion used that phrase and the next sentence talked about dangerous and unusual weapons. And the court in heller itself, the supreme court, struck down a D.C. Ban on handguns. Now, most handguns are semi 10:14:20 AM automatic. Something not everyone appreciates. And the question came up semi automatic rifles and the question was can you distinguish as a matter of precedent, again, this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the supreme court said, and if you read the McDonald case, and I concluded that it could not be extinguished as a matter of law and semi automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon. That was the basis of my dissent. In a nutshell, the basis of my dissent was I was trying to follow strictly and carefully the supreme court on precedent. And I know you've read the -- FEINSTEIN>> You're saying the numbers determine common use? 10:15:22 AM Common use is an activity, it is not common storage or possession. It is use. So what you said was that these weapons are commonly used. They are not. KAVANAUGH>> They are widely possessed in the United States, senator. And they are used and -- possessed, but the question is are they dangerous and usual. All weapons can dangerous. Are they unusual. And given how prevalent they are in the United States, it seemed under justice Scalia's test and if you look at McDonald, I want to reiterate that supreme court said that machine guns can banned. FEINSTEIN>> I'm talking about the heller case. And you argued that it was unconstitutional to ban assault weapons because they are in 10:16:23 AM common use. And that I believe was your dissent in the case. KAVANAUGH>> Yes, and I was referring to some kinds of semi automatic rifles that are banned by D.C. Are widely owned in the united States. And that seemed to be the test that the supreme court had set forth in heller and McDonald case. If a type of firearm is owned in the United States - now, whether I agree with that test or not was not the issue before me. I have to follow the precedence of the supreme court as it is written and that's what I tried do. It was a very long opinion. And I also made clear the end of the opinion, I'm a native of this area, an urban suburban area, I grew up in a city plagued by gun violence and gang violence and drug violence. So I fully understand as I explained in the opinion the 10:17:24 AM importance of this issue. I specifically referenced police chief Cathy Lanier's goals of reducing gang and gun violence was something I certainly applauded. But that I had to follow the precedent of the supreme court in that case. And as I read it, that's what it said. FEINSTEIN>> How do you reconcile what you've just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history? How do you reconcile that? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, of course the violence in the schools is something that we all detest and want to do something about. I know there are efforts to make schools safer. At my girls' school they do a lot now that are different than just a few years ago in terms of trying on to harden the school and make it safer for everyone. Handguns and semi automatic 10:18:25 AM rifles are weapons used for hunting and self-defense, but as you say, senator, you rightly say they are used in a lot of violent crime and cause a lot of deaths. Handguns are used in lots of crimes that result in death and so are semi automatic rifles. That is what makes this issue difficult as I said in the last two pages of my dissent in heller. I fully understand the gang violence, gun violence, drug violence that plagues various cities including Washington, D.C. This was known as the murder capital of the world for a while, this city. And that was a lot of handgun violence at the time. So I understand the issue. But as a judge, my job as I saw it was to follow the second amendment opinion of the supreme court whether I agreed with it or disagreed. At the end of the opinion, I cited justice Kennedy's Texas v. johnson, quote which I read 10:19:28 AM guiding light for the lower court judges and all judges. FEINSTEIN>> Let me give you a couple other quotes because I'm going to change the subject. Do you agree with justice o'connor that a woman's right to control her reproductive life impacts her ability to, quote, participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation, end quote? KAVANAUGH>> Well, as a general proposition, I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe V. Wade. So roe V. Wade held and reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus Casey that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. And one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in roe and also in planned 10:20:31 AM parenthood versus Casey more fully is along the lines of what you said, senator Feinstein, about the quote from justice o'connor. So that is one of the rationales that undergirds roe V. Wade. FEINSTEIN>> Let me give you another rationale. In the 1950s and '60s before roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That is according to the gutmacher institute. A lot of women died in that period. So the question comes, and you have said today -- not today, but it's been reported that you have said that roe is now settled law. The first question I have, what 10:21:31 AM do you mean by settled law. I tried to ask earlier, do you believe it is correct law. Have your views on whether roe is settled precedent or could be overturned and has your views changed since you were in the bush white house? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedence of the supreme court and entitled respect under stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about roe V. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years as you know. And most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus Casey in 1992. And as you well recall, I know when that case came up the supreme court didn't just reaffirm it in passing, the 10:22:32 AM court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it. And then joint opinion of justice Kennedy, justice o'connor and justice Sutter at great length went through those factors. That was the question presented in the case. FEINSTEIN>> Could I interrupt you since you mentioned stare decisis and I sat on nine of these hearings, and when the subject comes up, the person says I will follow stare decisis. And they get confirmed. And then of course they don't. So I think knowing going into it how do you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as to whether to support you or not. Because I don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. And I truly believe women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within obviously some concern for a 10:23:33 AM viable fetus. KAVANAUGH>> And I understand your point of view on that, senator. And I understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. I understand the importance of the issue. I understand the importance that people attach to the roe V. Wade decision, to the planned parenthood versus Casey decision. I don't live in a bubble. I understand -- I live in the real world. I understand the importance of the issue. FEINSTEIN>> Well, my staff just passed me a note. Have your views about whether roe is settled precedent changed since you were in the bush white house? Yes or no? KAVANAUGH>> Well, I'll tell you what my -- I'm not sure what it is referring to about bush white house, so I will tell you what my view right now is. 10:24:33 AM Which is it is an important precedent of the supreme court that has been reaffirmed many times. And this is the point I want to make that I think is important. Planned parenthood versus Casey reaffirmed roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors. So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent. Another example of that because you might say are here other cases like that, Miranda. It is reaffirmed a lot but in the Dickerson case chief justice Rehnquist writes the opinion and reaffirming Miranda. Even though chief justice 10:25:34 AM Rehnquist by the way had been a critic, he decided that it had been precedent too long so he reaffirmed it. So precedent on -- FEINSTEIN>> Sorry to interrupt but I want to switch subjects. What would you say your position today is on a woman's right to choose? KAVANAUGH>> As a judge, it is an important precedence of the supreme court. By it I mean roe V. Wade and planned parenthood versus Casey. Been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent which itself is an important factor to remember. And I understand the significance of the issue, jurus significance. And I do understand the real world effects of that decision 10:26:36 AM as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the supreme court. FEINSTEIN>> Well, I thank you for that. Let's go to presidential power for a moment. You were part of Ken Starr's independent counsel team which conducted a sweeping investigation into possible wrongdoing by president Clinton and the first lady. At the time you argued for aggressive questioning of the president. You did not take the position that president Clinton was immune from investigation. Since then, you have taken the opposite position. In fact you have said that, and I quote, if the president were the sole subject of a criminal investigation, I would say no one should be investigating that at all. What did you mean by that and what are the circumstances where a sitting president could be subject to criminal investigation? 10:27:39 AM KAVANAUGH>> I appreciate the sign there. The last sign I should have mentioned while I was up, the second amendment sign actually had a brackets around part of my quote. And not sure it was the exact quote. FEINSTEIN>> Is this accurate? KAVANAUGH>> Here's what I was saying. The last one may or may not have been accurate, I just wanted to point out that it had brackets for my quote. What happened after the Starr investigation then I worked 5 1/2 years in the white house, so let me give you context and I'll get to your question. I worked in the independent investigation and that is obviously difficult, controversial, a moment for our country that I wish hadn't happened. We all wish it hadn't happened. And I reflect on that, I wrote a Georgetown university law journal article in '99 reflecting on some of my 10:28:40 AM thoughts about that. This seems to be a tendency of mine, go through an experience, write an article reflecting on it. And then I work in the bush white house for 5 1/2 years and I wrote an article in 2009 when president Obama is in office I should point out. And I reflected on a number of things I had learned working the independent counsel office and then working in the white house. And I thought there were a number of things congress could take a look at that I had experienced. One of them was I proposed time lines for consideration of judicial nominee himself if I proposed 180 day up or down vote for every judicial nominee. That was something that I thought would avoid controversy and have rules of the road set in advance and I proposed that specifically for congress to consider. Other aspects, I said -- another thing I proposed was for congress to consider whether it should look at Clinton versus 10:29:42 AM Jones or the principle of Clinton versus Jones. So you say a president is subject to civil suit while in office, Paula Jones suit. That was a controversial decision, but the supreme court made clear at the end of the decision congress could provide extra deferral of suits, not immunity, but deferral of suits for presidents if congress so wanted. And so in the Minnesota law review article, I put out some ideas about whether congress may want to think about that. And why did I do that? I think senator Durbin asked yesterday what changed that made me think about that. What changed was September 11th. That is what changed. So after September 11th, I thought very deeply about the presidency and I thought very deeply about the independent counsel experience. And I thought very deeply about how those things interacted. 10:30:42 AM And I thought very deeply about seeing president bush when he came into the oval office on September 12th, 2001 in the morning, president bush said this will not happen again. This will not happen again. And he was of single minded focus every morning for the next seven years for president bush was still September 12, 2001. Single minded focus. And then thinking back to the independent counsel experience in August of 1998, so I proposed some ideas for congress to consider. Here is the bottom line, they were ideas for congress to consider. They were not my constitutional views. If a case came up that where someone was trying to say this is a constitutional principle, I would have a completely open mind on that because I've never taken a position on the constitution on that question. I've only put out proposals for you all to study to think about 10:31:44 AM the president fighting a war, leading a war, and a president subject to say ordinary civil lawsuits as in the Clinton versus Jones. FEINSTEIN>> You're becoming very good, you are learning to filibuster. But let me ask this precisely. The supreme court has unanimously ruled that the president can be required to turn over information. It held the subpoena for the tapes of oval office conversations that revealed Nixon's efforts to cover up the watergate break-in. You have said that the Nixon case might have been wrongly decided. Was U.S. V Nixon wrongly decided? In your view. KAVANAUGH>> So that quote is not in context, it is a misunderstanding of my position. I have repeatedly called U.S. V 10:32:46 AM Nixon one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. So I have always identified Marbury versus Madison, Youngstown steel, brown versus board of education and united States versus Richard Nixon. And why have I -- brown versus board by the way the single greatest -- the court's holding that a criminal trial subpoena to a president in the context of the special counsel regulations in that case for information, a criminal trial subpoena for on information under the specific regulations in that case, I have said that holding is one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. So not only -- I can explain how that misunderstanding came up because I know there was a news story about that and that is 10:33:47 AM just not correct impression of my views. My views have been consistently why was it one of the greatest moments? Because of the political pressures of the time, the court stood up for judicial Independence in a moment of national crisis. The supreme court -- we need the supreme court to decide the things that we can foresee, but one of the things that is really important, we'll have crisis moments on things that we can't even predict. And we need people on the supreme court who are prepared for that and U.S. V Nixon -- 10:34:12 FEINSTEIN>> My time will run out very quick. Let me ask you this. Can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena? KAVANAUGH>> That is a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from U.S. V Nixon's precise holding. And I think going with the justice Ginsburg principle, which is really not the justice Ginsburg alone principle, it is 10:34:48 AM everyone's principle on the current supreme court, and as a matter of cannons of judicial Independence, I can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question. FEINSTEIN>> So you can't give me an answer on whether a president has to respond to a subpoena from a court of law? KAVANAUGH>> My understanding is that you're asking me to give my view you on a potential hypothetical, and that is something that each of the eight justices when sitting in my seat declined to decide potential hypothetical cases. I can tell you about the U.S. V Nixon precedent. And I did about chief justice Berger's role in forges a unanimous opinion and really all the justices worked together on that chief justice Berger who had been appointed by president Nixon writes the opinion in U.S. 10:35:49 AM V Nixon, 8-0 rhnquist reduced ordering Nixon to disclose the tapes. A moment of crisis argument I think July 8, 1974 they decided two weeks later, really important opinion. Moment of judicial Independence, important precedent of the supreme court. But how that would apply to other hypotheticals I best follow the precedent of the nominees who have been here before and as a matter of judicial Independence not give you a precise answer on a hypothetical that could come before me. FEINSTEIN>> I understand. Thank you very much for being forthcoming. Appreciate it. GRASSLEY>> I assume you want to reserve your three minutes? FEINSTEIN>> Can I do that? GRASSLEY>> Yeah. FEINSTEIN>> I will. GRASSLEY>> Senator hatch. HATCH>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I'd like to enter into the court three letters and an op-ed supporting 10:36:51 AM judge Kavanaugh's confirmation.first letter which I mentioned yesterday in my opening statement is a letter from 41 attorneys who are members of the supreme court bar. Signers include people like Lisa blatt, Dean Maynard and Kathleen Sullivan. The signers hold a broad range of political policy and Juris prudential views, but they speak as one in supporting judge Kavanaugh's nomination, unquote. The letter authors write, quote, based on our experience with judge Kavanaugh and his work over 12 years of distinguished judicial service, we are confident that he possesses the character, temperament and intellect that will make him an asset to our nation's highest court, unquote. Now, the second letter is from Carolyn Williams, a partner at 10:37:52 AM the venerable D.C. Law firm. She writes that she has followed judge Kavanaugh's legal career since 1990 when she was the hiring partner at the firm. And he was a law student. Miss Williams says that judge Kavanaugh, quote, has all the qualities litigants and lawyers legal acumen, fundamental fairness and decency, abiding respect for precedent, and the rule of law. Unquote. I also want to enter into the record a letter and op-ed by Jay lefkowitz. In it he writes that judge Kavanaugh has a strong commitment to protecting Americans' freedom of religion no matter what their faith, 10:38:54 AM unquote. And he should know, he and judge Kavanaugh worked together in private practice on a pro Bono religious freedom case representing a jewish synagogue in Maryland. And they won the case. Vindicating the right of the congregation to build a place of worship in their neighborhood. Let me just -- before I begin, judge, I'd like you to keep your answers to my questions as concisely as you can. Some of my colleagues have suggested that president trump nominated you because he thought you'd rule in his favor should certain issues come before the court. Suppose you had a case involving president trump or an issue near and dear to the president. What assurances can you provide that you will not allow the president's personal views on on a case or personal interest to impact your decision? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, I'm an independent judge. For 12 years I've been deciding 10:39:55 AM cases based on the law and the precedent in each case. If confirmed to the supreme court, that is how I will do it as well. Be part of a team of nine. I'll decide cases based on the constitution, the law, the precedent working with the other eight justices without fear of favor, independently without pressure from any quarter. And the person who has the best arguments on the law and the precedent is the person who will win with me. HATCH>> Well, thank you. If at the end of this process you are confirmed to the supreme court, which I expect you will be, what sort of loyalty will you owe to the president? How whether that loyalty differ from the loyalty you owe to, say, the American people? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, if confirmed to the supreme court and as a sitting judge, I owe my loyalty to the constitution. That is what I owe loyalty to. 10:40:56 AM And the constitution establishes me as an independent judge bound to follow the law as written, the precedents of the supreme as articulated subject to the rules of stare decisis. HATCH>> You were appointed to the D.C. Circuit by George W. Bush. I think it is fair to say you were close to president bush. You worked for him for a number of years. You can you give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, the most prominent example is the homdon case, the military commissions case. That was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. They had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the court, established military commissions. The military commissions were to try Al Qaeda terrorists who had 10:41:58 AM committed wash crimes and one case came to us, homdon, and the question was the prosecution unlawful because the crime in which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001 when he was alleged to have committed it. A I wrote the opinion reversing his quikts even though it was a signature prosecution of the United States, even though it was a national security case, because that was the right answer under the law. If you are right under the law, you prevail. HATCH>> I'd like to turn now you do your work on the bush administration. My democratic be colleagues are demanding to see every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the bush administration. In part because they want to 10:42:59 AM know what role if any you played in developing the bush administration's interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, ranking member Feinstein who was then the chairman of the senate intelligence committee and a good one at that issued a lengthy report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program under president bush. The report detailed the origins, government and implementation of the program. In 2014, a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version or report runs well over 500 pages. And your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I myself spent over 20 years on the intelligence committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do. And I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the bush administration's interrogation policies, I think 10:44:00 AM the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, I want to ask you for the record, what role if any did you play in developing or implementing the bush administration's detention and interrogation policies? KAVANAUGH>> The policies that are reflected and described in senator Feinstein's extensive thorough report were very controversial as you know, senator. The enhanced interrogation techniques. And legal memos that were involved justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved -- I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that 10:45:01 AM program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to senator Feinstein's report, the justice department did a lengthy office of professional responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name is not in that report, senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers, this came up at my last hearing, a number of lawyers who were involved including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing I recall senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other your additional nominees had been. And the answer was no. And that answer was accurate. And that answer has been shown to be accurate by the office of professional responsibility report and senator Feinstein's 10:46:02 AM thorough report. And I do want to say on senator Feinstein's report, that is an important piece of work that collected facts about a program that it is important for us to know those facts for the future. And I know it was an enormous effort and a lot of tough work to get all that information for the intelligence committee. But I have looked through that report and looked through the office of professional responsibility report. I was not read into that program, senator. Thank you for asking. HATCH>> Okay. Judge, you've been accused of misleading this committee during your 2006 confirmation hearing regarding your role in developing the bush administration detention policy. Now, you have a strong reputation in the legal community for honesty and integrity. Read any one of the dozens of 10:47:03 AM letters we've received supporting your nomination and you would see that right away. Now, some of my colleagues may not give you the opportunity to answer this question fully, so I'd like to gich give you the opportunity now. Did you mislead the committee in 2006? If not, what is the source of the confusion about your prior testimony? KAVANAUGH>> I told the truth and the whole truth in my prior testimony. I was not read into that program. The subsequent reports of senator Feinstein and office of professional responsibility show that. And that is what I did then. That is the answer now. I was not read into that program. HATCH>> As I mentioned in my opening statement, 18 of your former women law clerks have written to the committee in support of your 10:48:05 AM nomination. That is all of your former women law clerks who were not precluded by their current or pending employment from signing the letter. Now, these women described the mentoring and encouragement you have given them in their careers. And they say that you are, quote, one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers. Unquote. Quite a compliment. Majority of your clerks in fact have been women. I understand that you were the first judge in the history of the D.C. Circuit to have an all-female class of clerks. Why do you believe it important to encourage young women lawyers and to ensure that both men and women are well represented in the legal profession? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, I believe in equality. 10:49:06 AM Equality for all americans, men and women. Also regardless of race, ethnicity. My mom was an example as I described yesterday of breaking barriers. Showing me first on racial equality by her example of teaching at Mckinley tech, then when she became a lawyer in the late '70s of, there were not many women prosecutors at the time. Definitely male dominated. And how she overcame barriers, was a great prosecutor, became a great trial judge in Maryland. She showed me by her example the importance of women's equality. During college, you've received a letter from ten college friends of mine who are women, women athletes at Yale, talked about how I treated them and women's sports with respect and as equal even when I was in college. You have a letter from 84 women 10:50:07 AM I worked with in the bush administration who talked about my efforts to work with them in the tense environment of the west wing especially after September 11th. HATCH>> Did you say 84? KAVANAUGH>> 84 women signed the letter who had worked in the bush white house and worked in that tense environment. But I came to be a judge in 2006, may 2006. And August 2006, Linda greenhouse of the "New York Times" runs a story in the "New York Times" about the scarcity of women law clerks at the supreme court that year. There were seven I believe that year out of 37. And she wrote a story about that. And that seemed to me very on odd and unacceptable. And I started thinking about what I could do -- first of all, why is that happening and what could I do about it. 10:51:08 AM The problem seemed to me these networks that judges rely on for clerk hirings and professor networks were excluding women or at least women weren't fully represented in those. That is true with minorities as well by the way. And so I made sure when I was talking to professors at law schools, I made sure I wanted to see a broad pool of qualified, well qualified applicants including women. And in that year for example fall 2006 which was my first year on the bench, we hire a year ahead, so I'm hiring for 2007, and I hired three women for that clerk class of 2007, three out of the four. In respect Zena is right here. And that was the start of my efforts to make sure women were 10:52:09 AM not being excluded. And I really worked on why is this happening so Yale law did a study about participation this class, the differences on who gets called on in class. And there are slight differences there. Men and women. Who then get selected as research assistants, slight differences there. And it just keeps building until you get a disparity in the clerk network. And there is a pipeline problem. And I've said I'm breaking through problem. I'm not listening to that. And so I've been very aggressive about hiring the best and understanding that the best include women and as you say, senator, a majority of my clerks have been women. I believe 21 have gone on to clerk at the supreme court. And they are an awesome group. And if confirmed to the supreme 10:53:10 AM court, I will continue to do this. What it takes, and I think my mom showed me this, president bush showed me this a little, what it takes is just not accepting the same old answer, oh, there is a disparity. Well, why and then do something about it. And I tried to figure out why. And we can talk about minority clerks too. But on women, why were those disparities existing as described by Linda greenhouse. And I tried to figure out why. And then I did something about it. And I'm very proud of that. Because I do believe that all people should be treated equally and the law clerk position which may sound ministerial, but those are important launching pads for the next generation of leaders, the people who will be sitting in these seats, the people who will be sitting in my seat. Lots of them will come from law clerks. So if we are not being inclusive now, that will show up later. 10:54:11 AM And so it has just been a critical part, something I'm very focused on at all times. It is a quality in the hiring process making sure women are getting the same opportunities that men are. I appreciate the question. HATCH>> And I appreciate the answer. I think everybody in this country should appreciate the answer. And I think it distinguishes you. Late last year allegations against former ninth circuit judge surfaced when an article detailed disturbing allegations of misconduct by the judge. You clerked for judge Kozinski for a one year. Some of your opponents have suggested that you must have known about these allegations. This seems to me to be an effort at guilt by association, which is not the way this committee should operate in any way. 10:55:11 AM With that in mind, I want to give you a chance to answer a few questions so we're all operating on the same foundation. First, how long have you you known judge Kosinski? KAVANAUGH>> I clerked for him in 1991, 1992. So 27 years ago. HATCH>> And I understand from media reports that he operated an e-mail list where he would send inappropriate material. Were you on that list? KAVANAUGH>> I can't remember anything like that. HATCH>> How often did you talk with the judge on the phone? KAVANAUGH>> Not often. HATCH>> How often did you see him in person? KAVANAUGH>> Again, not often. Maybe when there was a legal convention or -- HATCH>> That's what a lot of people don't seem to understand. KAVANAUGH>> I was not working in the -- he was in the Pasadena courthouse in California with ten other court of appeals judges in that courthouse. I of course was working in 10:56:12 AM Washington, D.C. HATCH>> When you did see and talk with judge Kosinski, what type of things did you talk about? KAVANAUGH>> We were among the 12 co-authors of the Brian garner led book on judicial precedent. So for several years that was a project all of us -- the 12 of us I guess it was this total were working on that, including Diane wood, chief judge of the 7th circuit, justice Gorsuch was co-author. And justice Kennedy had had judge Kosinski run Kennedy's law clerk hiring process. And in the course of that process, I would have communications with the judge. HATCH>> Did you know anything about these allegations? KAVANAUGH>> Nothing. HATCH>> Before they became public 10:57:13 AM last year? KAVANAUGH>> No, when they became public, first thought I had was no woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace ever. Including in the judiciary. Especially in the judiciary. And when I heard, when it became public, it was in December, it was a gut punch, it was a gut punch for me. HATCH>> It was for me too. KAVANAUGH>> It was a gut punch for the judiciary. And I was shocked. And disappointed. Angry. Swirl of emotions. No woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. And I applaud chief justice Roberts appointed a committee of judges to establish better procedures. Chief justice Garland did the same thing for our court. I don't think they are final steps by any stretch. And what -- this is part of a 10:58:14 AM much larger national problem of an abuse and harassment. And one of the things we've learned is we need better reporting mechanisms. Women particularly in the workplace need to know if they are the victim of harassment where to report it immediately, who to report to. They need to know that they will be safe if they report it. They need to have a safe working environment, that they won't be retaliated against and they will being protected if they report it. And that is part of the steps or one of the steps that is I think being improved as a result of the working group or committee that the chief justice has appointed. And I'm interested in doing everything I can to assist those efforts to make those workplaces 10:59:15 AM safe. Again, it is part of a broader national problem, whether it is priests or teachers or coaches or doctors or businesspeople or news people. There is a lot of -- there is a broad national problem that needs to be addressed including in the judiciary and I applaud chief justice Roberts for doing so. HATCH>> I'd like to talk to you now about the Chevron doctrine. >> [ Yelling ]. HATCH>> This is an important judicial doctrine that makes -- that takes its name from the supreme court case that created it back in the 1980s. The supreme court instructed federal courts to defer if the law was ambiguous. Some of your academic writings have expressed skepticism about the Chevron doctrine and concern 11:00:16 AM that it allows an administration to impose its policy preference by avoiding the political process. I can understand why this would be appealing to an administration. But I also think that takes threat to the separation of powers because it transfers power from congress and judiciary to the executive branch. That why I've introduced an act to reverse the Chevron doctrine. Many members of this committee have co-sponsored this legislation. And as someone who has written extensively about the separation of powers, can you tell us why the separation of powers is so important and how it helps to protect individual freedom? KAVANAUGH>> Separation of powers protects 11:01:06 AM individual liberty because it responds to the concern the framers had something that senator klobuchar said yesterday, federalist 47 talks about it, federalist 69. So the separation of powers to begin with protects individual liberty. It does so because congress can pass the laws but you can't enforce the laws. A separate body has to decide to enforce the laws. And then even if the law is enforced and a citizen may say well, I want someone who didn't pass the law or enforce to decide whether I violated the law or whether the law is constitutional. And that is why we have an independent judiciary to guarantee as an independent matter our rights and liberties. And the three branches therefore do separate things because it all tilts toward liberty. It is hard to pass a law as you know in the congress. And then even if it does get passed, it affects your liberty. 11:02:07 AM A separate body has to decide usually U.S. Attorney's office to enforce the law and that is a separate decision. That helps protect your liberty. And then even if that happens, you go to a court and you say either I didn't vie light that law as I'm accused of doing on or that law is unconstitutional. The court independently decides that, it is not the members of congress or the executive. That is how the constitution separate of powers tilts towards liberty in all its respects. Now, as to your specific question, one of the things that I've seen in my experience in the executive branch and in the judicial branch is a natural tendency, but it is a natural tendency that judges need to be aware of and then respond to, so here is the natural tendency. Congress passes laws but then can't update the law. So maybe it is an environmental 11:03:10 AM law or maybe some kind of law dealing with national security. Let's take those two examples to illustrate. And then an executive branch agency wants to do some new policy. And proposes a new policy to congress. But congress doesn't pass the new policy. What often happens or too often I've seen is that the executive branch then relies on the old law you as a source of authority to do this new thing. And they try to say, well, the old law is ambiguous, so we can fit this new policy into the old law as justification for doing this new thing. And I've seen this in national security cases, I've seen it in environmental cases, you see it all over the place. It is a natural phenomenon because the executive branch wants to implement what it thinks is good policy. Now, when those cases come to court, it is our job to figure out whether the executive branch has acted within the authority given to it by congress. 11:04:10 AM Have you given them the authority. And my administrative law is rooted in respect for congress. Have you passed the law to give the authority. I've heard it said that I'm a skeptic of regulation. I'm not a skeptic of regulation at all. I'm a skeptic of unauthorized regulation, regulation outside the bounds of what the laws passed by congress have said. And that is at the root of our administrative law jurisprudence. HATCH>> I look for the ability to impartially interpret the law and apply it to the case before the court. Now, this can often be the most difficult part of a judge's job because it may require the judge to rule against a litigant that the judge may personally agree with. At justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, senator 11:05:12 AM Schumer commended her for, quote, huing carefully to the text of statutes. Do you believe that it is important for a judge to enter spret and apply the laws that congress has actually passed rather than seeking to change the law if the judge didn't like what the congress has done? And if so, why or why not? KAVANAUGH>> I agree completely, senator. That is at the foundation of what I view as the proper judicial philosophy. The separation of powers system you described, we have to stick to the laws passed by congress. You make the policy. We will follow the policy direction that you put into the laws that are enacted passed by the house and senate signed by the president. We don't rewrite those laws. The executive branch also shouldn't be rewriting those laws beyond the scope of the 11:06:12 AM authority granted. HATCH>> Some of my colleagues have it criticized for ruling against environmental interests. Some of my colleagues don't like the environmental laws congress has passed and are frustrate that had they haven't been able to get their own preferred policies signed in to law. I've looked through your record and I found that you have not hesitated at all to uphold environmental regulations when they were actually authorized by statute. Could you give us a few examples of cases where you have upheld environmental regulations because you you concluded that congress had authorized them? HATCH>> Limit to as few as you can as time has run out. KAVANAUGH>> Senator, as I said yes, I'm a pro law judge and environmental cases, in some I've ruled against virnment a Al 11:07:14 AM interests and there are some big cases. I upheld a California regulation for a majority over a dissent. Stricter air quality standards in the national association of manufacturers case. EPA rules for particulate matter in the uarg case, permanent process applicable to surface coal mining in the national mining association case, the Murray energy case rjecting a premature challenge to a clean power plant regulation. The national resources defense council case versus EPA ruling for environmentalist groups. That was a big money case where the industry wanted an affirmative defense to be created for accidental emissions. The affirmative defense was not in the statutes passed by do you think. The industry came in with their lawyers and said write the affirmative defense into the law and I wrote the opinion saying 11:08:15 AM no, it is not in the law. And, yes, that might be a problem for industry, but we follow the law regardless. So there are a large number of cases where I've ruled in favor of environmentalist interests because that is what the law required in that case. HATCH>> Thank you, judge. GRASSLEY>> Senator Leahy. LEAHY>> Good morning, judge. You and your family. We have a lot of questions, and I know you've done a lot of preparation with a couple of our distinguished Republican colleagues about the questions that you might be asked, but let me ask you something that normally isn't an issue during supreme court hearings. You testified before this committee in both 2004 and 2006 as a part of your nomination to the D.C. Circuit court. 11:09:18 AM And you were nice enough do by my office and chat with me last month. I asked you if you changed anything in your prior testimony and you said no. Is that still your position? KAVANAUGH>> It is, senator. I told the truth. I was not read into the programs, I -- LEAHY>> I'm not asking if you -- I'm just asking if you would change anything. KAVANAUGH>> I'd like to explain if I can. LEAHY>> I'm going to give you a chance. Go ahead. KAVANAUGH>> I wanted to explain at the last hearing in 2006 in particular, you were concerned understandably because there had been two judicial nominees involved in the legal memos, in the legal discussions around crafting the interrogation techniques and detention policies. You were concerned whether I the was involved in those. And I made clear in response to those questions that I was not read into that program. 11:10:19 AM That was 100% accurate. Still accurate today. I think senator Feinstein's report and the office of professional responsibility report established that I was not involved in those programs. Now, there were two judicial nominees -- LEAHY>> I'm going to go into that in a little bit. I don't want to go over my time as the preceding senator did. KAVANAUGH>> I just want to be clear, I want to reassure you -- LEAHY>> I'm going to go into it. GRASSLEY>> I'm not going to take I'm away from you, but I want to explain something. I said yesterday that if a question is asked within with the 30 minutes, that he can finish the question and it can be answered. So he did not go over his time. LEAHY>> Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a sensitive area. Let me ask you this. Between 2000 -- I'm new here. 11:11:20 AM Between 2001 and 2003, two Republican staffers on this committee regularly hacked into the private computer files of six democratic senators including mine. These Republican staffers stole 4670 files. And they used them to assist in getting president bush's most controversial judicial nominees confirmed. The theft became public in late 2003 when the "Wall Street journal" happened to print some of the stolen materials. The ringleader behind this massive theft was a Republican staffer named Manny Miranda. In a way it was considered by many both Republicans and Democrats as a digital watergate, theft not unlike what 11:12:20 AM the Russians did in hacking the DC. Now, during all this, you worked hand in hand in the white house with Manny Miranda to advance these same nominees where he was stealing material. Not surprisingly you were asked extensively about your knowledge of this theft during both your 2004, 2006 hearings. And I don't use the word extensively lightly. You were asked over 100 questions from Republicans and Democrats. And you testified repeatedly that you had never received any stolen materials, you knew nothing about it until it was public. You testified that if you had suspected anything untoward, you would have reported to the white house counsel who would have raised it with senator hatch especially as Mr. Miranda had 11:13:20 AM worked for him. And at the time we left it there. We didn't know any better. Today with the very limited amount of your white house record that has been provided to this committee, and it is limited, for the first time we've been able to learn about your relationship with Mr. Miranda and your knowledge of these events. So my question is this. Did Mr. Miranda ever provide you with highly specific information regarding what I or other democratic senators were planning on asking certain judicial nominees? KAVANAUGH>> Senator, let me contextualize because I'm looking at what you're putting up here for -- LEAHY>> The question -- KAVANAUGH>> What is up there is 100% accurate as my memory. LEAHY>> Okay. So let me ask you this. 11:14:22 AM KAVANAUGH>> Never knew or suspected, true. Never suspected anything untoward. True. Had I suspected something untoward, I would have talked to judge Gonzalez. I would have talked to senator hatch. That is all 100% true. LEAHY>> And that is what I had already said. But did Mr. Miranda ever provide you with highly specific information regarding what I or other democratic senators were planning in the future to ask certain judicial nominees? KAVANAUGH>> Well, one of the things we would do as a white house is on judicial nominations, and I'm coming to your answer, but I want to explain, is to meet up here and this happens on both sides all the time with teams up here about, okay, judicial nominees are coming up, how do we get them through, here is a hearing coming up. And during those meetings, of 11:15:24 AM course it would be discussed, well, I think here's what senator Leahy will be interested in. That is very common. I'm sure in president Obama's administration when they had similar meetings, they would probably have meetings and say I think this is what senator graham will be interested in. That's what you do in meetings with -- so highly specific, I'm not sure what you're getting at by highly specific. LEAHY >> I've been here over on 40 years. I know what both Republican and democratic administrations do in preparing. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking you before this did Mr. Miranda send you an e-mail asking you on July 19th, 2002 asking you and another bush official why the Leahy people were looking in to financial ties in two particular groups, a 11:16:26 AM controversial nominee to the fifth circuit. You handled that nomination. As you know she had received a lot of the contributions. Did Mr. Miranda send you an e-mail asking you why the Leahy people are were looking in to her financial ties? >> Is that what this e-mail is? LEAHY>> I'm just asking. >> Can I take a minute to read it? LEAHY>> Of course. >> This is four days before her hearing on July 23. >> Did I send any of the e-mails 11:17:27 AM on this chain? I don't think so. I think I'm cced. In any event, if he said why are the Leahy people looking into this? >> From manmanny Miranda. >> I don't have a specific recollection, but it would not have been unusual which is that the Leahy people are looking into this, the hatch people are looking into that. LEAHY>> You say all the time. Two days before the hearing, he told you that Democrats were passing around a related "60 minutes" story and he said it is Intel suggests that Leahy will focus on all things money. Well, that appears to come from 11:18:28 AM a stolen e-mail to me, stolen by the Republican staff member sent to me the night before and then given to you the next morning. Were you aware that you were getting from Mr. Miranda stolen e-mails? >> Not at all, senator. It was part of what appeared to be standard discussion about -- it is common, senator, at the white house to hear from our alleged affairs team in fact in this process that is common to hear. This is what senator X is interested in, this is what senator Y -- LEAHY>> Was it common to have copies of a private e-mail sent to a particular senator? >> Copies of a private e-mail sent to a particular senator? LEAHY>> Yes. Wouldn't that jump out at you? >> What are you referring to? LEAHY>> Mr. Miranda is telling you about e-mails sent to me the 11:19:32 AM night before. There would be no way that he would even have that unless he stole it. Did that raise any question in your mind? >> Did he refer to that e-mail in this? LEAHY>> Yes. >> Where is that, senator? LEAHY>> I'll let you read it. >> I'm not seeing where you are -- I'm not seeing what you are referring to. LEAHY>> Let me take you one that you do. Because you do have this information from Mr. Miranda. And the very limited amount of material that the Republicans are allowing us to see of that information did at least come through. But in January of 2003, let me go to something very specific, Mr. Miranda forwarded a letter 11:20:32 AM to then Tom daschle from me. The let are was clearly a draft. It had typos and it wasn't signed. Somebody eventually -- we never put it out, but somebody eventually leaked its existence to Fox News. I'm not sure who. I could guess. It was a private letter. The time I was -- it had been leaked. But here is the thing. You had the full text of my letter in your inbox before anything had been said about it publicly. Did you find it at all unusual to receive a draft letter from democratic senators to each other before any mention of it was made public? >> The only thing I said on the e-mail exchange if I'm looking at it correctly, senator, is who signed this. Which would imply that I thought it was a signed letter. LEAHY>> It was sent to you. 11:21:33 AM Were you surprised to get it. >> It is obviously a draft. It has typos and every else. Were you surprised that a draft letter circulated among Democrats ended up in your inbox? LEAHY>> I think the premise of your question is not accurately describing my apparent recollection or understanding at the time. Because I wouldn't have said who signed this if I thought it was a draft. My e-mail says who signed this. >> So you you didn't realize what you had was a stolen letter signed by me that you had a letter that had not been sent to anybody, had not been made public? >> All I see that I said was who signed this. That's all I see. LEAHY>> Let me ask you some more 11:22:34 AM because so much of this came from Mr. Miranda who was a Republican staffer who was as we now know stealing things. Did he ever ask to meet privately with you you at an off site location other than somewhere the white house or capitol hill? >> I think sometimes, Senato that the meetings with senate staffers and white house and justice department -- LEAHY>> I'm asking you about one particular one, Mr. Miranda. >> Yes, statement -- usually it would be either the white house or senate, but I think sometimes -- or doj, but sometimes it could be somewhere else. LEAHY>> Did he ask to meet with you privately so he could give you information about senator Biden and senator Feinstein? >> I'm not remembering anything specific, but that is certainly possible. And again, senator, I just want to be clear here, because it is 11:23:35 AM very common when in judicial selection process to determine what are all the senators interested in for an upcoming nominee or upcoming hearing. That is the coin of the realm. Senator X listed in focusing on administrative law. Senator Y will ask about environmental law. Senator is concerned about your past work for this client. And that is very common kind of discussion. LEAHY>> Did he ever ask to have you meet him not at the white house, not at the capitol, but at his home? >> I don't remember that. LEAHY>> Did he ever ask you to meet him outside of the white house or the capitol? >> I can't rule that out, but again, that wouldn't have been typical. LEAHY>> Did he ever hand you material 11:24:39 AM separately from what would be e-mailed back and forth? >> Not remembering -- if you are referring to something in particular, I can answer that. LEAHY>> Did you ever receive information via Mr. Miranda, information marked confidential that informed you what my staff was sharing with other Democrats? >> I don't know the answer to that, senator, but again, people on -- it is not always the case >> I don't know the answer to that, senator, but again, people on -- it is not always the case at least my understanding that the people on for example your staff and senator hatch's staff were necessarily working at odds. It seemed like a lot of times the staff was cooperating at times, not at other times obviously. But at times about judicial nominations. And so it wouldn't have raised anything in particular in my mind if we learned, oh, senator Leahy is concerned about this. LEAHY>> Did my staff ever send you confidential material from 11:25:41 AM senator hatch that was stolen from his e-mails? >> Not the last part, but I certainly did talk to your staff when we were working on the airline bill on the September 20, 2001 airline bill. I remember being here all night one night with your staff and I'm sure we did talk that night about what other senators thought and that was the airline bill whereas I think you recall speaker Hastert was involved and we were up there with the omb team. So I worked hard with your staff on that. It just struck me as not uncommon at all to be talking with our ledge team about what senators on both sides think. It didn't strike me that it was always armed camps. LEAHY>> And oftentimes it was not. But here you're getting obviously very private democratic e-mails. You weren't concerned how Mr. 11:26:41 AM Miranda got them? >> I guess I'm not sure about your premise. LEAHY>> Were you at all concerned about where Mr. Miranda got some of the material he was showing you? >> I don't recall that, but on the premise of your last question, I want to step back to that, I'm not sure I agree with the premise. LEAHY>> If you are getting something marked con if I he deny shall, wouldn't you assume that is not something being shared back and forth? >> Unless it was shared. I mean, this is the thing. If a staffer said here's what we're sending to -- you all should be aware of this because we're going to make a -- we'll be really opposed to this judicial nominee. So just to be clear, it seemed to me sometimes there were judicial nominees that you were very opposed to, sometimes you were supportive of, sometimes in between. And there would be messages passed back and forth and sharing of information very cooperative as I recall. 11:27:42 AM We were transparent in other words. When you had problems with nominees, there was transparency. And when you were supportive, you were at the may 9, 2001 event at the white house as I recall where the president announced his first 11 court of appeals nominees. And you were supportive of many of them. LEAHY>> But I voted for a lot of Republican nominees. Both at the supreme court, courts of appeals and district court. >> Yes. LEAHY>> But when I opposed one, I was raising very questions about funding that she was getting from people that were before her court, that might have raised a red flag that I had some concerns about her. Now, when you worked at the white house, did anyone ever tell you they had a mole that provided them with secret information related to nominations? >> I don't recall the reference 11:28:45 AM to a mole which sounds highly specific. But certainly it is common again, the people behind you can probably refer to this, but it is common I think for everyone to talk to each other at times and share information. At least this was my experience. This was 20 years ago almost. Where you would talk to people on the committee -- LEAHY>> So you never received an e-mail from a Republican staff member with information claiming to come from spying on a democratic mole? >> I won't rule anything out, senator, but if I did, I wouldn't have thought that anything -- I wouldn't have thought that in the literal meaning of that. LEAHY>> Wouldn't it have surprised you that you got an e-mail saying that somebody is spying on -- >> Is there such an e-mail, sir? LEAHY>> We'd have to ask the chairman what he has in his confidential 11:29:47 AM material. >> If you are referring to something in particular, here's what I know -- CHAIR>> Just stop a minute here. Referenced twice in your 30 minutes, and don't take this off of his time, you made reference -- you are talking about the period of time that he was white house counsel. That material is available to everybody. LEAHY>> So that bit of material about him that is marked committee confidential