>>> NOW, WE TURN TO ANOTHER BIG STORY TONIGHT, THE START OF THE
BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
SUPREME COURT. REPUBLICANS TRYING TO HOLD A
RAZOR THIN MAJORITY TO GET BRETT
KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED ON THIS
COURT.
COURT. IT WAS DEMOCRATS SEIZING THE
ENERGY TODAY FOR A HEARING THAT
ALL SIDES AGREE WAS UNLIKE ANY
OTHER IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
THAT’S NOT HIGH BESHYPERBOLE.
THERE WAS A MOVE TO SHUT DOWN
THE ENTIRE HEARING.
REPUBLICANS, HE SAYS, ARE MAKING
A MOCKERY OF THE PROCESS, HE’S
PART OF A COORDINATED EFFORT BY
DEMOCRATS DEMANDING THE TRUMP
WHITE HOUSE RELEASE THOUSANDS OF
MISSING DOCUMENTS ABOUT BRETT
KAVANAUGH’S GOVERNMENT WORK.
>> WE CANNOT POSSIBLY MOVE
FORWARD, MR. CHAIRMAN --
>> I EXTEND A VERY WARM WELCOME
TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHO HIS WIFE
ASHLEY.
ASHLEY. >> WE HAVE BEEN DENIED REAL
ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS WE NEED
TO ADVISE --
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, REGULAR ORDER
IS CALLED FOR.
>> WHICH TURNS THIS HEARING INTO
A CHARADE AND A MOCKERY OF OUR
NORMS.
NORMS. THIS PROCESS WILL BE TAINTED AND
STAINED FOREVER.
STAINED FOREVER. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO
ADJOURN.
ADJOURN. >> THE MOTION IS OUT OF ORDER.
>> WELL, THEY’RE NOT OUT OF
ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THIS IS THE FIRST
CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE I’VE SEEN
BASICALLY ACCORDING TO MOB RULE.
>> FAR FROM MOB RULE, FOR A FROM
CONTEMPT OF THE PROCESS, WE’RE
SIMPLY ASKING FOR RESPECT HERE
TO THE NORMAL REGULAR ORDER.
>> THE PRESSURE FROM SENATORS
WAS MATCHED BUT AN UNUSUALLY
CITIZEN PROTEST INSIDE THE
HEARING ROOM, 70 ARRESTS BY THE
LATEST COUNT, WE SAW POLICE
CARRYING OUT ACTIVISTS IN THE
ROOM BY ARMS AND LEGS.
OUTSIDE THE ROOM OTHER
PROTESTERS DRESSED LIKE
CHARACTERS FROM THE HAND MAID’S
TALE, A SERIES WHERE WOMEN ARE
DENIED BASIC RIGHTS.
WHEN BRETT KAVANAUGH DID SPEAK,
HE SAID HE WAS FAIR, HE NAMED
THE DEMOCRATS ASSOCIATE WITH THE
VERY SEAT REPUBLICANS STOLE FROM
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
PRESIDENT OBAMA. >> I’VE SERVED WITH 17 OTHER
JUDGES, EACH OF THEM A COLLEAGUE
AND A FRIEND ON A COURT NOW LED
BY OUR SUPERB CHIEF JUDGE MERIT
GARLAND.
GARLAND. >> SUPERB OR NOT, GRARLAND IS NO
BEING CONSIDERED.
BEING CONSIDERED. THE THEME THEY MAY HAVE HAMMERED
MORE THAN ANY OTHER WAS THAT
KAVANAUGH COULD AID AND ABET
TRUMP IN ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.
JUSTICE. >> THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO’S
SHOWN US CONSISTENTLY THAT HE’S
CONTEMPT
CONTEMPT CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE RULE OF LAW.
>> YOU’VE REPEATEDLY EMBRACED A
PRESIDENTIAL POWER SO EXPANSIVE.
>> I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE THAT YOUR VIEWS ON THIS
SUBJECT ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHO SEEMS
INCREASINGLY FIX SATED
INCREASINGLY FIXATED ON HIS OWN
BALLOONING LEGAL JEOPARDY.
>> THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A TAINT,
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN ASTERISK
AFTER YOUR NAME.
>> I’M JOINED LIVE FROM SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL, AND THE PRESIDENT
AND CEO OF THE NATIONAL URBAN
LEAGUE WHICH WORKS ON CIVIL
RIGHTS ISSUES.
RIGHTS ISSUES. SENATOR, WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT TO
SHUT DOWN THIS ENTIRE HEARING
AND WHAT DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATS
ACHIEVED TODAY?
ACHIEVED TODAY? >> WHAT WE ACHIEVED WAS RAISING
THIS ISSUE FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED
ONLY ABOUT 6% OF THE DOCUMENTS
THAT ARE RELEVANT TO OUR DOING
REAL ADVISE AND CONSENT AND
KNOWING WHAT THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP IS HIDING HERE.
YOU WOULDN’T HIRE SOMEONE
KNOWING JUST 10% OF THEIR
RESUME.
RESUME. YOU WOULDN’T BUY A HOUSE SEEING
JUST 10% OF THE ROOMS.
WE HAVE SEEN ABOUT 10% OF THE
DOCUMENTS THAT BEAR DIRECTLY ON
HIS QUALIFICATIONS.
HIS QUALIFICATIONS. >> AND YOU’RE QUOTING CORY
BOOKER.
BOOKER. PEOPLE WERE QUOTING SHAKESPEARE
EARLIER IN THE HOUR.
THIS IS SENATOR BOOKER TODAY ON
THE SECRECY.
THE SECRECY. >> 90% OF THE DOCUMENTS WE
HAVEN’T SEEN.
HAVEN’T SEEN. IT’S NOT THE NUMBER OF
DOCUMENTS.
DOCUMENTS. >> I’LL BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO
THAT.
THAT. >> YOU WOULDN’T HIRE AN INTERN,
SIR, WITH ONLY 90% OF THEIR
RESUME.
RESUME. OR PUTTING SOMEBODY ON THE
SUPREME COURT.
SUPREME COURT. >> YOU’RE BOTH HAMMERING THAT.
IS THAT BECAUSE YOU THINK WHAT’S
NOT KNOWN ABOUT KAVANAUGH IS
WORSE THAN WHAT’S KNOWN?
>> WHAT’S NOT KNOWN IS VERY
POSSIBLY WORSE AND THE
PRESUMPTION HAS TO BE THAT THEY
HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.
WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF SHOWING
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
>> WE’RE IN THE FIGHT NOW.
WE’RE NOT IN THE PRE-GAME MORE.
WHAT IS YOUR THEORY?
WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY’RE
HIDING?
HIDING? DO YOU THINK IT’S SOMETHING
ABOUT TORTURE DURING THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, WHAT ARE
AMERICANS TO MAKE OF THIS, DAY
TWO TOMORROW OF QUESTIONING,
THAT THERE’S SUCH A FOCUS ON THE
MISSING DOCUMENTS.
MISSING DOCUMENTS. >> WHAT’S REAL TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY
HAVE THE RIGHT, WOMEN HAVE THE
LIBERTY TO DECIDE WHEN THEY WANT
TO BECOME PREGNANT, WHETHER
PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MARRY THE PERSON THEY LOVE,
WHETHER WE DRINK CLEAN AIR AND
BREATHE FREE AIR AND WATER AND
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS ABOUT
HIS VIEWS ON THIS IMPERIAL
PRESIDENCY THAT MAY ALLOW DONALD
TRUMP IN EFFECT TO BE APPOINTING
THE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE.
>> LET ME PLAY SOME REPUBLICANS
WHEN THIS WAS LAST AN ISSUE
UNDER OBAMA.
UNDER OBAMA. WE ALWAYS TRY TO PLAY ALL SIDES
HERE TO MAKE SURE THE VIEWERS
GET THE FULL STORY.
SOMETIMES YOU PLAY THE OTHER
SIDE, AND IT MAKES THEM LOOK
BETTER.
BETTER. SOMETIMES YOU PLAY THE OTHER
SIDE AND IT MAKES THEM LOOK FAR
WORSE.
WORSE. AND THIS SEEMS TO BE THAT CASE
BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS
HYPOCRISY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
TREATMENT HERE OF REPUBLICANS
TOWARDS GARLAND IN 2016.
>> WILL JUSTICE GARLAND, JUDGE
GARLAND GET A HEARING?
>> NO, I DON’T THINK SO.
THIS NOMINEE IS NOT GOING TO BE
CONSIDERED.
CONSIDERED. >> IT HAS BEEN 80 YEARS SINCE A
SUPREME COURT VACANCY WAS
NOMINATED AND CONFIRMED IN AN
ELECTION YEAR.
ELECTION YEAR. THERE IS A LONG TRADITION THAT
YOU DON’T DO THIS IN AN ELECTION
YEAR.
YEAR. >> IT IS A PRESIDENT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NOMINATE
A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, AND IT
IS THE SENATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO ACT AS A CHECK ON A
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. AND WITHHOLD ITS CONSENT.
>> WAS TED CRUZ CONSISTENT ABOUT
THAT TODAY, OR IS HE A HYPOCRITE
IN YOUR VIEW?
>> THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAS
BEEN COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT.
THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY CONSIDERING
THIS NOMINEE IN AN ELECTION
YEAR.
YEAR. AND THE DENIAL AND COVERUP -- IT
IS A COVERUP OF THESE
DOCUMENTS -- IS GOING TO BE A
LASTING TAINT AND STAIN WAS
EVENTUALLY THESE DOCUMENTS WILL
COME OUT.
COME OUT. AND MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
VOTING FOR THIS NOMINEE NOW WILL
HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE VERY HARSH
JUDGMENT OF HISTORY ABOUT THEIR
SUPPORTING SOMEONE, WE DON’T
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY’RE
HIDING, WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE,
SOMETHING IN HIS PERSONAL
BACKGROUND, SOMETHING IN THE
POSITIONS THAT HE TOOK,
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE.
>> YOU THINK IT COULD BE
PERSONAL?
PERSONAL? >> EITHER THAT, OR HIS VIEWS ON
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT CAN
BE INDICTED, WHETHER OR NOT THE
PRESIDENT HAS TO COMPLY --
>> YOU THINK THERE MAY BE A
BOMBSHELL.
BOMBSHELL. YOU THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, AND
WE’RE WORKING OFF ARGUMENT,
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T PROVIDED
THE FACTS, I WOULD PREFER TO
REPORT AS A JOURNALIST ON WHAT’S
IN THE DARN PAPERS.
YOU’RE CONCERNED THERE COULD BE
A BOMBSHELL LIKE HE TOLD GEORGE
W. BUSH YOU COULD NEVER BE
INDICTED OR HAVE TO FACE A
SUBPOENA, AND IF THAT CAME OUT
IT WOULD CHANGE THE GAME.
YOU WERE IN THE ROOM, GO AHEAD.
>> LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING,
THIS PROCESS IS TORTURED AND
BROKEN.
BROKEN. WE’VE TAKEN A POSITION THAT
UNTIL ALL DOCUMENTS, ALL
INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED
TO THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE
SHOULDN’T CONSIDER IT.
IT’S A CONTRADICTION TO LAST TWO
YEARS AGO STALL ON GARLAND, AND
NOW TRY TO FAST WALK KAVANAUGH.
IT’S A COMPLETE CONTRADICTION.
WHAT’S IN THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT
BEAR ON THIS CANDIDATE’S VIEWS
ON THE ISSUES OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, PRESIDENTIAL POWER,
ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE HEART OF
THE CONSIDERATION OF HOW HE
WOULD PERFORM ON THE SUPREME
COURT.
COURT. >> LET’S PUT FACTS ON IT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DECISIONS
THAT ARE OUT THERE, A LOT OF
WHAT IS SAID IS, WELL, THEY’LL
FOLLOW THE LAW SO DON’T WORRY
ABOUT ROE, OR DON’T WORRY ABOUT
BROWN V. BOARD.
BUT LOOK AT THIS REPORTING WHEN
YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
NUMBERS.
NUMBERS. THE DISSENT RATE, KAVANAUGH
DISSENTED 19% OF THE TIME WHEN
IT WAS UP AGAINST CERTAIN ISSUES
OF DEMOCRATS APPOINTED, AND IF
HE GOT THIS PROMOTION AND WAS
UNBRIDLED, HE MIGHT OVERTURN
OTHER PRECEDENT.
OTHER PRECEDENT. >> HE’D BE INCLINED TO OVERTURN
CIVIL RIGHTS PRECEDENTS, HE’D BE
A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION. I THINK THAT SO MUCH OF THE
PROGRESS WE’VE MADE WHEN IT
COMES TO VOTING RIGHTS, WHEN IT
COMES TO HEALTH CARE, WHEN IT
COMES TO WOMEN ARE AT STAKE WITH
THIS NOMINATION.
THIS NOMINATION. THIS IS NOT A, IF YOU WILL, I
THINK, A WORTHY SUCCESSOR OF THE
MODERATION OF ANTHONY KENNEDY.
THIS IS A JUDGE WHOSE OUTCOME
PREDETERMINED, WHO HAS IN ONE
CASE WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON TOOK
OFFICE HE BELIEVED IN A WIDE
RANGING INQUIRY OF THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. WHEN HE BECAME SECRETARY TO
PRESIDENT BUSH AND IN HIS
WRITINGS LATER ON NOW HE
BELIEVES IN ALMOST AN IMPERIAL
PRESIDENCY SAYING THAT, ONE, A
PRESIDENT COULD IGNORE A LAWFUL
STATUTE OF THE CONGRESS, CAN
REFUSE TO, IN EFFECT, EXECUTE
IT, REFUSE TO ENFORCE IT IF HE
DISAGREES WITH ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
CONSTITUTIONALITY. >> I HAVE TO FIT IN A BREAK.
YOU GUYS CARE ABOUT THE LAW.
THAT’S THE LAW ON THE SHOW.
I’VE GOT TO FIT IN A BREAK.
>> THEY DEFIED THE LAW TODAY IN
THAT HEARING SO I WOULD GIVE YOU
THE SAME LICENSE HERE.
BUT VERY SERIOUSLY, MARK MAKES A
VERY, VERY GOOD POINT THAT WE’RE