loser, crazy, hack. if you can have a scapegoat and have a us versus them five, he creates a dynamic. >> and finally, he declares victory. >> right like he did at the press conference at the trump hotel in washington. you can now look at my beautiful grand hotel, if you wantp then he says, right. i cleared it up. i am the winner. hillary clinton is the person who started it, i finished it. >> watch on sunday at 9 p.m. eastern on book tv. c-span'sest on newsmakers this week is nan a ron. horgan i say show in opposes the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court.

the two reporters will be asking her questions this week is siobhan hughes, from the wall street journal and mark, who covers the supreme court for the associated press. significance of this nomination, what is it feel monumental than the nomination of neil gorsuch. >> because it is. he is being considered for a seat held by judge anthony kennedy who on very significant issues, set himself apart from some of his conservative colleagues on the court. lgbtq issues, on juvenile rights. he was considered to be the swing on the supreme court. neil gorsuch when he was being considered for the supreme court

was up for a hard right conservatives seat, antonin scalia of. so anthony kennedy was more in the middle, so this has taken on much, much greater significance. it has also taken on greater meaning, i think, because the president has laid out very specifically -- in fact, when he was running for office, that if elected, he would appoint an individual who met two very specific criteria: one, he was looking for someone who was against the affordable care and two, he was looking specifically for an individual who would oppose roe versus wade. himself,president has set out a very volatile process by setting out criteria,

outsourcing the choice to two "heritageoups, action" and "federal society, ,", showing is that he would turn the clock back. siobhan: do democrats have a realistic chance of stopping this nominee? i would say that democrats and republicans have a moment,c chance, at the the only thing we know which is significant, about brett kavanaugh, is, one, we know what donald -- donald trump was looking for. two, we and others as well are reading those 300 legal opinions that he has written. so we know what his record is,

and our belief is that once the american people understand his and read,ce they hear and have an opportunity to review the thousands of pages of documents describing his work with ken starr, independent counsel, once they have an opportunity to review his records, when he was in the white house and the white house counsel's office, and other offices, there is just a trove of documents. our belief is that once the american people have an opportunity to come to understand his full record, they will convince, persuade, reach out to their senators both on the democratic and republican side, and ask them to oppose judge kavanaugh. mark: i would like to turn to one of the issues it has gotten

some attention already in the process, the idea of his view of presidential power, and your group's view that he would not stand up to donald trump, particularly in relation to the investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. , thatw from the past clinton appointees voted against the president in the paula jones case. the next and appointees voted against him in the watergate case. why are you persuaded that justice kavanagh would not stand up to donald trump if it came to that? it goes back to judge kavanaugh's record. when he worked with the independent counsel, ken starr back in the 1990's, he presidently sought clinton's records, in fact, going to court three times to get access to president

clinton's records. he fought really hard to get the president to turn over a whole slew of information. went toingly, when he work for president bush right after the clinton administration, interestingly, -- one of the first things brett kavanaugh did was push for an executive order that would have --elded presidential papers george bush chaco presidential papers, even though there was a law requiring those papers to be -- george bush's presidential papers, even though there was a law requiring those released.w he has taken the position from then on, that the president should be exempt from criminal prosecutions, investigations. he has talked about the extraordinary powers a president has. so to us, he appears to be very

much partisan player. when president clinton was in disclosure.ought the minute president bush came to office, it was just the opposite. so, based on what he has said and written and his actions, it appears that he would very much side with president trump in trying to shield all of his actions, memos, papers from the american people. mark: but he is also called, in addition to calling for congress to pass a law to shield the president from prosecution and investigation while in office, he has also said that he believes that same law should include a provision that would basically require a president to respond to a grand jury subpoena , with the exception of national security -- as the one exception to that. that would seem to cut a bit

against the grain that you just described? and that was a while ago, what we know most recently about his views, is that he would very much do what he could to shield president trump from any , subpoena,estigation anything else, at this point. siobhan: you have brought up judge kavanagh's white house service. what do you think the chances are that the senate will see all the documentation related to that period of his service, or the chances that access to it will be limited? expect thatd chairman grassley, chair of the senate judiciary committee, will request and obtain all of the about hising sought years in the white house. there is actually some president for senator grassley precedent for

senator grassley to do that. in the whiteorked house, and he had them release all of their records, including their emails, so there is requesting that these records be made available and carefully reviewed, and we would expect chairman grassley to obey that precedent. i think it is also important, because the supreme court nomination is so critically important, that the american people ought to understand and understand well, who it is that is being considered for that particular role. therefore, i think it is incumbent for all parties to make this information accessible, available, and give people ample time to review and adjust it. siobhan: there are so much paperwork.

how quickly, then, could to the senate judiciary committee get to a hearing? nan: it is interesting that you say that, because i just read rosenstein is' hiring assistant u.s. attorneys to help review those records. i have no idea what the timing will be, all i would say is that it is really the responsibility of the senate judiciary committee chair, to be fair and open, and make that information , so that in time people have an opportunity to review it. mark: event before these records have been released, your organization has a ready come to the conclusion that he should not be confirmed. his or anything you would consider a smoking gun, that you would point out and -- say, republicans or senators, that you would need to attract --

republican senators that you would need to attract to defeat the nominee? nan: i would say that we are ready have two smoking guns. one is, really, what president trump said, that he was seeking someone whose mind is made up on the issue of health care and the issue of abortion. really, in all the years that we in these toiling judicial fields, i don't think i have ever come across a president who was so direct .bout what he was looking for i would say, when you take a record brett kavanaugh's , in fact, he does side -- he oppositional role in the affordable care act. i would say, when you step back for a minute in the process, i

think what we are looking for in a judge or justice, is someone whose mind is a made up. someone who can approach that someone whose mind is not made up. someone who can approach cases with an open mind and be fair-minded. someone who already has subscribed to a very specific view, which -- just imagine, what donald trump couldn't do, repealing the affordable care act, he will achieve to do, by putting brett kavanaugh on the supreme court. depriving millions of americans of their health care. i would say, that in and of itself, is a smoking gun. , weurther the conversation expect there to be thousands of , and of documents released hopefully, ample time to review

them. i know that people will be very interested to learn more about kavanaugh's views. in fact, at his d.c. circuit court hearing, i think it was on 2004, he was specifically asked about his views and what he did -- toespect to overseeing having conversations about torture, of the grave -- abu ghraib -- he ducked those questions. in fact, in a letter sent to him by senators leahy, and others still in the senate today, he expressed dismay over the answers. so i think it is really important to see those documents, and perhaps, other be made public. just to follow-up, you

raised abortion and health care in your answer -- those happened to be 2 issues in which there are at least some conservatives out there who fear that in choosing an establishment republican, that president trump did not go as conservative as you might have. and they point to >> opinions that judge kavanagh wrote, were he did not go as far as he might even in abortion cases, as one of his colleagues was willing to go, as in the case of the immigrant teen. is no question that in the case of that 70-year-old immigrant, she pursued all the procedures that were in place at the time -- 17-year-old immigrant, she pursued all the procedures that were in place, and judge kavanagh said, you know what, i think we need to put more burdens in the way of her getting an abortion. so although he may not have come out right in opposition to roe

v. wade, if she had had to fulfill those burdens, it would have made having an abortion much more difficult. and he did so, i would also say, in an incredibly patronizing way. she did exactly what she had to circuit said.c. she should have the abortion, and he said, no. the case of ajust 17-year-old immigrant, he expressed satisfaction with 's dissent inst chaco dissen roe v. wade. so i think we have a good view of where he stands on roe v. wade. but i want to make clear, it is not just a fight over abortion and health care, when you read and learn about brett

kavanaugh's record across a wide range of issues, not just his views on residential power, not -- presidential power, not just what he is said and done on health care and abortion, but the other major concerns are his views on the role of initiative agencies. -- administrative agencies. he would have voted against the existence of a consumer bureau.on financial he has voted against the clean air act, the clean water act, the consumer protections, net neutrality -- i can think of there a few instances where he has voted in favor of everyday , when their lives are affected or regulated by a government agency. so, there is a lot in this record, not just health care, abortion, and there is much to be explored and learned.

siobhan: is there any trump nominee who could be acceptable to you, given that you feel trump has been so explicit about what he is looking for? of 25rump released a list , and our organization, alliance for justice, researched each and every one of them and up with big a inclusion that none of them were acceptable. in part, based on their records, but also in part because of the criteria donald trump said he would apply in choosing a supreme court justice. so, i think i would have to say, the answer is no. again, when you step back, there are probably republican lawyers across this country, who would make great justices. we, in fact, know of some of these people.

if i tell you who they are, it would probably be the kiss of , but, you know, he is looking for a very specific person and nobody on to beist would be deemed a really good choice for the american people. mark: do you think your group and others on your side of the issue might abduct what the federalist society and the heritage foundation did, and issue a list of possible candidates going forward, under a democratic presidency? absolutely. in fact, we over the years, at "alliance for justice" have been very actively recruiting justices for judgeships. we have done that for over 40 years, and we are really pleased that so many of the individuals that we suggested have become judges. we will continue to do that.

we are proud of the fact that president obama chose two excellent supreme court justices, elena kagan, sonia sotomayor. president clinton selected ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer, all excellent choices, and frankly all who garnered republican and democratic votes. siobhan: he had mentioned republicans also being in a position to block the nomination. who are the republicans you see as most likely to flip? are by two republicans that talked about the most are susan collins, lisa murkowski, from maine and alaska. votedf those fine women against the repeals of the affordable care act because pre-existing conditions.

it is now being litigated in the courts, and i should also trumpn that the administration said that pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional. i would think that both of those senators would be very concerned about that litigation, and very concerned that bret kavanaugh if confirmed, would be sitting in on a case challenging pre-existing conditions in the supreme court. and can you talk about the potential for rand paul to be something of a wild card this debate, given his concerns about policy and libertarian leanings? nan: it is hard to say about rand paul. i know that he has spoken out, raising concerns, but i cannot predict of and the day were he will become, except for, we may learn a lot more about brett kavanaugh's views regarding privacy. the other thing i was say about the local republican women, is that they have, for years,

professed to be supportive of we arewade, and i think going to look to those two women to be bold, courageous and to stand up this time. >> the timing is still close to .november, the midterm elections what does this do for both parties going into the midterms? nan: i think it works for us, because this is an opportunity for the supreme court to be a conversation in all those elections, which is a critically important conversation. during the presidential election in 2016, one candidate, donald trump, talked a lot about it and one candidate, not so much. this will be an opportunity for candidates, in house races and senate races, to really talk about what the stakes are in an

election. and the stakes for the supreme court really, obviously, a presidential election, is even more important, because who is elected president can name justices and judges to the lower courts, but i think it is a time. good i also think, if you take a walk back in history a little, let us go back to daniel manion, i know that that is many years ago, 1986, there was one republican gorton, he was all set to vote against daniel manion for a seat on the seventh circuit court of appeals. at the last moment, he changed his mind, voted for daniel manion. and you know what? slate gorton lost his seat that year. if you look back to anita hill, clarence thomas, after that huge

bruising fight and hearing, a number of democrats who voted for clarence thomas, faced a very hostile crowd,. one of them in georgia, lost his race. alan dixon was up for that she was trying to be reelected to a seat in illinois, he lost his seat to carol moseley over this issue. so, voters are paying attention, particularly at the supreme court level. and because there are so much ,ore engagement and excitement at least on the progressive side, i think this will be a huge issue. >> three minutes left, one last question from each of you. siobhan: i wonder if though, the risk is you end up energizing an already energized them aquatic

base, but do not necessarily expand the pool of public that has concerns? nan: my assumption is, based on a lot of experience, that once people come to understand who brett kavanaugh is and what he stands for, and the threat that he would pose to all of our rights and liberties, not just for two years, four years, before a generation, i think people will come to understand just how important this debate is, this discussion is, and pressed their senators to vote against him. the politicalon front, there are some democrats running for reelection in the senate, who are running in states that trump carried, some of whom voted for gorsuch as well. do you expect them to oppose kavanaugh with their seats on the line? nan: i do.

i absolutely do, because again, i think once their constituents about avenal, his record, and it -- about brett kavanaugh's record and the critical importance of the supreme court, they will communicate with their senators. >> what do the next couple of weeks and months look like for your organization? nan: oh my goodness! [laughter] 24/7, we have lawyers, activists researching his legal record. , we areoing polling figuring out people in states to be communicating with, we will be doing a full service operation engagement around this confirmation. >> while thank you for making as part of your schedule this week, the founder and

president of the alliance for justice. having me.u for susan: "newsmakers" is back there we had our guest was the founder and resident of the alliance for justice, who opposes the nomination of brett kavanaugh. let us start with the swing vote concept. justice kennedy did not like to be thought of that way, in fact, he was not always number five every time the vote swung. i am wondering what this dust of the dynamics of the court. mark: i think it makes the chief justice, the justice closest to the center, on a range of issues to be justice kennedy. so he will control on a range of issues, how far the court goes either to the right or left.onally, to the it must be said, you suggested that on some issues, he already

found himself there, of course, health care being a prime example of that -- he was a vote, along with four liberal justices who upheld the aca back in 2012. >> so the story for any presidential appointee is what? mark: let you cannot predict with certainty how everyone will vote on every case that might come before a justice, but there is a lot of work put in, in this case by the federal society and others, in compiling a list of candidates that conservatives feel will in the main, deliver the kind of votes they would like to see. >> let us go to capitol hill and talk about getting this nominee confirmed. we have talked about the list of senators -- two republican women and a number of democrats facing reelection, who are the targets of everyone's attention. joe manchin of west virginia was quoted as saying -- i am 71

years old and i cannot beat whipped them i democratic leader. what is the task for the democratic leader and the republican leader in the next couple of weeks? siobhan: mostly simple, to keep all their members together. that appears right now for the republican leader, to be easier, than the task facing chuck schumer. senator schumer ideally, would like to keep his numbers together, but he has to keep in mind that he has a number of democrats up for reelection in won inthat the president some places, pretty well. he might risk losing their seats if they stick with him, or cut them loose to do what they want. probably, he will opt for the latter approach, because at this time, it looks like this nomination is likely to go through. >> so, better or not to lose the seats is the calculation. ? siobhan: exactly, play along

game. >> what about senator chuck grassley? siobhan: he has a tough position, his task is to stay on schedule, and yet, carry out the hearings in a way that preserves his credibility and the credibility of the institution. the problem is that this is a candidate who has perhaps the longest written record of that trump could have chosen. he has to figure out how many documents to request, how to corral staff members to read those documents and preserve an aura of credibility. when is the deadline to get this done before the election? siobhan: i would say october 1? mark: several justices have joined the court, including justice kennedy, justice alito, justice thomas and justice gorsuch. there is a steep learning curve.

>> this last question is for both of you. do any senators express frustration with the canned or -- with the candor of appointees before them. themselves, iings don't think that there >> we are in a social media world right now. in a social media world in which things like the russian investigation are less prominent than they used to be. i think the level of attention that gets brought by the general public could be a component of this.

>> we will learn more about the documents as they are released. thank you very much for your questions this week. >> thank you. >> tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. >> mr. president, i am grateful to you. i am humbled by your confidence in me. >> brett kavanaugh, of the united states or to appeal for the district of columbia circuit is transit -- president trump's nominee for the supreme court. >> after talking to him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination during -- doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. confirmed heh is has freedom to make decisions

ourt the bodies, reforms to health care system, the quality of our air and water, much more will be at risk. >> i cannot think of anybody who is more qualified to serve as the next associate justice of the supreme court. >> follow the confirmation process on c-span through congress as judge kavanagh meets with key senators. the senate confirmation hearings, and the boat. watch live on c-span. watch anytime on c-span.org. or listen with the c-span radio app. ♪ c-span's washington journal, live every day with new and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, we will look at the ongoing trades between the united states and canada, china, and execute -- and mexico. reviews talksonal

about redefining what disability means. he looks at available programs for the communities. c-span's washington journal, life beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. >> the app industry is now 10 years old and there are nearly 4 million apps to choose from. morgan reed is the executive director of the dc-based app association he is our guest this week. how do apps work into coming occasion? the app economy is out $990 billion. the way to think about it is, it is not just that you play when you are bored on the bus, or you want to -- you want a st