FROM RHODE ISLAND WHO GOT THE
ATTENTION OF TED CRUZ AFTER HIS
CONVERSATION.
SENATOR WHITEHOUSE, THANKS FOR
TAKING A FEW MINUTES WITH US.
YOUVE BEEN VERY FOCUSED ON
ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO SURFACE
FOR A MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE THE
CAMPAIGN THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE
RIGHT TO CREATE A CONSERVATIVE
COURT, TO CREATE A CONSERVATIVE
MOVEMENT, THAT THIS WAS MORE
THAN JUST ONE THING.
WHY HAVE YOU FELT IT IMPORTANT
TO DEVOTE THE TIME YOUVE
DEVOTED TO THIS?
I WOULD ARGUE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST
ALL OF YOUR TIME HAS BEEN ON
THIS.
MORE SO THAN ON THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT, LIKE YOUR COLLEAGUES.
WHY HAVE YOU DECIDED TO MAKE
THIS THE FOCAL POINT?
>> MOSTLY BECAUSE THE DARK MONEY
OPERATION THAT IS AT WORK IN THE
COURTS SO BADLY DOES NOT WANT IT
TO COME OUT.
THEY GO THROUGH SUCH EFFORTS TO
HIDE THIS WHOLE SCHEME.
THINGS AS SIMPLE AS PRETENDING
THERE ARE 11 DIFFERENT AMICAE
WHO ARE IN A CHORUS WITHOUT
REVEALING THAT THEYRE ALL PAID
BY THE SAME BIG REPUBLICAN
DONORS AND THAT THIS IS
ORCHESTRATED, THIS IS
PERFORMANCE ART.
AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT
BRINGS GREAT DISCREDIT ON THE
COURT.
AND ITS REALLY PERNICIOUS
BECAUSE THIS SAME CREW AFFECTS
BOTH THE SELECTIONS OF THE
JUDGES AND IT FUNDS THE
CAMPAIGNS FOR THEM, AND THEN IT
COMES AND TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO
IN THESE ORCHESTRATED FLOTILLAS
AFTERWARDS.
ITS NOT A GOOD THING.
ITS HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW.
>> YOU HEARD THE RETORT FROM
SENATOR CRUZ, ITS LIKE, YOU
WANT TO TALK ABOUT DARK MONEY,
WHAT ABOUT YOUR SIDE, WHAT ABOUT
THE DEMOCRATS AND DARK MONEY,
AND SHELDON WHITEHOUSE HAS
ACCEPTED DARK MONEY OR
BENEFITTED FROM DARK MONEY.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS, THE LARGER
ISSUE ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
HAS CERTAINLY DONE -- IS
CERTAINLY ENGAGED, NOW, THEY
WILL ARGUE THEYRE NOT FOR IT
BUT THE SAYING GOES, WERE NOT
GOING TO FIGHT WITH ONE HAND
TIED BEHIND OUR BACK.
ISNT THAT THE STRUGGLE
SOMETIMES WITH TRYING TO POINT
OUT WHAT THEYRE DOING BECAUSE
FOR INSTANCE ON DARK MONEY,
DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT UNILATERALLY
DISARMED.
>> AND NOR SHOULD WE.
BUT THE REAL DIFFERENCE HERE IS
THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHO IS
PUSHING HR 1, FOR INSTANCE, IN
THE HOUSE, WHO IS PUSHING MY
DISCLOSE ACT IN THE SENATE TO
BRING SOME SUNLIGHT AND SOME
TRANSPARENCY INTO THIS MESS,
ITS DEMOCRATS.
EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE
SENATE VOTED FOR THE DISCLOSE
ACT.
EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED
AGAINST IT.
THATS THE VOTE THAT MATTERS.
DO YOU WANT THIS DARK MONEY
NONSENSE OR DO YOU NOT?
REPUBLICANS WANT IT.
WE DO NOT.
BUT SINCE THEIR REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT
CREATED UNLIMITED MONEY IN
POLITICS AND ALLOWED DARK MONEY
TO INFILTRATE THAT, WE HAVE TO
FIGHT BACK.
AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO
THAT.
I THINK WERE DOING THE RIGHT
THING TO DO THAT.
BUT ITS THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY
TO BLAME US FOR PARTICIPATING IN
A GAME THAT THEY HAVE PROTECTED.
>> IT DOES SEEM AS IF, AS A
POLITICAL OBSERVER, I ALWAYS
SEE -- I ALWAYS LOOK TO SEE HOW
SOMEBODY REACTS TO SOMETHING.
AND WEVE SEEN THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE OF THE AISLE SEEMS TO BE
PRETTY SENSITIVE TO WHAT YOUVE
DONE.
WEVE HEARD TED CRUZ HAS TWICE
NOW HAD TO I GUESS PLAY, IN HIS
MIND, PLAY CLEANUP FOR THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY.
WEVE ALSO SEEN IT ON THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
YET YOURE GOING TO LOSE THE
BATTLE HERE.
SHES GOING TO GET CONFIRMED, IT
LOOKS LIKE.
BUT DO YOU FEMALEEL YOURE WINNI
MESSAGING WAR IF YOU LOSE THE
BATTLE FOR THE ACTUAL
NOMINATION?
>> I DONT KNOW THAT ITS A
MESSAGING WAR.
I THINK ITS A WAR FOR INTEGRITY
IN GOVERNMENT AND A WAR FOR
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPARENCY AND A WAR TO GET
GRUBBY SPECIAL INTEREST FINGERS
OUT OF PLACES THEY DONT BELONG.
I THINK ITS IMPORTANT THAT WE
WIN THAT WAR.
AND LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THE
FEDERALIST SO THE, IF I ISTIST S
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY ON LAW SCHOOL
CAMPUSES.
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THEM
RUNNING A THINK TANK.
WHAT I OBJECT TO IS BEING
ANONYMOUS DONORS, $250 MILLION
BY THE "WASHINGTON POSTS"
ESTIMATE, TO TAKE OVER AND
CONTROL WHO GETS NOMINATED TO
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
THAT IS WRONG.
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY SHOULD
NOT BE IN THAT BUSINESS.
NO PRIVATE ENTITY SHOULD BE IN
THAT BUSINESS AND NONE OF THEM
SHOULD ACCEPT DARK, ANONYMOUS
MONEY.
>> IS THAT A FEDERAL ON ITIST SO
PROBLEM OR A REPUBLICAN PARTY
PROBLEM?
THEYVE MADE THE DECISION TO USE
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY AS THEIR
VETTING ORGANIZATION.
>> THE QUESTION IS WHO IS THE
"THEY" THERE.
MY CONTENTION WOULD BE BOTH THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY ARE BEING
USED BY THESE VERY BIG, VERY
WEALTHY INTERESTS AND INDUSTRIES
TO TRY AND CONTROL THE
JUDICIARY.
AND I THINK ITS HAPPENING TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT IN PLAIN VIEW.
BUT THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY ISNT
THE PROBLEM.
THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY IS THE
CONDUIT FOR A DARK MONEY
ENTERPRISE THAT IS TRYING TO RUN
THE COURT FOR US IN CASES
THEYLL DECIDE THEIR WAY.
>> HOW WOULD YOU WAVE YOUR MAGIC
WAND?
CLEAN UP THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION
PROCESS.
IM DOING A SPECIAL ON OUR
STREAMING CHANNEL, PEACOCK, THIS
WEEK ABOUT SORT OF THE JUDICIAL
WARS.
I GUESS WE COULD SAY IT STARTED
WITH BORK.
HOW WOULD WE CLEAN UP THIS MESS?
HOW COULD YOU DEPOLITICIZE THIS
PROCESS?
>> I THINK ABOUT THIS A LOT.
I THINK THE FIRST THING TO DO IS
TO BRING A LOT OF TRANSPARENCY
INTO IT.
THERES NO EXCUSE FOR NOT
KNOWING WHO WROTE A $17 MILLION
CHECK TO SUPPORT JUSTICE
KAVANAUGH GETTING ON THE SUPREME
COURT.
PEOPLE KNOW.
THE PUBLIC DOESNT KNOW, I DONT
KNOW, BUT PEOPLE KNOW.
SOMEBODY WROTE THAT $17 MILLION
CHECK.
EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW.
AND THAT SHOULD BE ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT SHOULD BE FOR THE AMICUS
CURIE, THERE SHOULD BE COMPLETE
TRANSPARENCY.
THEN WE SHOULD LOOK INTO HOW
DEEP THIS PROBLEM GOES.
ONCE WE KNOW HOW DEEP THIS
PROBLEM GOES AND EXPLAINED IT TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEN WE
COULD LOOK AT WHAT FURTHER
REMEDIES MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
THIS HAS TWO STAGES, LIKE MANY
THINGS.
THE FIRST STAGE IS THE
TRANSPARENCY STAGE.
AND THE SECOND IS THE REPAIR
STAGE ONCE YOU SEE WHAT ROT THE
TRANSPARENCY HAS REVEALED.
>> IF JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT
NEVER CAME THROUGH THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY BUT WAS THIS
CONSERVATIVE, WOULD YOU HAVE AN
ISSUE WITH HER ON HER
QUALIFICATIONS?
YOU MAY HAVE ISSUES
IDEOLOGICALLY, BUT ON HER
QUALIFICATIONS.
>> YEAH, I HAVE CONCERNS WITH
HER IDEOLOGICALLY PRIMARILY.
AND WITH THE FACT THAT SO MANY
REPUBLICANS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
HER APPOINTMENT HAVE BEEN
SIGNALING WHAT IT IS THAT SHES
GOING TO DO.
AND THIS RUSH TO NOVEMBER 10
OBVIOUSLY SIGNALS THATS THEIR
IDEA OF A TORPEDO AT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EVEN IF SHE
DOESNT THINK SO.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS
APART FROM HER QUALIFICATIONS TO
BE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT WHERE THIS COURT IS GOING
AND WHO IS PULLING ITS STRINGS.
>> DO YOU THINK AT SOME POINT
JOE BIDEN SHOULD RELEASE A LIST
OF PEOPLE SO THAT -- YOU TALKED
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD SEE
MORE OF?
THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID.
NOW, ILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I
THOUGHT THAT WAS A -- YOU KNOW,
I THINK WHEN YOU PUBLICLY PUT
OUT WHO MIGHT BE SUPREME COURT,
I THINK THAT COULD BIAS A
PROCESS.
BUT DO YOU THINK JOE BIDEN
SHOULD BE DOING THIS FOR
TRANSPARENCY REASONS?
>> NO.
NO, I DONT AT ALL.
I THINK TRANSPARENCY COMES WHEN
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A VACANCY AND
YOURE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS
OF SELECTION, AND YOU HAVENT
IN-SOURCED THE FEDERAL SOCIETY
AND ITS DONORS TO DO THAT FOR
YOU IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE WAY
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL McGAHN SAID
THEY HAD DONE.
I THINK THE TRANSPARENCY
MATTERS.
BUT I THINK THE LIST WAS A
POLITICAL STUNT FOR TRUMP.
REMEMBER, NOBODY KNEW WHERE HE
WAS GOING TO GO.
HIS BIG DONOR CROWD IS DESPERATE
TO OWN THE COURT.
IF HE COULD PRODUCE A LIST THEY
HAD SIGNED OFF ON, AND THEY
THOUGHT HE WOULD BE A GOOD GUY
ON JUDGES THEY WANTED, THAT
QUIETED THEM ON THAT CONCERN.
SO IT WAS AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL
FROM HIM TO THE REPUBLICAN BIG
DONOR ELITE.
BUT IT WASNT GOOD PRACTICE AND
WASNT ANYTHING JOE BIDEN OR
ANYBODY ELSE SHOULD REPLICATE, I
DONT BELIEVE.
>> SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, I
APPRECIATE YOU GIVING US A FEW
MINUTES.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LUNCH