Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee?
Will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do
My judicial philosophy is straightforward a
Judge must be independent and must interpret the law not make the law. I
Welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of mr
Brett Kavanaugh, mr. Chairman to serve as associate justice. Mr. Chairman, I'd like
Before we proceed
Mr. Chairman
I'd like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed the committee received just last night less than 15 hours ago
For German thousand pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review
Or read or analyze you are you're out of order. I'll proceed we cannot possibly move forward. Mr
chairman there very warm well
There's two daughters, mr. Chairman order
Harris mr. Chairman, the revenue loss laws and documents that we have and everyone else join me
Tonight and we believe this hearing should no that's an exciting day for all of you here
And you're rightly proud chairman if we cannot be recognized I move to adjourn the American people Chairman. I move to adjourn
directly
Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn
And
Mr. Chairman, we have been denied. We have been denied real access to the documents. We need to
adviser man regular orders called which turns this hearing into a
Charade and a mockery of our norms. Well, mr. Chairman. I therefore move to adjourn this hearing
So here are the facts judge Kavanagh is one of the most distinguished judges
Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to have this this loudmouth removed
We don't we shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff
The reason the Democrats are fighting so loudly on this issue is they're making a demand
they know is impossible to meet and by the way is utterly irrelevant to what actually judge Kavanagh thinks believes or says said
It would open up all sorts of fishing expeditions to attack relitigate george
W bush's record as president and what various cabinet members and senior advisors might or might not have said
But it is at the end of the day simply an attempt to distract and delay and indeed the multiple motions we've seen from Democrats
Delay this confirmation to lay this confirmation that reveals the whole joke
Their objective is delay
So, what is this fight about it's not about documents
It's not about judge Cavanaugh's credentials if it's not about a judicial record, what is this fight about I?
believe this fight is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt by our Democratic colleagues to relitigate the
2016 presidential election
And I am telling President Trump
You do some things that drive me crazy you do some great things
You have never done anything better in my view than to pick gorsek and Cavanaugh because you had an opportunity
to put well-qualified
conservatives on the court men steeped in the rule of law
Who will apply?
Analysis, not politics or the decision-making and you not get out of the part in to my friends on the other side
You can't lose the election and pick judges
If you want to pick judges you better win last year
You drafted a dissent in guards at Garza V Hagen and that's a case
Where a young woman in Texas I believe was seeking an abortion in that dissent
you argued that even though the young woman had complied with the Texas parental notification law and
Secured an approval from a judge. She should another the last net nonetheless be barred in
making your argument
You ignored and I believe mischaracterized a Supreme Court precedent
You reasoned that Jane Doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose
Because she did not have family and friends to make her decision
the argument rewrites Supreme Court precedent and if adopted
We believe would require courts to determine
Whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision
Even in cases where she has gone to court
This reason we believe I believe
demonstrates that you
Are willing to disregard precedent and if that's the case
Because just saying something settled law it really is is it correct law?
The impact of overturning Roe is much broader than a woman's right to choose
It's about protecting the most personal decisions. We all make from government intrusion
Roe is one in a series of cases
That upheld an individual's right to decide who to marry
It's not the governor's or the government's right where to send your children to school. The government can't get involved
What kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life as?
Well as whether and when to have a family and I deeply believe that all these cases
Serve as a bulwark of privacy rights that protect all Americans
From over involvement of a government in their lives and to me that's extraordinarily
Important judge. Have you ever discussed?
special counsel Mahler or his investigation with anyone
Well, it's in the news every day I have you discussed it with anyone
With other judges I know
Have you discussed Muller or his investigation with anyone at Casa watts Benson and Torres the law firm founded by Mark castle
Its president Trump's personal lawyer
Be sure about your answer sir
Well
I'm not remembering but if you have something you wanna
Are you certain you've not had a conversation about anyone at that law firm?
Kazu it's Benson
Kassovitz benson and torres
Which is the law firm founded by mark casa wits? No who is president Trump's personal lawyer?
Are you have you had any?
conversation about
Robert muller or his investigation with anyone at that firm
Yes, or no, well, is there a person you're talking them I'm asking you a very direct question yes or no, I
Need to know the I'm not sure. I know everyone who works at that law firm
I don't think you need to I think you need to know who you talked with. Who'd you talk to? I?
Don't think I I'm not remembering but I'm happy to be refreshed or if you want to tell me who you're sorry
Are you saying that with all that you remember?
You have an impeccable memory. You've been speaking for almost eight hours
I think more with this committee about all sorts of things you remember
How can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about?
Robert muller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm. I don't investigation has only been going on for so long sir
I'm not sure I do I am I'm just trying to think do I know anyone who works that firm? I might know
Yeah, that's not my question. My question is have you had a conversation with anyone at that firm about that investigation?
It's a really specific question
I would like to know
The person you're thinking of cuz what if there's I think you're thinking of someone you don't want to tell us
Who did you have a conversation with I am?
NOT, mr. Chairman, I I'd like to raise an objection here
So it seems that you are okay with using race to single out some Americans for extra security measures because they look different
but you're not okay with using race to help promote diversity and equal opportunity and
Correct for past racial documented racial inequality sounds like I rejected the racial profiling idea. What's the Jade?
What's the date of the emails the date of the email is January 17 2002?
And so have you ever suggested or expressed an openness to even in a temporary?
Circumstance like this email seems to indicate that in an interim question of using racial profiling
Have you ever suggested that sir? I'd like to see the email
I will provide the email server, but it sounds from what you read
Like I rejected the concept, but I'll look at the email
It seemed to me that you were open to the concepts or clearly the krita
This is currently important because right now in our nation there are law enforcement practices, and I think you're aware
That are overwhelmingly the target african-americans and other people of color
Yet I've read opinions such as yours in the United States versus Washington and upheld a search and I quote in the neighborhoods in
Southeast Washington DC that you called crime plagued in Wesley versus District of Columbia
Where you would have protected police from liability?
When they made warrantless arrests at a house that was in quote in east of the Anacostia River
You and I both know that those are predominantly black areas. Yes
Palani african-american communities. Yes, I understand
there's case law that says police can justify some actions by saying that they were in areas that were high crime, but you know
how some of these opinions using this type of racially coded language can further the disparate treatment of
people of color with the police and
So the way I see it and I'll give you a chance to respond is that you're willing to consider using racial profiling?
And to accept police practices like heavy policing of african-american neighborhoods
but you're hostile to the use of race when it is used to promote diversity or
remediate
proven discrimination
Can I get 60 seconds, sir? Go ahead. Okay on the west be case
There was a house there was a call to the police. It was not the police patrolling the neighborhood
On the west be case the Supreme Court reversed the majority decision that had been written by other people that I dissented from they reversed
It nine to zero this past term
so the was what I wrote in Westby and I'm I was cited and the Supreme Court agreed with them with the approach that
I'd suggested nine to zero on the general concept. I I you and I have discussed this in our meeting
I'm very aware of
the reality and perception
of
Targeted policing or police
Activity in minority neighborhoods and
All right. I try as best
I can to be aware and understand that and you and I talked about that and the Westby case in my view
Had nothing to do with with that issue and I try to give you some time there
But this is what I'm hearing right now serving and you you know, and I appreciate your rhetoric on these matters
But again, you're going to be a judge on the Supreme Court
If you are confirmed, can you be devout in your faith and still uphold the law?
Seren my religious beliefs
have no relevance to my judging a
judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States
I take an oath to do that for 12 years. I've lived up to that oath
I'm going to release the email about racial profiling and I understand that that the penalty comes with potential I'll sting from the Senate
I'm releasing it to expose at number one. The emails are being withheld from the public
Have nothing to do with national security
nothing to jeopardize the sanctity of those ideals that I hold dear running for president is
No
Excuse for violating the rules of the Senate or of the confidentiality of the documents that we that we are privy to
no, Senator deserves to sit on this committee or
serve in the Senate in my view if they
to be a law unto themselves and willingly flout the rules of the Senate and the determination of
confidentiality and
Classification it's called the presidential Records Act
That's the demon that you're after here. That is the only reason we've got this issue now the
Custodian of those documents
holds and exercises a privilege on behalf of the Bush administration
The custodian of those records has agreed notwithstanding
the privilege nacre maid nature of those documents to hand them over to us with an understanding that when there is a need that
Arises with respect to one or more of those documents to make them public
We can as a committee go through a process to do that
There is no Senate rule that that I violated because there's no Senate rule that accounts for this process
I will say that I did willingly violate the chairs rule on the committee confidential process. I
take full responsibility for violating that sir and I violated because I
sincerely believe that the public deserves
To know this nominees record. May I read the
Senate rule 29 5 the standing rules of the Senate for the benefit of all senators
Any senator officer or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential?
business or Proceedings of the Senate
including the business and proceedings of the committees subcommittees and offices of the Senate shall be liable if a senator
to suffer expulsion from the body and if an officer or employee to dismissal from the service of the Senate and
A punishment for contempt. So I wearing a I would correct the Senators statement. There is no rule there is clearly a rule
That applies in a by the Chairman and bring the charges mr. Chairman