makeover, not our independent judiciary. when you're this willing to launch unhinged personal attacks, you reveal a whole lot more about your own radicalism than about the men and women you target. this is my commitment, mr. 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 be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last year we on the judiciary committee conducted an incredibly thorough review of a nominee to the supreme court of the united states. we dug into justice kavanaugh's personal and professional life and discussed concerns openly in

front of the public. allegations were raised against the justice but none could be corroborated or very identified -- or verified. i know because i had a team of dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation that we received. my team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written statements. now 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 owugliest of claims. in the end there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. brett kavanaugh then was duly 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 if there's nothing else going on in this town but you dig up something that happened a year ago. "the new york times" published a book excerpt about justice kavanaugh's younger days that has fueled a very fresh rumor from someone whose friends claim contacted senators on the committee. that person mr. styers didn't reach out or provide information to the committee majority. apparently he also didn't provide any information to these

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

but the alleged victim who also didn't speak to these writers apparently does not recall the incident. that's a point that the "new york times" failed to include in its official coverage. now, it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. i welcome scrutiny of my work. i frequently refer to reporters, journalists as the police of our democratic system. but today i'm reminded of a very old adage, who will watch the watchman? this week's report includes some embarrassing, irresponsible missteps, mistakes that weren't

serious self-reflection. a year ago after the interviews with dozens of people, "the new york times" couldn't even corroborate the allegations laid out by miss ramirez and declined to report on them with nothing but a year of time and another interview with ramirez herself, the paper thought those unverified claims were suddenly worth printing. no more corroboration, no more verification, coming only days before the release of the author's book, i can't help but wonder if the timing had something to do with the decision to run the story.

maybe sell more books. they also laid out what commentators are now calling new allegations. let me be clear. this is not an allegation. it's barely a third-hand rumor. these writers -- can you believe this? -- these writers didn't even speak to the man whom they claim originally recounted this rumor. what's left are only layers and layers of decades-old hearsay. no more corroboration, no more verification, not even anything from the accuser himself. and nothing -- most importantly, nothing from the person who was allegedly involved. now, the most shameful piece of

this episode is that it took more than a full day after publication for the editors to intervene and to provide critical context. an editor's note added to the story last night reads, quote, the book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incide incident. let me quote again. she does not recall the incident. that is the alleged victim. that's the opposite of corroboration and verification. in the legal world this sort of thing is called excul ex-- excuy

information. when it's not laid bare to provide greater context, it creates a serious credibility problem. in this case "the new york times" withheld crucial facts that undercuts its own reporti reporting. we now have an uncorroborated accusation rooted only in unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of the event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember. you know about "the new york times." they say -- their slogan is they only print what is fit to print. i just described this situation

of uncorroboration rooted in unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of this event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember. i'll get back to the slogan of the newspaper. when did this stuff i described become something fit to print by the supposed american paper of record? the sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public, a greater divide in our own recourse -- discourse, and a deeper lack of faith in our news media. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.ed alre

this is one hour and 20 minutes.