it's your agenda that needs a makeover not the independent judiciary. when you are this willing to launch personal attacks you reveal more about your own radicalism than the men or women that you target. this is my commitment mister president. and the commitment of all my republican colleagues. as long as we remain in the senate, we will fight to preserve our fair and independent judiciary. >> last year we on the judiciary committee conducted an incredibly thorough review of our nominee to the supreme court of the united states. we dug into justice kavanaugh's personal and professional life and discuss

concerns openly in front of the public. allegations were raised against the justice that none could be corroborated or verified. i know because i had a team of dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation that they received. my team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written statements. anyone can review the 414 page investigation summary report that i released last november. we laid out the information we received including some of the ugliest accusations in the end there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. brett kavanaugh was confirmed to the supreme court by this

body as prescribed in the constitution. now fast forward to this past weekend and the issues that i and a lot of other members of the senate are being asked about this very day. just as if there is nothing else going on in this town to pick up something that happened one yearar ago. the new york times published a book excerpt of his younger days that has fueled a fresh rumor from someone who's friends claim has contacted senators on the committee that person did not reach out or provide information to the committee majority. apparently also did not provide any information to

these writers. it's only on the word of two anonymous sources that his name and accusation comes up in thehe story in the new york times. and again, my office never received anything from mister stier or his unnamed friends and we never received anhe allegation against justice kavanaugh like the one referenced in the report this weekend. after interviewing eight people related to the ramirez allegations, not once was mister stier's name mentioned. hade my staff received allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him.

but the alleged victim apparently does not recall the incident. that is a point that thehe new york times failed to include so it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy referring to reporters or journalists of the democratic system. but today i am reminded who will watch the watchmen cracks this week has a report of embarrassing irresponsible missteps to warrant serious

self reflection and one year ago after the interviews with dozens of people the new york times cannot even corroborate those allegations laid out by ms. ramirez and declined to report with nothing but one year of time and another interview with ramirezthpe hersf who thought those claims were printed. no more collaboration or verification only days before the release of the author's boo book. i cannot help but wonder if timing had something to do with the story.

or maybe sell more books. and now wet commentators are calling, let me be clear this is not an allegation. umit is a third hand rumor these writers did not even speak to the man they claimed originally recounted this rumor. there are layers and layers of decades-old hearsay no longer verification and most importantly nothing from the person that was allegedly involved.

the most shameful part for the editors to intervene and added to the story last night that the female student declined to be interviewed that she does not recall the incident. i will quote again she does not recall the incident. that is the alleged victim that is the opposite of corroboration and verification. in the legal world it is called skull to tori

information. when they provide greater context it has a serious credibility problem. in this case the new york times would undercut its party so we now have the uncorroborated rooted only in the unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of the event and that the alleged victim does not even remember. you know about the new york times. they only print what is fit to print. i just described this

situation of collaboration rooted with unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of this event and the alleged victim does not even remember. wended this that i describe become fit to print by the supposed american paper of record? the sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public a greater divide of our own discourse and a deeper lack of faith in the news media. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum

due to technical difficulties we are joining this in progress. >> and