moment alone with me and i make it through whatever happens when i get home and talk to them, lord knows what she is going to do. >> zachary would. live wednesday on the c-span network, the u.s. house returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span to take up u.s. embassy security and sanctions on state sponsors of cyber attacks against the u.s. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span two, the senate considers eight district court nominations. a.m., the at 9:30 second day of the confirmation hearings for supreme court comedy -- nominee brett kavanaugh. coming up in an hour, the president of alliance for justice and the president of the

ethics and public policy center are here to talk about brett kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, as the second day of his confirmation hearing begins. ♪ ist: good morning, it wednesday, september 5. happening in washington today, the second round of confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh. this kicks off at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. yesterday, the judge set for nearly eight hours for opening statements with protests from democrats, demanding documents from his time in the george w. bush administration. also today on capitol hill, twitter ceo jack dorsey and

--book coo sheryl's sheryl sandberg testifying today. today's washington journal with author and washington post associate editor bob woodward's new book on the trump administration. "fear: trump in the white house." the washington post headline on the book today, woodward details white house chaos. what is your reaction to this book? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. on twitter, or facebook.com/cspan to join the conversation. let's begin with some excerpts from the book. the washington post has them in their story today. it begins with a national

security council meeting on january 19. trump disregarded the massive u.s. military presence on the korean peninsula, including a special intelligence operation that allows the united states to detect a north korean missile launch in seven seconds versus from alaska, according to woodward. trump questioned why the government was spending resources in the region at all. we are doing this in order to prevent world war iii, defense secretary james mattis told him. staffite house chief of john kelly briefly lost his temper, according to woodward's book, and told colleagues that he thought the president was unhinged. in one small group meeting, kelly said of trump "he is an idiot. it's pointless to try and

convince him of anything. he has gone off the rails. we are now in crazy town. i do not know why any of us are here. this is the worst job i have ever had." so bob woodward tried to get a hold of the president, at least takes -- at least through six different people to directly talk to the president. in august, shortly before the woodwardreleased, bob recorded a phone call with president trump. yesterday, the washington post released the entire phone call, 11 minutes long. here is a portion of that phone call. >> it is a difficult time where the political system and you and , andsiness is being tested i take it very seriously. i have done books on eight presidents going back from nixon, obama, and i learned something about reporting, mr.

president. president trump: good. bob: i see them in the white house, outside of their offices, and gained a lot of insight in documentation, and it is a tough look at the world and your administration and year. president trump: right, well i assume that means it is going to be a negative book. yeah, i'm 50% used to that. that is all right. some are good, some are bad. not know how things work over there in terms of -- president trump: very well. if you call madeleine in my office -- did you speak to madeleine? she is the key, she is the secret. kelly -- ked to

president trump: i would not mind talking with you. i have spoken to you. i wish i could have spoken to you. host: that was a phone call in august between bob woodward and the president. with the president's permission, bob woodward recorded that. you can find the 11 minutes on the washington post website. we are getting your thoughts on this new book. what do you think about it? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from nick first in fairview, tennessee, independent. caller: hi, how are you doing? look, brought woodward is just another propagandizing, progressive, putrid phony for liberals. salt with grain of him to buy just ignoring him.

he is not worth the effort. trump is tremendous. the difference is the washington establishment liberal creatures of the swamp cannot realize trump runs this country as a business. the the ceo, we are workers, the globe is the marketplace, and they cannot stand it. they cannot tolerate it because they are [inaudible] such as barack bozo. just ignore the man. is thet way to retaliate midterms are here. we need to completely wash out and vote for any -- regardless of party -- individual support trump has to help drain the swamp. host: is that your advice to the president? just ignore this book? caller: no, i do not give that

man any advice because he out parts me left and right. -- outsmarts me left and right. i was not with him at first but now i am behind him. if you wants to talk, if he tweet, fine. the gets in their head and destroys them. they are so full of mush. cindy in norwood, connecticut. a republican. what do you think? caller: good morning, thanks. host: we're listening, go ahead. i do not know what happened to cindy. hung up orow if you whatever, call back. we will try to get you on. brenda, a democrat in houston. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: doing well. what do you think? caller: i am sitting here, lying in bed, trying to figure out who is really surprised? book after book has indicated

how nonfunctional this office and this person that is in the office -- who is surprised? you have to ask yourself at one point, the ones that support him, the wonderful southerners he made the comments about -- and that is true, he made the comment about it because that is how a lot of northerners feel about the southern drawl. i know, i have lived in both areas. this is ridiculous. he needs to be out of this office and we cannot get him out of here fast enough. this is shameful. i am so embarrassed. thank you for taking my call. host: what brenda is referring to is according to the woodward book, how the president characterize his attorney sessions.ff trump told porter that sessions was a traitor for refusing himself -- recusing himself from the russia investigation. locking sessions accent, trump

added "this guy is mentally retarded. he is this dumb southerner -- he couldn't even be a one-person county lawyer down in alabama." he also, according to the book, would make fun of h.r. mcmaster's behind his back, puffing up his chest and exaggerating his breathing as he impersonated the retired army general. he also says that mcmasters dresses in cheap suits, like a beer salesman. as for reince priebus, his former chief of staff, the president said he was like a little rat. he just scurries around. ray in fresno, california, a republican. good morning to you. what is your reaction to this new book by bob woodward? caller: yeah, i would like to understand why you are not embarrassed. you should be embarrassed. yourself out for the

democraps? host: by asking this question and getting reactions to the book? all right. let's get to the president's reaction on twitter. he retweeted date meant -- statements from his staffers. this is from the white house press for terri, sarah sanders -- this book is nothing more than fabricated tories, told to make the president look bad. while it is not always pretty rare that the press actually covers it, president trump has broken through the bureaucratic process to deliver unprecedented successes for the american people. sometimes he is unconventional, but he always gets results. democrats and their allies in the media understands that the president's policies are working and with successes like this, no one can beat him in 2020 -- not even close. this is from the chief of staff john kelly to reports of how he characterized the president in

the book. the idea i ever called the president an idiot is not true, and fact it is exactly the opposite. as i stated back in may and tells and firmly behind, i spend more time with the president than anyone else. we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. i am committed to the president, his agenda, and our country. this is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to president trump and distract him the administration's many successes. he also tweeted out a statement from the defense secretary, jim mattis. about theptuous words president attributed to me in woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence. while i enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely washington brand of literature, and his unanimous sources -- anonymous sources do not lend credibility. but what do all of you think? washington is talking about this, and people across the

country are talking about it. it is your turn to tell washington what you think. jeff in north carolina, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. no one is really talking about it except this station. everybody knows bob woodward is a democrat operative. smart tod trump is too talk that way around an enemy -- if it was even possible that he wouldn't talk that way -- would talk that way. he says anything in private and will say public they, the -- donald trump is. and you are a democrat station. you will go the way of nike, who is making stupid decisions to please the wrong people. why would you even put this book on tv?

question and when it is complete fabrications? host: how do you know it is complete fabrications? caller: look at the author. donaldhor has trashed trump ever since he started running for president. do you think donald trump would speak that way around him? do you have common sense? host: the point of having these conversations is so that people like you can call up and say what you just said, your perspective. you don't believe bob woodward has any credibility. we are getting that perspective, but we are getting other perspectives as well. caller: this station -- i have stopped watching you and i flipped the channels to see this book. the first person to ever ask the public about the book is this channel, because everybody else dismisses it. host: no one else asks questions

of the public. we are the only television station that allows people from across the country to call in know andwashington give your perspective to those across the country. let me go on twitter, where it says when bob woodward criticized obama, the right ears praised him like he was the best thing since sliced bread. another from mickey, the woodward book only serves one purpose -- to enrich woodward financially. rita and maryland, democrat. go ahead. caller: hi. there have been several books that have, out. -- that have come out. this is the first one by anyone i would consider a reputable journalist. but he is a democrat and we are the middle of this administration -- some of it starts to feel like gossip when it is done during the same timeframe the events are occurring.

that, it really does strike me as quite likely that it is chaotic in the white house, which is shortstaffed and under siege, both trump created and created from outside. , thank you. ginny, a republican in lancaster, ohio. caller: hello? host: hi, you are on the air. caller: oh, i did not know i was on the air. is goingve to say most people's heads. it is the breakdown of living in god and the family, and it seems like everyone wants to blame everybody for things, and the people act like the office is peachy green until donald trump got in office. it is not a politician and i do believe he is doing things in his right heart. what we areies --

doing to our country is what every other country wants. go back to the first days of when there was a colony or a country. every country has to fall, and we are next. it is that -- sad that [inaudible] and i'll of these terrible things -- it is -- all of these terrible things -- i do not know what is going to happen, but that is what i think. bruce in south carolina, independent. iller: good morning, appreciate all the comments from the other colors. -- callers. to me -- people are going to read the book. people who have their own ,pinion about the president whether they like him or don't like him, they have pretty much already made up their mind i think about the book. what i have heard -- and i have heard it on other stations other

than c-span, from what i have heard it sounds like the jerry springer show at the white house. and we can get that anywhere, so youink that mr. woodward, know, he is just trying to report. i'm trying to stay objective. in the book has been mentioned on other stations so much over .he past two years, so i think people are pretty much going to make up their own mind and it is not going to have that much difference in trump of the presidency -- trump presidency, unfortunately. host: thank you. carolina.outh more from the book in the washington post this morning. cohen try -- gary

to attend down trump's strident nationalism regarding trade. according to woodward, cohn stole a letter off of trump's desk that the president was intending to sign a formally withdraw the united dates from a trade dream with south korea. agreement with south korea. he also did the same thing with the north american free trade agreement, taking documents off of that as well. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democrat. good morning. your reaction to this book? i don'tfirst of all, believe this. the 1960'sall -- th are calling you back. and i am a firm believer of when you talk about the debacle of the hearings yesterday, when the

democrats made fools out of the united states the other day, with cory booker and that other woman screaming and people protesting. you ought to be a shave -- ashamed of yourself. of all the stories, this is the more important one in yesterday? host: we have three hours jim, we have three hours, so we will be talking about the kavanaugh hearing, his judicial philosophy in a roundtable discussion coming up at the top of the hour . then we will spend the last hour of today's washington journal, in our first hour we will talk a little bit about it, but in our last hour we will talk about the kavanaugh nomination. they two today before the senate .udiciary committee we will have our cameras there inside the hearing room so we can show you what is happening before it starts as well, and we can get your thoughts on day two. we go back to our conversation about the bob woodward book, we

want to get you updated on campaign 2018. there was a primary in massachusetts yesterday, and the headline out of the boston globe, are you ready to bring change to washington? of insurgentwave energy that is reshaping democratic politics crashed into massachusetts on wednesday, as the first african-american woman elected to the boston city council made history again, defeating a 10 term incumbent heavily backed by the political establishment. take a look at this video tweeted out last night of ayanna pressley when she found out that she won. >> we one? -- won? [laughter] >> yes, we won. >> oh my god.

laughing]d >> oh my god. oh my god. oh my god. the boston globe says with no republican in the race, presley is poised to become the first woman of caller from massachusetts to serve in the u.s. house, and in a story to district at that. politics for you out of says he rahm emanuel will not run for reelection next year. that is the headline in the chicago tribune. and also yesterday, the arizona governor doug ducey announced that jon kyl, the former senator and colleague of the late john mccain has been appointed to .ill out mccain's senate seat

we got governor ducey's announcement with jon kyl by his side, but if you missed it, go to our. we got governor ducey's announcement with jon kyl by, ad you can watch the announcement there. back to our question, bob woodward the new book. -- bob woodward's new book. our next caller, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. c-span -- you guys are probably the most respected because of your format in terms of reporting the news and events. but you have the responsibility to help end this confusion that is going on in this country. for example, when the president tweets out a cryptic attack on sessions and says the obama administration had these two investigations and now sessions took these investigations and two arrested republicans -- that is not true. you have to point that out. and if you do not do that, you abdicate your responsibility.

and this is why you have all this confusion from people, they do not know what to believe and went to believe it. trump lies, and you have to point that out on c-span every time he does. thank you very much. host: there are a lot of websites out there that fact check the president and fact check members of congress, so you're welcome, to our viewers, to go to those websites. if we were fact checking everything everybody said, we would not have time to hear from all of you, and that is the wesion of this program, cover washington and you hear it all. we do not filter it or have commentary, like the kavanaugh hearing. this program allows you to react to different events that are happening in washington, different debates that are happening around the country. that is what we are trying to do with this call-in program.

but on that story, the front page of the new york times this morning, trump blurs a legal line. his tweet over the holiday weekend chastising jeff sessions for the justice department's recent indictments of two republican congressmen because it can cost seats in november crossed a line that he has not yet reached. political andny legal figures, one republican senator compared it to banana republic thinking. this might not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors required for impeachment because it could be construed as commentary rather than an order, but legal scholars and some lawmakers that it could be one more exhibit and trying to prove a pattern of obstruction or reckless disregard for rule of law in a future peace and proceeding. joel and rivers, wisconsin, independent. good morning to you. caller: good morning.

i have been listening to this this morning, and from your very to the gentleman from california to the other person who called in who said i do not watch your program anymore because you are biased, but if he is not watching the program then why is he calling this morning? i truly believe as long as the president keeps doing what he is doing, with his tweets, with his changing of stories all the time, that this kind of stuff is not going to end. these kinds of books -- just watching pbs a couple of weeks covering aey were backed byy, she was the press corps and people were rearing at her with hate in their eyes. someone got stabbed in the news. i truly believe that fox news station is a station richard nixon would have loved, because

they would patted him on the back as well. when the reporter was talking to a gentleman, asking ohenabout the michael c paying things out, the man said i believe president trump. he is the height of american chivalry because he paid this guy off. if i had an affair on my wife, i -- i would not want her finding out because it would have hurt my family. i believe the president is a height of american chivalry. firing themould be and who may front of your friends and the lord and your wife. , but ito use the word think a lot of the people who are following him our brain -- are being brainwashed. i watched a rally back in the 1930's, and at the rallies it

was the same thing. as long as the president keeps up with his tweets and he causes news caputorsy -- said years back on fox that he was his own worst enemy. sometimes he is the one who is feeding the beast. as long as this keeps happening, i wish him the best, but even watching mccain's funeral, you had to scratch your head and order how veterans serving retired could have voted for him after the things he said there. i do not know if it was bigotry, or what it was that really drew him in, but i because theit people following him are being brainwashed, and their egos are not going to allow them to actually see what is going on.

there is a lot of trashy journalism going on from both sides, and i truly believe it is not going to end until mr. trump himself stops feeding the beast. host: we heard your point. this is the president's reaction on twitter to the woodward book. he said jim mattis called the woodward book "fiction," the product of someone's rich imagination. it has also been discredited by general james mattis and john kelly. their clothes were made up -- upir quotes were made frauds, a con on the public. likewise other stories". woodward is a dumb operative. arty discredited woodward book, so many lies and phony sources. he made this up to divide. on tweeting from the woodward the, this is what

washington post writes. woodward reveals that trump ordered printouts of his tweets and studied them to find out which ones were most popular. excuse me, this is from cnn. they also have excerpt of the book. the most effective tweets were also the most shocking. twitter was a source of great consternation for national security leaders, who feared and warned trump that twitter and get us into a war. ng some of his more s try tous post, aide form a twitter committee to vet the tweets, but they failed to stop their boss. pay my i am not going to money for the book. i'm listening to all the stations and forming my own opinion, and i'm getting sick of people making fun of people and calling them names. they are not focusing on the real issues in this country.

that one caller saying obama was a bozo, they could say a lot of things about the people in this administration. but i keep the thoughts about this and administration to myself. host: peter in lutherville, a republican. where are you from? caller: good morning. i'm happy to be on the air. host: good morning to you, sir, go ahead. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i have been trying to call in for a couple of weeks now, but one of the things as a businessman that most people don't realize is i am seeing positive changes with the economy and what is going on with drug, -- trump, and bob woodward, he has been a non-entity for years and all of a sudden he comes out of nowhere , and because he has something from years ago people think he has credibility. if you look at what is going on, people are ignoring what is happening in this country, all

the good things that are happening -- from a business standpoint. i think people need to stop looking and listening to what they are being told and they need to do some research before they make their decisions and decide what way they are going to go, one way or the other. host: ok. wall street journal's front page, confirmation hearings for judge brett kavanaugh yesterday. it was only opening statements with introductory speeches by senator lisa murkowski -- excuse me, by former secretary of state condoleezza rice and others, and the senators give their opening testimony, and the judge also gave his introductory remarks yesterday. today, there will be questioning , 30 minutes for each senator. that is their first round. then they will get a second round of 20 minutes as well. democrats yesterday protested -- protested the

amount of documents they would like to see from brett in the georgeme w. bush administration. there have been hundreds of thousands of documents released, but they say they want more during his specific time in the white house counsel office during the bush administration. today, you can expect that questioning on that issue as well as others, roe v. wade, supreme court precedent, judicial philosophy, the constitution, etc. you can watch our covered in 9:30 eastern today on , and the-span.org c-span radio app. there are some editorials this morning on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh. the washington post says, what is the rush? republicans should allow for 's record to

be more thoroughly vetted. questions from possible senators should be informed for the same reason. are wrong to rush the committee's consideration so they can ram through mr. kavanaugh's confirmation before the november election. it is a process that believe many americans wondering, with reason, what they are not being told. the wall street journal editorial calls and histrionics -- called it histrionics. as arats portray kavanaugh trump he and legal bar loyal -- legal gargoyle, but of his opinions and orders on the federal bench were unanimous. he was in the majority, 98% of the time. of his 62 dissents, the supreme court has adopted his legal reasoning in at least nine

cases, and externa renumber for an appellate judge. he is a center-right version of his colleague on the federal bench, merrick arland, who laud asts continue to an ideal justice. again, we will have our coverage from 9:30 a.m. eastern time of day two of the kavanaugh hearings. yesterday you probably heard the protesting that took place in the hearing room by the public, but also affected democrats. 70 people were arrested from yesterday's hearing, and it lasted a little over eight hours. washington post associated ♪ [video clip] -- washington post associate editor bob woodward out with a new book. let's go to michigan with terry, a democrat. caller: how are you doing? i have three comments to make.

the first one is c-span, you are nonbiased. let the democrats, republicans, independents say with a police and read on a paper, and people make their own judgments on what is in the papers, whether it is right or wrong. number two, all of these evangelist christians that voted for trump when he does something that goes against their religion -- it's seems like they put their bible and the door, they turn their head as long as their wallet is getting bigger, and they are hurting safety nets for people. it seems like it is all right to them. once we get a democrat, they go back to being the christians holding their bibles and saying everything the democrats are doing is going against the good book. number three, shows like yours let people like me have a voice

in this society to voice my opinion. disaster, and i just hope the democrats win the house and maybe the senate and get things together. peoplewill help the poor with the inflation and tariffs, help people like me get more money on the percentage of social security and stuff i am on. so these trade wars are hurting other big companies, but i am sure they can live with it. he is going to help the inflation rate for people who get social security and pensions, he is helping them by this trade war stuff. you guys do a good job, and you had a lot of angry callers today. if you just need to eat your donut and drink your coffee -- right is right, wrong

is wrong. god bless you and have a good day. host: harry in virginia, a democrat. caller: good morning. i was just calling to say president trump, i guess he is trying to do the best he can do. have told himould when he was running, you are too crooked to be your president. you will bring your whole family and all of your friends down. not believe sessions or anybody is in the way of this investigation, because sooner or later it will lead right to him. the country is all messed up now, everybody is not liking nobody no more, and people hating each other, and that is just bad for everyone around. the print -- but trump knows he is too dirty to be president. you did not think that he was going to walk into the white house and no one was going to do an investigation and one was going to write no books.

he has not really done a lot of good stuff either, because he does not know how to do it. he never had no government experience and can't even get his cabinet in order. and the white house is now shooting at him and he is trying to stay alive. i do not understand how someone like this is too dirty to be -- out: the president tweeted this morning, isn't it a shame that some one can write an article or book, totally make up picturey, post a of the person that is literally the exact opposite of fact and get away it with it -- get away with it without retribution or cost. mario in ohio, thank you for calling. caller: good morning, greta, and take for the opportunity to bring a critical -- to bring some critical thinking to read between trump's twitter lines.

here is the situation to understand what trump is saying in that tweet that the new york times is "analyzing." where trumpn is comes into office, sally yates goes against him, the situation where it went all the way to the supreme court and sided with trump in that decision. you have a decision where james comey went ahead and orchestrated leaking information to get a special counsel, and a situation also where you have individuals in the justice department literally putting their thumb on the scale, and people here in ohio and across the country actually see the high politicalization of the justice department. that is what the president is commenting on. he is saying, here is a situation i find myself in, supposedly people are not supposed to be putting up investigations that would affect an election, their own internal

policy, and here is what i am presenting. that is what the tweet is about. mario, tie that to the new woodward book? woodwardhat book -- has been around for years. i remember reading several of his books. he should have taken the time and gone to those individuals that the quotes are treated to and simply said, can you validate or confirm this quote? that is all he had to do. he was lazy if he did not do that. otherwise it is just here is a -- heresay. >> he talks to people in the room when he used quotes from the president to confirm them. caller: not mattis, not the general -- host: go directly to them, got you. caller: he could have put a call in and they would have taken this call, and he said someone is a tribute in this to you.

can you confirm it? that is journalism 101. mario, a republican in ohio. here is a quote from the woodward book from a situation with john dowd, his lawyer on the mueller investigation. writes later that month, john dowd told the president don't testify. it is either that or an orange jumpsuit. but trump, concerned about the optics of a president refusing to testify and convinced that he could handle mueller's questions, had by then decided otherwise. i'll be a real good witness, trump told dowd. witness, dowdgood replied. mr. president, i am afraid i just can't help you. the next morning, dowd resigned. mr. dowd denied that account and here is his vote. i have not read bob woodward's book, which appears to be the most recent and endless cycle of

accusations and misrepresentation. it was a great honor and distinct from which to serve president trump. mr. woodward said he stood by his reporting. way, this in the washington post this morning, that robert mueller, of earning more according to reporting, robert mueller will except written answers. friday, he told president trump's lawyer that he will except written answers about whether his campaign coordinated with russia to tip the 2016 election in his favor. been in north carolina, independent. you are next. good morning to you. i wanted to say that this book --e is innuendo's is hearsay innuendos and heresy.

my grandfather taught me years ago to believe what you see and not what you hear. this book is all anonymous sources. like the man said before, this was a lazy job and a hit job on trump. i do not love trump, i am not crazy over some of the stuff he says on twitter, but the man is doing a good job for our country and woodward is a democratic operative and he is never going to change his ways. at the same time that you are pushing this book on woodward's behalf and calling the title and all that good stuff, you have a guy like greg jarrett that cames out with all facts that came out with all facts in his book, a number one seller, and he gets no time on your show. this shows me with the bias is -- what the biases in your editorial board. not you, but your editorial board. every day it seems like there is a hit piece on trump.

there is never a hit piece on these fools that act up in senate meetings like yesterday. that was a carnival. host: we will talk about that in our last hour of the washington journal. again, a three-hour program, so we will get your thoughts on what happened yesterday at the first day of the confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh and stay two, today, where there on his questioning judicial philosophy and other issues. we will get your perspective on that, coming up on the washington journal. let's go to gym in washington state, a democrat. good morning. caller: hi, greta. i do not appreciate the way the republicans attack you and c-span. i have been watching you guys for a long time and i cannot they just can't accept when there is -- you know, some of the truths.

it is mind blowing that it is their way or the highway, and anytime they won't open their mind and listen to both sides. have a nice day, ok? don't let them get to you, thank you. in washington jim state. a new poll, election edge goes to democrats and female candidates by 58% to 34%, most one congress to stand up to trump. at the traditional labor day tort, those surveys have 58% 39% that they were more likely to vote for the democratic congressional candidate in their district, not the republican. that double-digit advantage would probably enable democrats to win control of the house, launchthem the power to investigations and perhaps even consider impeachment of the president. there is also this story about college education in the wall

street journal. colleges offer price matches on tuition. oglethorpe university near atlanta will match the tuition for any state's flagship university. robert morrison said it would charge pennsylvania residents the same price as local public universities and give them a $3000 private scholarship to boot. are limited to

>> or not that they came out, they gave their comments. host: yeah. denying that they ever said those things. we hear this over and over and the again, and yes, mainstream media, i do not put them on at all. comment, ie that don't believe anonymous sources -- they have done nothing but be this president up. official fired or resign. those fbi guys are gone. i have to say i have one person -- i really do not believe there was russian interference. i think this was all concocted by the obama administration,

brennan, clapper. host: i will get in some other calls here on the woodward book. sue in flat rock, indiana, democrat. what do you think? caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment. to these people call in with such hatred in their voices, defending trump. well, even the am a registered democrat, i will tell you that there have been times that i have voted just for the person after listening to debates and reading articles. i have been able to vote for a republican, and since this has all come about with trump, i will no longer do that. for that, i am really, really pissed at the republican party. my comment was when i think of trump, when i see him, when i hear him, i think of jim jones and david paresh.

and thee the ability knack to have groups of people listening to only their voice. and no one else. ense ofoning, no s being able to think for yourself. and it really bothers me, but in new york i have heard on television -- in new york, there is a joke going around. if you get screwed out of your money or screwed out of a good deal, some people will smile at you and say, you just got trumped. well, he told you. in all fairness to trump, i will say this allowed and i -- i will say this aloud and say this forever -- he told you who he was when he campaigned. if you went to the polls to vote trumped.you just got my question is this -- when

putin came in and put his finger on the scale of our election and helped his comrade trump win, my question is in 2016, would you not and why has not anyone said this is a rigged election? because it certainly was. host: i will leave it there. james in oklahoma, a republican. james? caller: hello? james? host: james in oklahoma, your reaction to bob woodward posey book? 's book?oodward caller: i don't pay much worthion, the only book anything in this reality is the holy bible. the king james version. if donald trump cannot follow that, maybe you shouldn't be president, because he acts more like putin than anyone i have ever met.

host: sarah and humble, texas, and independent. caller: i doubt that woodward has any credibility at all. wrote, supposedly casey's death threat confession to him. he was lying through his teeth. even the people interviewing him knew it and they gave him a pass. he writes these books, they have no credibility at all, and yet the mainstream media acts like just because [inaudible] like he is credible just for that. his other bring up blatantly lies. host: ok, sarah in texas. before we switch our conversation to judge brett kavanaugh at the top of the

hour, i want to let you know that mark zuckerberg, the ceo of facebook, has written a piece in the washington post. facebook's fight to protect democracy. feelys, i am often how i -- asked how i feel about the midterms. elections, we have removed fake accounts and bad content leading up to the elections, and with germany, we worked directly with the government to share information about potential threats. facesany such as facebook sophisticated, well-funded adversaries were getting funded over time as well. it is an arms race, and will take combined forces of the u.s. , public, and private sector to protect our democracy from outside interference. this is the coo of facebook, sheryl sandberg, joined by the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey, before the senate intelligence committee. they will be testifying about

foreign actors influencing elections. on the phone this morning is ashley gold, technology reporter with politico. when was it decided and why for the senate intelligence committee to call these ceos and not others, or will there be others brought in before today to talk about this? guest: this hearing is happening just after a year from the first hearing with tech ceos we saw last fall, when there were the first revelations that foreign actors bought advertisements on america's major platforms -- quitter, google, -- twitter, google, and facebook, and placed ads, so division, and that people mad at each other in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. they have been on watch on the hill ever since, with democrats like senator mark warner wanting to make sure that they are doing their very best to deter these actors from buying ads on the

platform and for fooling everyday americans who use these tech platforms. this is still happening on these platforms. they have found advertisements that is stillnd happening. lawmakers are nervous that this is going to affect the upcoming midterms. that is why it is happening now. the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey will be there, 's coo, cheryl sanders. -- sheryl sandberg. are any apple executives testifying? guest: they are not testifying. the senate intelligence the senateet -- intelligence committee said they wanted to see a member from google come. google had offered up their svp of global affairs, mr. kent

walker, who appeared on google's behalf last time the tech giants were up on the hill. he used to be there general counsel. and the committee said that is not good enough, we need to hear someone at the executive level. we'll submitted some testimony be they will not represented, because they are not sending the committee wanted. host: what are the representatives expected to say companies?of their we saw what mark zuckerberg said today, but what about twitter? what are they doing? guest: twitter will talk about how they have rolled out various in the past year to fight for actors on the platform, whether it is via a new technology, artificial intelligence, adding half who go through advertisements to see

that everyone is who they say they are. they involve, to a certain extent, excepting the call for more regulation of political advertisements and have done their own forms of that by putting advertisers through a stricter process to get ads place. and like mark zuckerberg said in his op-ed, make sure elections around the world go more smoothly. they will say why they can do a lot -- while they can do a lot on their own, they cannot do it all. they need the support of the white house and the intelligence community, and the support from congress. they do not want to be on an island by themselves dealing with this threat. it is an all hands on deck situation. host: does that require legislation or regulation? guest: certainly some lawmakers feel that way. senators warner and kobe char are have been trying to get the honest ad act passed, which would get these regulations into

law and other called for regulation have happened, but for so long the tech giants have managed to bat off any threats or worked to that off any threat of regulation. the call to get these platforms under control are stronger, so i would not be surprised if we heard more about regulation, whether it's a data and they are dealing with calls for regulation on all sides of this, i would not be surprised if we saw a few more bills coming down the pipe. host: the intelligence committee with jack dorsey and sheryl sandberg is underway and 9:30, you can go to our website and watch it. before we let you go, jack dorsey will then go to the has energy and commerce committee, was he testifying about? guest: the title of the hearing

the house energy and commerce members to hear about twitter's algorithm, how they work and try to gain more transparency. but the whole reason this hearing is happening is because leaders isican convinced that twitter is buys to against conservatives, you have the house gop majority leader, kevin mccartney, has been harping on it a lot, tweeting him messages with #stop the bias. there was an incident where conservative lawmakers were not showing up in search results as much and twitter fixed it, but they stuck to that and they want to hear twitter explain itself as to why it is not injecting liberal bias into the weights platform works. host: we will have coverage of that as well. you can go to c-span.org for the social media executives on capitol hill today.

thank you. guest: thank you. coming up, brett kavanaugh faces tough questioning from senators later this morning, day to of his supreme court confirmation hearing to stay two of his supreme court confirmation. we will hear from nan aron and about judge kavanaugh's judicial philosophy and hot topics that will likely come up this morning. we will be right back. ♪ >> sunday night on q and a, assistant editor at the atlantic, zachary wood talks about his book uncensored, growing up in a troubled home.

the phone rings and i pick it up and i see it's my mom. i had a sense that this is not going to be good. i don't know what it was. spoke,red the phone, she she was very calm, kurt, but calm. she says zachary, child protective services is here, come home as soon as you can. and i knew that tone in her voice. child protective services is here, i'm asking myself, will i live to see the next day? that is what is going to my mind , am i going to live to see the next day? because if ever at any point she has a moment alone with me, and i make it through whatever happens when i get home and talk , lord knows what she will do. >> sunday night at eight eastern on c-span q&a.

c-span, where history unfolds daily, in 1970 nine c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme policy eventblic in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. sunday night on afterwards, former obama administration education secretary, marnie duncan on his book, how schools work. he is interviewed by kyle henderson, the former chancellor of the district of columbia public schools. >> i don't know if voters make the connection between what politicians do and what happens in schools. how do we draw that line more clearly? >> we need voters to understand

that if you want to pay our teachers better, to reduce dropout rates and make college more affordable we have to get there by challenging and holding accountable our elected officials who we put in office. >> watch afterwards sunday night at nine eastern on booktv. host: we are back for a discussion this morning about judge brett kavanaugh, president trump nominee for the high court to replace retiring justice, anthony kennedy. here for the discussion is ed whelan the president of ethics at the public policy center, and nan aron. i want to begin with yesterday's opening statements, we heard from the judge for a brief

introduction of himself and i want to show our viewers what judge brett kavanaugh had to say when he was nominated for the d.c. circuit court, where he has served for many years. this is from 2006, he is asked about his approach to the constitution. >> do you have a view that is established as a living doctor -- document as a strict construction of the constitution itself? much inieve very interpreting text as it is written, and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. i believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policy and making role with the legislative branch in the constitutional democracy. i believe very much as a perspective superior court

judge, were i to be confirmed, following the supreme court precedent, strictly and absolutely as a lower court judge. i think that's very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to safely follow supreme court precedent. that is something that i think is very important in terms of the independence of the judiciary. i think that is something that is the hallmark of our judiciary. the hallmark of our system that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. i think that is central to my understanding. in terms of text, precedent, and restrained, those principles would inform my approach to judicial decision-making were i to be confirmed. host: nan aron, your reaction to hearing the judge in 2006? he certainly touched on

all of the republican talking points. judicial restraint, an independent judiciary, but the fact is when you look at his 13 year record on the d.c. circuit, it's anything but judicial restraint. issue after issue, whether it's government regulation, presidential power, abortion, health care, he has veered dramatically from text and judicial restraint. and he certainly placed in a category that many refer to as an activist judge. brett kavanaugh comes into the d.c. circuit and supreme court .s a loyal political lawyer he has certainly carried out, in the d.c. circuit, and

implemented an agenda there a much in keeping with republican party talking points. much -- very much in keeping with the republican talking points. i suspect he will keep with the talking point and last night reflectedatement that. if confirmed, which we do not think he will be, he will become part of a five person majority that will strip away our rights, , and thereiberties will be nothing resembling judicial restraint in his decisions. host: we will get to why you don't think you will be confirmed, but ed whelan, respond to what you heard. guest: there's a lot of hyperbole and tossing labels, the judicial philosophy that the judge cap -- that judge

isanaugh repeated yesterday what he is manifested throughout his tenure on the d.c. circuit. that's the record that earned him the american bar association's highest rating, well-qualified, unanimously. regard for his intellect and integrity. recasta that he would traditional understanding of the judge's role as republican talking points speaks hot far have a nan's politicized role in judging, she wants judges who delivers the results that she desires area she does not want judges -- desires. she does not want judges being held to the law. she's been playing this game for , and she'ses entitled to advance that view but that's not judging and judge kavanaugh, i'm confident, will be an outstanding justice. he will be confirmed.

when you look at the respect he has earned across the ideological spectrum from liberals like professor akil blatt, who spoke so powerfully yesterday. i think you see the point of view that nan aron is expressing is a distinct minority and not well substantiated. host: respond to ed whelan, but also the wall street journal because they put the numbers behind what he was saying in their editorial board opinion today. democrats betray him as some sort of trump in legal gargoyle but he is the opinion of a mainstream legal conservative that any gop president would have had on his short list. 97% of the opinions and orders that judge kavanaugh departed in over 12 years were unanimous and he was in the majority 98% of the time. , i agree withngs ed in the sense that he is been

on the d.c. circuit for many years, and you certainly qualified. he's very -- and he is certainly qualified. smart, intellectual with great analytic abilities. but that's not the end of the inquiry for the senate or the american people. we have to look at person's overall judicial temperament, we have to look at whether they are going to judge in a way that advances our rights and freedoms or take them backwards. host: how do you do that? what information do you need besides his record on the bench? guest: we read his 300 opinions, very carefully. we released a major report on those opinions and concluded on issue after issue, he took a very extreme position. in fact there's just one fact that stands out. when he was nominated, the white house said in a memo, probably a

press release, that he has overturned 75% -- 75 civil regulators. those are agency officials that produce regulations that affect our public health, our safety, our environment, civil rights, women's rights, and that statement, in and of itself, in bodies the trump administration's desire through the nomination of brecht -- embodies the trump administration's desire through the nomination of brett kavanaugh to cement the role that ultraconservatives have had and will have it confirmed on this court for 30 years. host: can you respond to overturning regulations by agencies? caller: -- guest: it's an odd claim, do they not want someone who applies proper scrutiny to the regulations this administration is adopting? he is shown throughout his

career that he will be steadfast and impartial in viewing regulations, some of the opinions are unanimous. there are times when agencies overstepped their bounds. and judge kavanaugh and his colleagues on the d.c. circuit's have called that out. host: is that primarily what a federal judge sitting on the d.c. circuit is looking at? is that the cases that come before them yucca -- them? other more than any circuit they have an administrative law caseload. that is a big part of the diet. you: and what concerns about kavanaugh sitting on the supreme court when it comes to cases that have already been decided? guest: we will hear brett kavanaugh come before the committee today and say that he

agrees with settled law. meaning supreme court precedent. in fact he is already used that phrase during some of the core courtesies with senators -- court courtesies with senators. but as we look back to the nomination and confirmation of neil gorsuch, he used the same phrase. i will follow and respect settled law. and in the short time neil gorsuch has been a supreme court the majorityined of the supreme court overturning a 41 year precedent that results in a decision that will workerse public sector for decades. the word of settled law, which he will articulate and use today means nothing. we are counting on senators to look beyond just these easy , and more understand

portly get the american people to understand exactly what he is referring to -- and more get the american people to understand exactly what he's referring to. i will be interested to hear whether or not he thinks brown versus the board of education is settled law, several of the lower court nominees have set -- have not even been able to acknowledge the brown versus board is settled law. but that's not enough, if he agrees with them, what does he think about them? host: we want to hear about -- we want to hear from our viewers as well, what concerns do have or why you support brett kavanaugh. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. let's listen to the judge in his

own words, this is from his 2000 six confirmation hearing to serve on the d.c. circuit court. he is asked by senator chuck schumer about roe v. wade. do you consider roe v. wade to be an abomination? and you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee like the president said he was going to nominate, people in the mold of scalia and thomas? >> on the question of roe v. wade, if concerned -- confirmed i would follow roe v. wade fully, aspen binding precedent that was decided by the supreme court. buthat is binding precedent has been decided by the supreme court. opinion?at is your you're not on the bench and you have spoken about these issues in the past and others are not sure. >> i don't think it would be appropriate for me to give an opinion. >> you want answer the question. host: ed whelan?

guest: he will patrol the waivers any other precedent. justice that's ever taken the position -- he will approach roe v. wade like any other precedent. justice approaches this in a responsible way, and everything about his record maintains he will do that. talks aboutaron this report that was put out, even before the nomination was made she declared she would oppose whoever the nominee was. had he respond to dianne feinstein yesterday in her opening statement said the question is not rather roe v. wade is settled law, the question is is the law correct? guest: i think senator feinstein does not understand how it

operates. anytime you address a question, your beginning proposition is that the case has been wrongly decided, if it's rightly decided of course it should be maintained. every justice recognizes with multi factor test. host: could you explain it? guest: this is the principle that you are always using shorthand to talk about respect for precedent. theas never been absolute, court has overturned opinion throughout its history, including notorious opinions like plessy v ferguson. there is no justice who has ever taken the position that every precedent must be upheld. judge kavanaugh has co-authored an entire volume, along with

justice gorsuch, bryan garner, and a number of other respected judges on the law of precedent. it's a complicated multifactor , but when she get past the threshold you can decide whether the decision is right. what nan fears is the reality that so many have ignore knowledge, that roe v. wade was not rightly decided. it has been criticized in harsh terms. she is concerned that we have already passed the threshold of an query -- of inquiry. >> a couple things ed, president trump set out in talking about his supreme court nominees that he was looking for someone with two characteristics. someone who would overturn roe v. wade, there he blunt about that. and someone who would overturn the affordable care act.

it's no's price the brett kavanaugh is that nominee -- bill surprise -- no surprise that brett kavanaugh is the nominee. in a speech he indicated that rehnquist, the former chief in roe v.ssent wade. and we know that he would delay the ability of a woman to get an abortion for such a long period of time that it would have been impossible. we can guess and use high-minded about settled law, and precedent. but the fact the matter is we know exactly where brett kavanaugh stands. and the purpose of the hearing that theto ensure american people know where brett

kavanaugh stands on the issue of roe v. wade and abortion. host: nan aron is referring to a recent case before the d.c. circuit court were judge kavanaugh was the dissenting voice on whether or not an immigrant could get an abortion. the language he used, what was it and will it come up? certainly come up, this was a woman and attention who sought an abortion, she went through all of the procedure she needed to go through in texas to get judicial permission to get an abortion. the case was then appealed by the justice department. at the d.c. circuit said of course she should get an abortion, -- and the d.c. circuit said of course you should get an abortion. brett kavanaugh wanted her to find a sponsor which could have taken weeks. at this point she was in her 15th week of pregnancy.

had she taken another six weeks to get a sponsor, she would have been in eligible under texas law to actually have that abortion. and he used dog whistles like abortion on demand, and his dissenting opinion, those are words that trigger right wing americans to know that he is on their side. that he is a vote against roe v. wade. i will have you respond and then i want to get the cause. the simplistic account of a complicated case. he made clear in his dissent that he was applying roe v. wade and planned parenthood the casey . there was another dissenting judge, judge henderson who to the position that this young woman, this illegal immigrant detained across the border, has constitutional rights under row.

judge kavanaugh projected that and got a lot of criticism for doing so. kavanaugh or any other justice would be applying this is examining the issue. host: there are more issues to discuss, we would like your phone calls as well. they two of judge brett kavanaugh's confirmation, getting underway in about an hour before the senate judiciary committee and we will have our coverage beginning here on the washington journal. we will show you the room and get your opinions as we continue to talk this morning. and we will have coverage of the hearing onl-to-gavel c-span3, c-span.org, or on c-span radio. let's turn to you. ann, in new york, a democrat. thing that first really disturbed me yesterday thewhen he refused to shake

hand of the father of a daughter who was killed parkland shooting. him, and hisy from hand, and then sent security people back to interrogate the man. i thought his lack of human decency and compassion after he adjusts spoken about his daughters in the basketball game was beyond belief. how can someone so little compassion that he could not even shake this man's hand on the supreme court? he is basically being appointed by an illegitimate president was basically going to be a co-conspirator under investigation when this man would be on the court. he has already expressed views that show that he does not be

held a sitting president should be bothered with being above the law. host: a couple of issues to discuss. guest: let me address them. at a break as judge kavanaugh was leaving, getting his first chance to move after hours of sitting a man raced up to him from behind and send something to him. judge kavanaugh turned and sees a security coming. of ans in the middle event that has been marred by antics and protests. it's safe to assume that judge hisnaugh has already gone share of threats. the idea he was supposed to know who this was and respond favorably when the first guy was zipping up to him, this is a silly attack from the left. almost as silly as the focused ofthe supposed hand gestures someone seated behind judge kavanaugh. , he iss nothing to this

a life of strong character that speaks powerfully here. -- bys a stunt i someone someone, the father of the victim declared that he was out to do what he could to sink the kavanaugh hearing. the second point -- host: it's important to know he does have secret service protection. he should.ell this fellow zipped up and got between him and his security. i don't think you will see anyone able to do that today. to the second point, judge kavanaugh has never remotely suggested that the president is above the law. he has conventional views, the position that some have -- is thatto him it a sitting president cannot be probably held by most constitutional law professors in the country. what judge kavanaugh said is impeachment is the means in our

constitution prescribed for dealing with the president under those situations. could comedictment after impeachment and removal. there is nothing that suggests that any president is above the law. host: nan aron? guest: i don't know if any of us know what happened between that father and brett kavanaugh. i will say this, this was not an issue engineered by the left. the media picked it up, they saw the father of a parkland victim go up and try to shake his hand and he turned his back. the white house put out a statement saying that security interceded, there was no security around. this is indicative of anything really. i do think an important issue

raised by the collar is --caller is brett kavanaugh's views on presidential power. they will very much be on display, clearly senators are worried about his views on presidential power, i'm sure we will get into a discussion of that over this time period. just to say, you do have a president in deep trouble. you have a nominee, and it's no accident that brett kavanaugh is the nominee, who is very extensive views on presidential power. sure, he's as president should not be indicted and there's a healthy debate about that, but he also says presidents should not be investigated. he would seek to overturn special counsel laws. it's an important issue for the senate. host: in case our viewers missed the moments we were just discussing between the father of

of a park -- of the parkland shooting, here is the clip that was sent out, the moment. our viewers can decide and watch for themselves. presidentialto power, richard blum felt, a democrat from connecticut brought this up in his opening statement. i want to share for our viewers what he had to say and give our viewers an idea what kind of questioning judge kavanaugh could get from senators like senator blum felt --bloomfeld. >> the president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability.

in fact whether he is required to obey a subpoena to appear before a grand jury. what if he is required to testify? ,n a prosecution of his friends or other officials in his administration, and whether he is in fact required to stand trial if he is indicted while he is president of the united states? there is a basic principle of our constitution and it was articulated by the founders. no one can select a judge in his own case. that is what the president is potentially doing here. selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. that is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential.

host: the senator there yesterday at day one of the confirmation hearing, we are talking about what to expect a day when questioning gets underway at 9:30. each senator gets one round of 30 minutes and a second round of 20 minutes. the hearings are expected to go all day today, into the evening, as well as thursday and on friday you will hear from people who support and oppose judge kavanaugh to the band. at our table this morning nan aron and ed whelan to discuss judge kavanaugh's nomination. and your phone calls. dj, in virginia, and independent. caller: i would like both of your guests to give remarks about the behavior of the democratic party at yesterday's hearing. i thought it was hubble aren't

-- abhorrent. big fearinged democrats. they were out to eat that man alive without giving him a chance. and to interrupt and be that rude was of poor and -- abhorrent, and i believe the democrats handed the election to president trump in 2020 with their behavior and i would like your guests to comment on what kind of behavior is that of our congress. host: we will let nan aron go first. guest: democrats came ready to stand up. they are frustrated, as they ofuld be, by the lack transparency and accountability by the trump administration after all, the trump white house is only provided 7% -- has only provided 7% of brett kavanaugh's

overall record and only 4% of that record is public. at rest is only available to members of the senate. --and the rest is the only and the rest is only available to the members of the senate. when you look at elena kagan's nomination, 99% of her records, and both she and brett kavanaugh worked in the white house, 99% of her records were shared by that administration. hearings come to this without the available information. but it's not just democrats. it's republicans as well, who want to be standing up and fighting for those records. but who loses? the american people. how can we have a national discussion in this country, how can senators perform their advise and consent responsibilities without access

to what brett kavanaugh has written, said, or produced? to make matters worse, the thousandstion dumped of pages of documents the night before. i was pleased to see the democrats, they came ready to object and object as strongly as they did. >> democrats and many others -- the behavior democrats and many others engaged in the audience, and usedphony statistic demonstrates that they do not have anything to oppose. he has written 300 opinions which has provided ample evidence of his fitness as a judge. it's the basis on which the american bar association named him highly qualified. the fact of the matter is that

there are more records made available on judge kavanaugh from his time in the white house than the five previous nominees combined. kagan, shes elena served as solicitor general in the obama administration. there were zero records about her time as solicitor general. even though she had no record as a judge. those of the judge that would've been most probative of her views of constitutional and legal issues. , you'reat, i think hearing a lot of phony claims about documents because democrats cannot deal with judge kavanaugh's actual record. itill add that the suppose records have not kept democrats from concluding that they will

oppose brett kavanaugh. they are looking for a month-long delay that no committee chairman whatever entertain. if democrats had particular documents they were interested in, they could easily have made target requests that chairman grassley would have worked to accommodate. they insisted instead they would not limit their demands at all and this is a game designed -- a game. host: but get another caller, from miami, a republican. caller: the clip that was just showed, with judge kavanaugh turning. i thought he had his back turned when the guy approached him from behind. as he heard the guy he turned and right there was the security moving him along. but it's a setup, we know that. election,lost the

elections have consequences. -- neither get over does the media. they're trying scare tactics, anything to grab power. and the one that was really criminal and got away with it was hillary clinton. but then we have to expect that, after all, obama said it -- host: i'm going to leave it there. well,get in beverly as she's a democrat. go ahead. caller: all i have to say is that this judge they are putting in now is not going to represent 99% of this country. he's going to represent the richmond am. -- the rich man. mark my words. host: ed you take beverly and i will have been -- nan response

to the previous color. guest: the job of justice is not to represent anyone but to interpret the law, impartially. sometimes that favors one party or set of parties, sometimes the others. judges are not representatives, that's a role for members of congress. how a who talks about justice not going to represent someone simply has a confused understanding of the role the courts. and chuck grassley made this argument of the previous color did, you lost the election, there are consequences. guest: yes, elections have consequences. and let's face it, there are hundreds of thousands of republican lawyers, dozens of republicans on the federal bench, who would have been and could be a great supreme court justice. it's not a they chose.

they chose a loyal political partisan in brett kavanaugh. after all, the president said i am looking for someone will overturn roe and the affordable care act. and they found in brett kavanaugh, someone who fits the bill perfectly. they chose someone who will take the law, be part of a majority in the supreme court that will really change our rights and liberties, dismantle them for the next 30 or 40 years if he is confirmed. there were many choices, they chose someone who was a sure bet. and a security blanket for the president, someone who will protect donald trump during the upcoming months and years while he faces major investigations. host: let's hear from jay, in

virginia, and independent. caller: i'm not necessarily a religious person, but i do been someere may have style of providential involvement in this particular constitutional republic's existence. they only come around once every thousand or 1500 years, and it of gracious maximum cooperation to maintain. overwhelmed bye animalistic over competitiveness . in: let's go on to asad, washington, d.c.. a republican. caller: good morning, i

appreciate c-span. first, the value of the judges is removed from the court system involved of the judges -- [indiscernible] -- i believe this nation could be divided. i have to apologize, i could not understand, there was a lot of breakup in your comments. tellll have to move on to

me, a democrat. , in new jersey, a democrat. tony? , in virginia.ry a republican. caller: thank you. good morning to you and everyone . i would like to talk about back to socialism. nan should learn about this, because that's what you get when you have a single mother with five special needs children who uses over 37 professionals from jailers, doctors, nurses, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists. host: your point? caller: this is what happens when you allow irresponsible parenting. host: what does this have to do with judge kavanaugh? to have thatnted

migrant girl have a child, when she obviously did not want to have one and it probably -- and probably would not have taken good care of it and it probably would've ended up in the social security system and we would've had to pay for it time and again. host: we got the point. we can move on. j, in north carolina, and independent. caller: i wanted to point up the fact that elections have consequences, if i'm not mistaken, trump aired his choices of who a good supreme court would be prior to the election. if i believe right, so did hillary clinton. as is now sitting in the presidency, elections of consequences. the people knew what trump was

going to appoint, or the type of judge that would be appointed if the opportunity arose. a lot of people paid attention to that end voted for that reason of -- and a lot of people voted for that reason alone. host: let's take that point. this is true, people wanted to know who he would nominate. people in the conservative party. one issue that was important was religious freedom. i want to show our viewer, judge kavanaugh in 2006 at the confirmation hearing for the and him int court his own words on religious freedom. be a deeponfirmed to -- if confirmed i would follow precedent of the santa fe case, which addresses the question left open in the lee versus wiseman case of 1992. in that case a school sponsored -- there was a school sponsored

square -- pair at a graduation ceremony where the government was involved. at a graduation ceremony, and there was a question about if an event could participate as a private speaker. the santa fe case concluded that it could be attributed to the school and so it was a violation of the establishment clause. the overall area represents --sion in the supreme court tension the supreme court has attempted to resolve threat the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the establishment cause -- clause line. i know the court in recent years has made clear that privacy -- private religious speech, religious people and organizations should not be discriminated against, and treating religious speech and

religious people and organizations equally, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations, is not a violation of the clause.hment there has been some suggestion in past years that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations can sometimes being a violation of the establishment clause. the court has gone to the principle of equality treatment, it does not ordinarily violate the establishment clause. host: ed whelan? guest: the call is correct -- the caller is cracked, president trump put out a list of supreme court candidates, he refresh the list last november. political analysts will endorse the point that has been made, which is that that list was very important and giving lots of people reason to vote for donald

trump in 2016. see with judges is that president trump has been consistently delivering on his promise. for those who find reason to he is acting very much as any other republican strongnt would in making and excellent judicial nominations. host: and you heard from the judge back in 2006 on religious freedoms. guest: i would say this. yes, president trump when he was running for office talked about the supreme court continually. he did that with one goal, to .alvanize evangelicals rightward leaning individuals to come out and vote for him. he knows this is the surest way

to get the base out to vote which is why he spoke about the supreme court. that does not mean that he gets his choice into the supreme court confirmed. our constitution says under article two section two the president gets a chance to get his personal mccourt. it is -- his person on the court. it's up to the senate to decide whether that person is appropriate or not. today pull the show that more people --polls show that more people do not want brett kavanaugh then do. comfort -- comparable to robert bork and harriet miers rating, one was defeated and one had to withdraw. the american people are worried. they are nervous. they want a court that will continue to advance rights and freedoms as opposed to take us backward.

charlie,'s hear from in florida, a democrat. caller: i wanted to ask mr. , i noticed that policy and ethics were in the name of the workplace he is at, i wanted to get his take on the ethics behind the treatment of merrick garland. as well as what he thinks about having an unindicted co-conspirator nominating our judicial supreme court nominees. where does he come down with the ethics as far as that goes? guest: happy to address that. i have a great deal of admiration for judge garland. i said so throughout the process when he was a nominee. , the senateed out is a coequal branch and can say no to a nomination. that is what happened with judge garland.

interestingly, one of judge garlands former clerks will be testifying in support of judge kavanaugh on friday. and judge kavanaugh spoke very highly of chief judge garland. the process for nominating and appointing judges and supreme court justices is set forth in the constitution. present clinton was not disabled from nominating stephen breyer though he was -- even though he was under investigation. exactly in aeding way that is consistent with the constitution. -- andcorrect in doing saying she can do what she can and democratic senators can do what they can, it's an inherently political process. it can be high politics and low politics, i would say this is more of high politics.

process is entirely consistent with what the constitution prescribes. texas, aac, in republican. ,aller: i think this is rich everyone is quoting the constitution. suddenly the democrats sound their music and they are real interested. i think lindsey graham was right . elections have consequences. he pointed them out. he pointed out the hypocrisy on this issue. the grandstanding. they have a right to their constituency and they have to try to go ahead and environs. -- and advise. but they lost. making it a spectacle does not help america in general. using hyperbole like going back

to slavery, or women will be using hangars, that does not help the come --hangers does not help the conversation. we decided that sure elections have consequences but in this particular moment, given president trump's incredibly difficult legal problems. given his statements about the kind of justices he wants for the supreme court, imagine ago votedonths against repealing the affordable care act. everyone wants health care insurance. everyone wants coverage for pre-existing conditions. brett kavanaugh has voted twice in dissent in cases that upheld the affordable care act.

incredibly important. it's not a republican or democratic issue, we all want coverage. some spectators in the audience were people with disabilities, who were very afraid of what brett kavanaugh will do. his views on health care were a major reason he was selected. yes they have consequences, but they are to put an individual on the supreme court will deprive millions of americans of their health care, millions of women of their rights, overturn regulation and allow this president to have enhanced presidential powers well into his tenure in the white house. host: 70 people were arrested at yesterday's hearing. claim isis obamacare completely made up. the two opinion she refers to judge kavanaugh did not vote

against the affordable care act. in once he held it in jurisdiction to address the challenge in the other case he ineed with the position striking down the challenge. he is also taken positions on the principle of severability. if one part of the law struck down, he takes the position that you should be very careful about striking down the rest of the provisions. that pre-existing conditions are at risk assumes a different approach. this is a made up talking point designed to bamboozle americans through the process. there's nothing to it. guest: you mentioned legal clerks, one of his legal clerks said that his dissent in one of those opinions provides a very ability for the judge to

overturn the affordable care act. our health care is at risk with this judge. host: let's go to laura, in ohio, a democrat. caller: i would like to know why they should benk afraid of sharing knowledge. i thought one of our greatest quests was for knowledge. this is like a jury were the prosecution and hiding evidence that would possibly prove innocence of the defendant, by hiding other documents. , to have have access all of the knowledge because that is the only way you can make the best decision, with the most accurate knowledge. all of it. not pieces, not parts. host: undone a jumping because we are running out of time. guest: the senate has never taken the approach that we need to have everything. when the senate reviewed the nomination of justice ginsburg

of justice ginsburg did not say we need to see your judicial case fire, we need to see your internal memos and know everything. kay -- the to senator kagan they did not say we need to see your records as solicitor general. they did not say that we insist that democrats provide elena kagan's file from her time as special counsel to joe biden on the judiciary committee. that there ision some sort of we need everything, there is ample record on which to assess this nomination. the request for everything has only one purpose, delay. that's all it's about. guest: i've been surprised the press is not made more of the trump maderesident the decision to withhold documents, a thousand pages of

documents based on a flimsy notion of executive privilege. to me that's tantamount to not releasing his tax releases. that a claim of executive privilege would apply to brett kavanaugh's memos, records, that's just one example. board talksitorial about that in their piece of the washington post. what's the rush? republican should allow for time for the paper trail to be thoroughly vetted. i want to end the conversation judge brett kavanaugh at the hearing yesterday, his opening statement where he talks about his view of the supreme court. >> are independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. judiciary hast the supreme court is the last

line of defense for the separation of powers and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution. never beme court must viewed as a partisan institution . the justices on the supreme court cannot sit on opposite sides of an aisle. they do not caucus in separate .ooms if confirmed to the supreme court, i would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the constitution and laws of the united states. i would always strive to be a team player, on a team of nine. host: nan aron? guest: it was a perfect recitation of republican party talking party talking points. every nominee comes before the committee, every republican candidate talks about judicial independence, the separation of

powers. i will interpret the law, not make the law. roberts- we heard john famously say he will call the balls and strikes. today, we will find out. it is not just the senate, but i think what is so important is americans across the country will come to learn and listen to what brett kavanaugh's views are on a range of issues. i think after they have the opportunity, they will call their senators and they will ask of their senators to vote against brett kavanaugh for the supreme court. they do not want a court with the majority that is going to take them back, that is going to strip their rights. guest: it is remarkable that she dismisses the republican party talking points. his clear statement of the role

of a judge. ist she opposes is the judge impartial. she wants the judges that will rule for her causes rather than fighting in the political arena for them. i think his statement was right on and perfectly consistent with the role of a supreme court justice. host: you can find out more tout ed whelan if you go eppc.org. thank you for the conversation. and you can find out more about the alliance for justice and nan aron online as well. we will take a short break. when we come back, our conversation continues as it is day two per brett kavanaugh on capitol hill. senators will get 30 minutes each to ask him questions for the first round. we want to know your thoughts on yesterday's hearing and today's.

those are the phone numbers on your screen. we we will be right back. ♪ announcer: sunday night, assistant editor at the atlantic, zachary would, talks about his book about growing up in a troubled home. >> my phone starts ringing. and i pick it up and i see it is my mom and for some reason i had a sense that this is not going to be good. i did not know what it was, but i said, this is not going to be good. i answered the phone and she spoke. she was very calm. she said, todd protective services is -- child protective services is here. come home as soon as you can. i am askingat tone, myself, will i leave -- live to see the next day? that was going through my mind. anyuse she, if ever at

point she has a moment alone with me and i make it through whatever happens and i get home knowslk to them, lord what she is going to do. announcer: zachary would, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. night, former obama administration education secretary duncan on how schools work. voters makeknow if the connection between what politicians do and what happens in schools. how do we draw that line is little more clearly? >> we need voters to understand, if we want more access to pre-k come if we want to pay teachers better, if we want to make college more affordable, we have to get there by challenging and holding accountable are elected

officials -- our elected officials. announcer: watched sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: welcome back on this wednesday, september 5. it is the second day of confirmation hearings for d.c. circuit court judge brett kavanaugh, the nominee to replace retired justice anthony kennedy. up on capitol hill, the protesters are back. one group are these women that were there yesterday, and dressed up as those characters from a handmaid's tale, standing silently as they did yesterday. protesters also made their way into the hearing room yesterday, where as many of you know, they disrupted proceedings from the beginning. 17 people arrested, according to the washington post. judge kavanaugh sat in the

ght hours,om for ei listening to opening statements from senators, laying out their markers for his nomination, questions they want to ask him today on judicial philosophy, the constitution, etc. he will be asked those questions today when the senators get 30 minutes each in the first round, followed by 20 minutes after that, to ask questions. democrats protesting yesterday democratsthe senate yesterday objected to moving forward with the hearings, because they are demanding documents, as we just discussed, from his time in the george w. bush administration. take a look at this exchange between democratic senator cory booker and the judiciary chair chuck grassley yesterday over the urging of a delay from the democrats. [yelling]

[indiscernible] >> we are not in an executive session. >> i ask for a rollcall vote on my motion to adjourn. [yelling] [indiscernible] >> ok. >> mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn. >> we are not in an executive session. we will continue as planned. um -- >> may i be recognized? i appeal to the chair to recognize myself or one of my colleagues. >> you are out of order. >> i appeal to be recognized on your sense of decency and integrity, even the documents you have requested, even the ones you said, the limited documents, this committee has not received.

the documents we have, you have -- >> you are out of order. >> this is a violation of the values i have heard you talk about time and time again, the ideals that we should have -- what is the rush? what are we try to hide? what are we hiding by not letting those documents come out? this is a violation of the values that we have striven for. transparency. we are rushing to this process in a way that is unnecessary. i appeal for the motion to at least be voted on, at least let's have a vote. when we wrote you a letter on october -- on august 24, asking to have a meeting on the issue, you denied us the right to meet. so here we are having a meeting, let's debate the issue and call for a vote. i appeal to your sense of fairness and decency, the commitment you have made to transparency. this violates what you have called for. you called for documents.

limited documents. we should have more aid we've not received the documents that you have even called for. based upon your own principles, your own values, i call for at least to have a debate or a vote on these issues and not for us to rush through this process. [applause] >> mr. chairman. >> senator. >> i have heard calls for -- >> i would like to respond to senator booker. --ator booker, i think that i respect very much a lot of things that you do, but you spoke about my decency and -- [yelling] >> you spoke about my decency and integrity, and i think that you are taking advantage of my decency and integrity. host: that was yesterday up on capitol hill before the senate judiciary committee, the first day of the confirmation hearings that will run through friday for

judge brett kavanaugh. a republican from texas called it mob rule. and chuck grassley saying, he will act differently today and be more in control of the hearing. we want to know your thoughts on the hearing and today, what type of questions would you like the senators to ask. or if you are a democrat, would you like to see senators on the judiciary committee protest more, object to these hearings going forward? or possibly staged a walkout. we want to know your thoughts. , a democrat from washington on the line. good morning. caller: the reason democrats are so upset about this hearing is merrick garland was given no chance at all. and then this guy was rushed through. and the president -- it is a

political move -- the president put a list out to, you know, secure his vote. nobody is addressing the fact of russian interference in this election. i think that -- i do not know of any republican who likes this president. and this, you know, mitch mcconnell in his wife, they are just going with it. child -- elaine cho? caller: yes. host: next caller, go ahead. laneida? caller: yes. i have some comments. first of all, people are throwing the word religious around. i am not religious. i am a christian. there is a difference. and second of all, the democrats

are so afraid that someone is going to get in there and they are going to stop abortion. let me tell you, we have a lady -- i not going -- am not going to call her a lady. she uses abortion for birth control.w are footingg -- we the bill for the birth control she uses, you know, she is just using it. that is not right. third of all, you know, if we dig into everybody's past, everyone, we are going to find pasts in every person's that we do not agree with. host: i will leave it there. the public -- it looks like they are being let into the hearing room right now. are so many seats

designated for the public for these hearings. they rotate them out after a certain amount of time in a more public is let in. today is expected to be a long day. they are starting in 15 minutes with questioning. and they are expected to go at night or later. they are protesting, "we the issent" written on their hands. those folks will get some of the coveted seats here. as man has a ticket there well. you need one of those to get into the room. that is the line. we have 15 minutes to go until they gavel in the session. we are getting your thoughts on the confirmation hearings for judge brett kavanaugh. donna in michigan city, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning.

good morning to the listeners around the country. i am a democrat, but i am also a kavanaugh. i am a second cousin, once removed. i am in the media. i lived on capitol hill and i worked for the state department. i have seen it all. i went to catholic university, where brett kavanaugh practices his faith. i want you to know, i have been a delegate for the state and national convention. foracticed working president obama, but this man is stellar. all of you says to around the country that he is not a political hack, that he will be fair, he is a person of nine judges and he will look at all issues. i know that that is true about him. i am asking the audience not to have a fear. yesterday, it was difficult for my family to look at that. i have covered, in the media myself, i have covered the protesters at the supreme court

during various elections. i adore protesters, that is what this country is about, but it was way over the top. all the democrats, i understand why they are doing this, but i do not think it helps the american people when they are constantly fighting and not listening. and. i am not asking questions. i think the american people, this is all i will say, is they want to know about this judge. let's really here what he has to say, let's get some honest questions out there, and you can make up your own mind. but please stay open-minded. i can tell you as a kavanaugh, this guy is a wonderful man and he will be a great judge for all of us. thank you for taking my call it god bless america. host: let me ask something before you go. we spoke with judge kavanaugh's priest, father john, here in washington dc. he knows brett kavanaugh from

his childhood, when he was an altar boy. when he asked -- when we asked him, what will the judge do when it comes to morality, deciding between morality and religion and the constitution and his priest said, the constitution. that will be first. caller: he is a constitutionalist. if you listen to the people who have clerked for him, a lot of women, which i appreciated when you put them out there. they said, he is a stickler for the constitution, that is what he talks about when he is a professor. he as a catholic, i am sure is torn on the issues, but i know him. he will look at all sides. he does not go totally trump, or totally republican, he looks at everything. he is very fair. and if he feels with his two

daughters that he has to look at the abortion issue, for instance, or what is happening with the obama, he will be very fair and balanced. he is a brilliant man. he gave one statement yesterday that blew my mind, because i use it all the time in my love, he said he is optimistic, not only about what is going on in washington dc, but about the country as a whole and where we are going in the future. and i think we would be really fortunate to have him as a judge. and i can say that as a republican. and he will be favoring the constitution, yes, but he is not -- he is not black and white. he is a great thinker -- gray thinker, he looks at all part of the issue. taht is where americans can have no fear about him. he will look at every part and he will vote for what he thinks will be fairest for the american people. i know that about him, he has always been like that. and i have to say that we are lucky if we get him as a judge. thank you.

host: ok. , yourn in west virginia turn. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say this yesterday was the -- of ordinary people. christian people do not carry on like that. they talk things out. and they use the bible. and i just want to say to the democrats, if you all vote this answer., you will not to us, but there will be a day of reckoning. i would also like to say, why didn't they come out and -- clinton all the things she got. the messages it at things that

she erased. they do not see nothing wrong. they think it is fine to kill a baby. a precious baby that god gives us. and they think that is a woman's, right to -- woman's right, to kill. they would take me in for murder if i killed somebody who is trying to harm a me. host: ok. yesterday, -- accused democrats of having a preplanned strategy for yesterday's hearing. >> i am confuse, because i heard that this was a free action to the document releases last night, but i am reviewing a tweet from nbc that said, democrats plodded coordinated strategies over the weekend, all agreed to disrupt the hearings,

sources tell me. and subsequent dem leader chuck schumer led a phone call and committee members are executing now. i want to make clear, none of the members here participated in that phone call before the documents were released yesterday? are these adjusting this allegation is -- are you suggesting this allegation is false? >> there was a phone conference yesterday. i can tell you at the time of the conference, many issues were raised. one was the fact that over 100,000 documents have been characterized by the chairman of the committee as committee confidential. i have been a member of the committee for a number of years. committee confidential documents have been really limited to extraordinary circumstances. as an example, if somebody is accused of taking drugs during an investigation, i am not suggesting that is the case or close to it, it was done in a confidential setting in fairness to the nominee. same thing on dui's.

we use it on extremely rare circumstances where we would meet afterwards and sit down and it usually related to a handful of pages or document references. instead, what we found now is we have hundreds of thousands of documents characterized as committee confidential unilaterally, not them on a bipartisan basis, it is being done by the chairman. so the discussion yesterday was on the question of whether the committee will hear a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, without access to basic information about his public record. his public record as secretary to the president of the united states, staff secretary. 35 months of public service we have been told cannot be considered, the documents cannot be considered, so i say to the gentleman from north carolina, there was a conversation yesterday about these documents. i had no idea that last night 42,000 more documents would be

put on top of this. so this added insult to injury. host: dick durbin from illinois for thehe minority whip democrats at the confirmation hearing yesterday for brett kavanaugh. today is the second day. and as you can see, the public has lined up, ready to get into the hearing room. officeia outside of the building, also sticking out positions. and -- staking out positions. and we will hear from the senators in about 10 minutes. they are expected to go late into the evening, possibly past 8:00 p.m. all of our coverage on c-span3, c-span.org, or get the free radio app. you can follow along there. there will be a day three and four, as well this week, with a day four, the committee hearing from those who oppose it is

support judge kavanaugh. politico has a story about the senate democrats. the headline, democrats wrestle over walkouts. the party decided a made-for-tv moment could backfire and opted for a strategy of maximum disruption. hours before brett kavanaugh arrived for the senate confirmation hearing, chuck schumer and frustrated democratic senators debated staging a walkout or not showing up at all. if you are a democrat, do you agree or disagree with that strategy? what did you think about day one and what do you expect for a day two? stephanie in long beach, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. without getting into the feasibility of this judge, what i am shocked at is the process. this is such an almost a perversion of the process. these people have an obligation

and duty to do their proper due diligence in vetting this man. they should get whatever documents they think they need to clearly make up their mind, short of national security issues. put to limit documents and dum them so that people cannot read them, and expect them to carry through with their duty to advise and consent, it is irrational. and i feel that by democrats participating in this, they are undermining their own case. they are consenting in a way to this unethical behavior, and setting precedents so it can be done again. um, i feel that if the process is not going to be fair and open and complete, they should not be participating at all. cmis inve parliamentary -- seen this in

parliamentary procedure, i will acknowledge you, i will not. cannot.comment, you everybody should have a voice. for the chairman to not acknowledge them seems entirely unfair. and you know, in a sense it is -- we want to know, we want them to have the information that they need, but this process is this is not myat government. this is not what i want to see. iwant to hear dialogue, and want people to hear information. that is not what is happening. host: are you going to watch today? caller: you bet. host: today is when you will eachq & a, as the senators get a lengthy amount of time for their first and second rounds to question judge kavanaugh.

and you get to hear him answer these charges that have been put forth. concerns by the democrats. so he will be asked about all of that today. constance in virginia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like for you to bring up mr. white house's statement yesterday, to the audience, and let them hear what he said. host: tell us, remind us what he said, for those who are not watching. caller: he made it clear that most of judge kavanaugh's 5-4sions ended in a decision. host: the point being? caller: he was the deciding factor in making everything that was important to most people a 5-4 decision. host: okk. dan, youngstown, ohio. republican. caller: i can remember when

chuck schumer stood before the senate during confirmation hearings for democratic candidates. and he is a candidates should be judged only on their qualifications, not on politics. i want to make the point, there are a couple of supreme court justices who were nominated by more than 90 votes. that was not because the republicans all agreed with the politics of kagan for example, it is because they went along with what jack -- with what chuck schumer said, that qualifications are important and we should not play politics. when the shoe is on the other foot, he is all political. what happened to the rule about qualifications? i want to make some other points. it was joe biden that held up a judge confirmation hearing for

more than nine months. this happened more than 20 years before this incident ever happened. which was not nine months. and his reason was, because the voters should be allowed in the next election to decide. same thing happened with judge garland. if they are going to make a rule, and it carries on to the other side as well. now, nobody is talking about what joe biden did. this was after the fact that joe biden had already made that rule. also in the senate, they changed of rule to 51 votes instead 60, so they could get some obama judges nominated. they changed the role. -- rule. now they have to live with that. this candidate is going to get nominated with 51 votes. if it is good for the democrats, it is good for everybody else.

you cannot change it back because now the candidate is on the other side. host: let me ask about what you are saying, about how the senate has voted. when taking the neil gorsuch, the first pick from donald trump, the vote was 54-45. you can see on the list, those that voted no, the democrats that voted no on neil gorsuch. there is the lengthy list. you will be able to see if judge kavanaugh gets a vote here, which one of these democrats follows suit and votes no on judge kavanaugh. the senators are taking their seats. you can see senator mike lee of utah speaking with dick durbin, democrat of illinois. i believe we saw the ranking democrat dianne feinstein make her way into the room moments ago. you can expect that the chairman

will gavel in at 9:30 a.m., keep this thing running on time. and stick to the schedule today. as i said, they will go into the evening with questioning of judge brett kavanaugh. his parents took their seats behind the judge in the room. and our coverage of her on c-span3, follow along, gavel-to-gavel, along with c-span.org or listen to the free radio app as you are walking around, doing your business. if you do not have a television screen or a computer screen, get the radio app so you can listen along today as the hearing begins. let's go to kevin in missouri. hi, kevin. caller: hi. oi remember -- i remember in the presidential debates, hillary clinton and the democrats said if donald trump lost he would not accept the results of the

election, but that is what they are doing. they are not accepting the results of our election. elections have consequences and if you want to be able to select judges, you need to win elections. there was a lady that said that russians -- [no audio] that there was no evidence that president trump colluded with the russians. there is actually more evidence that hillary clinton's team colluded with the russians. i do not understand why we do not get to the truth of what is going on. and we need a country that is united. host: ok. we have a caller from detroit.

good morning. that is why we are in this situation, donald trump would not show his taxes. i think that judge garland should be thoroughly vetted. host: judge kavanaugh. caller: yes. sorry. host: that is ok. mike in north carolina, republican. caller: how are you doing? protesters to -- the in the back, you know, that is -- i believe in protesting, but they should not be doing that in a public thing, especially with judge kavanaugh's children there. for the both practicing 2020 election. what they should do is put up a it is a five--

$5,000 fine and he will be in jail. but people do their business. nobody wants to listen to anybody else nowadays, that is what is wrong with society. if you are white and conservative, automatically they think you are a racist. host: another hearing happening on the senate side today before the senate intelligence committee, and the ceo of twitter, jack dorsey, along with sheryl sandberg, the coo of facebook my taking questions from the senate intelligence committee members about foreign influence, foreign actors trying to influence the u.s. elections using the social media platforms. in the wall street journal front-page story, sheryl sandberg in the hot seat says -- she must now fix past mistakes. urged by his board to be more proactive, mark zuckerberg has asked her to lead the efforts to

identify and prevent future blowups on the platform. it is as challenging as the transition to mobile several years ago, which was late and rocky. so she will be taking russians today from the committee members. go to our website, c-span.org, for more details. jack dorsey later this afternoon will be before the house energy and commerce committee. he will take questions about how that platform filters their content, and answer questions from republicans of alleged bias on twitter. judge kavanaugh has now entered the hearing room. you can see hit is taking his seat and shaking the hand of chairman grassley. he will make his way up to the chairman's chair the gavel in today's session. let's keep taking your phone calls as we watch this unfold.

rhonday, good morning -- ro honda, good morning. caller: i am watching it too. these hearings are very important. not only is it important to do a thorough vetting of this judge, but to also, this is going to reflect on what is going to happen in november. tore are somebody facets display. i am keeping an eye on the senators, and also the questions they ask, and the responses they will get. i consider myself a conservative democrat. in california, things are as divided as they are throughout our nation. this is very important for the public, because what we hear here in california, we have many

who do not even want to vote anymore, because they have lost hope in our political system. so this is a very important hearing. and i will be watching it on -- i will avidly watch it today. and i want to thank the washington journal for you all keeping us abreast of what is happening in washington. host: ok, if you want to be able to watch as the chairman gavels in and begins the hearing, i urge you to go to c-span3. let's listen in now. caller: thank you. >> good morning, everybody. we welcome everybody back in. and especially judge kavanaugh and his wife, ashley. yesterday committee to senator made opening remarks -- yesterday, each senator made opening remarks.

we also heard from three people who had the honor of introducing judge kavanaugh, secretary rice, senator portman, and lisa black. and we heard for the first time directly from judge kavanaugh. he made a powerful, compelling and convincing statement, demonstrating his exceptional background and qualifications to serve our nation's highest court. and nbc news reported the democratic members of the committee plotted with minority leaders to disrupt the hearing yesterday. democratic senators interrupted the hearing 63 times before lunch. and in the audience, 70 people were arrested yesterday who were following their lead. all probably very constitutionally prepared to do that, doing what the constitution says the right of freedom of speech, but we were also able to finally conduct our

hearing the way it should be conducted. [yelling] >> to protect the rights of people with disabilities. protect the people. >> it was only our time as committee members that we wasted on disruption and disorder over procedural matters. but today is different. [yelling] [indiscernible] >> your advice is to wait? >> i am sorry -- >> yeah. do nottor grassley, i

see how you can say that i was working with senator durkin. i called him out specifically. we are not working with the democrats. we are working for ourselves. it was our time as committee members yesterday to make our case. today is different. today is the day that the american people are supposed to hear from the nominee. this morning will begin our questioning of judge kavanaugh. we will get through all member'' round of questions today, in a matter how long it takes. members are allotted 30 minutes for the first round. if your time expires, your remaining questions may be continued, of course, in the second round tomorrow. we will take a lunch break, as well as probably -- host: laying out today's

hearings for brett kavanaugh. giving the lay of the land, th e rules for the hearing. protesters have already begun and they are being escorted out of the hearing room when they disrupt. the senator also said, the chairman also said, they will have 30 minutes each to question judge kavanaugh. they are getting underway now. our coverage, unfiltered, no commentary, over on c-span3 today. you can also go to c-span.org or listen with the free radio app. here, the house is coming in at 10:00 a.m. this morning, so we will take you until the top of the hour and get your thoughts on day two of the confirmation hearings. john in michigan, independent. good morning. caller: i think they hearings should all be canceled, because

every republican and every democrat on that panel knows how they are going to vote, they knew how they were going to vote before the hearings started and all they are doing is wasting taxpayer money and time that they could be using to get stuff done. they are not interested in getting things done, they have been wasting time and being actors in front of a camera, so the nation can see them. it is absolutely shameful the way that these people are acting. host: i guess the question for many is, how a handful of democrats who are up for reelection might vote on judge kavanaugh, because when you look at the vote for neil gorsuch here are three democrats that voted yes. they are of her reelection, they are being watched closely. and of course, other democrats as well, a couple of others that possibly could cross the aisle and vote for judge kavanaugh.

so today you are going to hear his answers to some hot topics, questions, concerns that the senate democrats hvave, and some republicans as well. pamela in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing well. what do you think about the hearings? caller: i think it is a very sad day when they koran has diminished -- decorum has diminished to such a degree that children have to be removed from the chamber. i do not understand why they are allowing these people into the dissent that have this, written on their hands. they are not adding anything productive. they are simply disrupting and holding up the hearings. i do not, i do not see why that is even allowed. it does not help anybody, republican or democrat.

host: ok. margaret in ohio, what do you think? caller: thank you for having me. what do i think? i believe that these hearings should be stalled out of a tremendous need to see all of the documents that could be available, should the proper procedures be followed. the senate2003, in hearings, they caught -- in a lie. he lied to the senators. later, hefound out will address this to kavanaugh, but we are as was said yesterday, in a dark period. as flake has said. this is a critical process, and it cannot be done and executed as was i think, i think the

guy's name was perkowski, could now head of the criminal division of the doj. the documents were not available for him, they wanted to look into his ties working with russians. we do not need a russo american effort and movement in all three ranges. -- branches. host: tom, republican. caller: hi. how are you doing? host: did you watch yesterday? caller: i saw it before i called. chuck grassley did a good move. he cleaned out some of the people that would be yelling and trying to stop this thing. it is not going to stop. i think that the, the middle-of-the-road democrats should be glad that somebody like this is in there. i mean, if we are ever coming back to the middle we need people that would just not

change the constitution, we need people that are going to work with the constitution and interpret it, not say what the law is and whatever. but i just, i do not see any -- you know, i do not understand why they quite so much -- fight so much with republicans, yet the republicans seem like they work with the democrats. it seems like the democrats want to keep changing rules every time they are not in power. harry reid, he started this thing. basically, as far as the nominations. and it comes back to bite you in the butt. that is all i have to say. host: judge kavanaugh is responding to a question from chairman grassley about what makes a good judge. >> article iii of the passages refers to judicial power. what does that mean? what does judicial power mean?

andlook at federalist 78, what is described is a system of t isidents -- president -- i rooted in the constitution. it is dictated to pay heed to those rules. and beyond that, being a good judge means paying attention to the words written. the words of the constitution. the words of the statutes that are passed by congress, not doing what i want to do. not deferring when the executive rewrites the law passed by congress, but respect for the laws passed by congress, respect for the law, the words put into the constitution itself. that is part of being a good judge, part of being independent. and i would say being a good judge, there are human qualities in terms of interaction. although these confirmation processes focus on one person, as if you are making all the

decisions, as i said yesterday i am joining a team of nine, if i am confirmed. and that means something, that means something in sports and in judging. i do not make decisions by myself. for the last 12 years, i have not been making decisions by myself. every case has been a panel of at least three judges. you learn from each other when you are deciding cases. you work with each other. stability and collegiality, as justice kennedy showed us repeatedly without he conducted himself over the years, that is very important. it is those great moments that i was talking about, like the united states versus jackson, before the court came together with the unanimous decision, that took personal interaction. it took collegiality. i have tried to be a very collegial judge. i have tried to be civil.

i want mr. chairman -- want, mr. chairman, the losing party in every case to come out and say, he gave me a fair shake. he was well prepared. he wrote a clear opinion. he explained everything. i disagree, but at least i get it. i want the losing party and want both parties to lockout of the argument and say, he had an open mind, he gave me a fair shake. i think i have done that for 12 years. everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge, or argument, writing opinions, how you decide. those are the qualities. the last thing i was remember about it, the thing my mom told me, judging is not just about theory. it is not theory, it is not just what a law review article is. judging is real people in the real world, and every decision

we make, no matter how high-minded it might sound, affects real people in the real world with real interests. we have to remember that. host: judge kavanaugh, first question out of the gate -- what makes a good judge? the questions continue over on c-span3. throughout the day and into the evening. you can also go to c-span.org or listen with a free c-span radio app. patricia in missouri, independent. we are getting your thoughts this morning on day two of the confirmation hearings. what do you think? caller: i just wanted to comment. under 30 person, getting myself informed the way that i should have been. what i am seeing is the debate and passion, that is what our country should be about. that is what it was supposed to

be about. that is why when we lost john mccain we saw such an outpouring club because that is what he represented -- outpouring, because that is what he represented. you need due process. stick to the constitution. you need to have a foundation so that the passion does not become the motivation. and i think that is what is really important, we are getting away from the core belief and we are sticking to these sub the beliefs thatb have formed with division. it is troubling to see as a young mother. i am not against brett kavanaugh, per se, but i think we need information and time to make a decision, to say this is going to be the right person to affect millions of lives. this is real stuff. host: thank you. don, democrat.

caller: good morning. i watched the hearing, some of it yesterday, almost all of it. it amazes me. after two years of watching president trump how any republican can say that this is fake news. everything he says comes out of his twitter account, it is not fake news, but as far as judge kavanaugh. i do not know if he will make a good justice or not, but chuck grassley stopped president trump president obama's nominee. did not give him a vote, nothing, for a whole year, then for those guys on the republican side to say the democrats are being mean to the sky -- to this guy. it is ridiculous.

they want information and to see his record. every person should want that. this guy will make decisions for 40 years, why not? why would you not want to know his record and what is going on? it is ridiculous. host: a caller in missouri. share your thoughts. caller: thank you. i am a vet, korean war. i have called both of my senators to vote no. this guy was up to his neck with the bush administration, and i cannot believe that donald trump nominated him. he just went down another point. host: did you vote for president trump? ok, we will not know. scott in georgia. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes, my take on it is, a lot of the senators are

obviously trying to stall for time, that is -- as is widely reported. the senators, most have already said they are voting no, even before brett kavanaugh was announced as a candidate. and as a matter of the fact, i believe cory booker had a fundraiser with a flyer that said stop kavanaugh, but to this day he is yelling, we need more documentation so we can make a decision. most of them already have. and it is just hypocrisy in the stalling tactics, and the protester thing, when i noticed dianne feinstein mentioned that she wanted to announce these different individuals in the crowd and i believe it was to ensure that the whole group was not thrown out. and i mean, that is my opinion on that. but it is ridiculous. it is -- is he qualified?

yes, brett kavanaugh has had huge accolades from all of his people he worked with. and if they want the information from when he was in the white house, this is paperwork he had not originated. it went through him. he has nothing to do with it. this was stuff in the bush white house. they know that they cannot, that george bush is not willing to show all of every paperwork that went through the white house during his, during brett kavanaugh's tenure there. it is frustrating to watch. is he qualified? that is the question. it is nuts. it has gone too far. host: i will show the viewers what you were referring to. a tweet sent out with, retweeted somebody else with the fundraising letter by cory

booker. a fundraising email, the same moment he was interrupting the hearing, claiming to take the process seriously. in the letter, cory booker says, "i will be questioning kavanaugh at length to shed more light on his views in a record, but here is what we already know. he has a long record of handing out decisions that your mental to everyday americans. we can only make a difference if everybody steps off of the sidelines, so join me in this fight and oppose the nomination." you can read more there. let's go to mike. in mississippi, independent. caller: good morning. are you there? host: yes. caller: i wanted to make a comment about everybody being upset about the judge, supposedly, lying to congress at an earlier hearing. something comes to mind about --

that is all i wanted to say. host: miami, florida. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. ahead.o caller: my question is, why is this very successful judge, at this stage, changing his profession and becoming a bodyguard for president trump? host: what do you mean by that? caller: well, by becoming -- by accepting this nomination, he is hanging is cloak as a judge. he is becoming a bodyguard, because all he will do is defend president trump on anything he might do while -- in the future. host: bonnie in michigan.

we have a few minutes left over the house starts their morning session. what do you think about the nomination? caller: i was wondering why all of these senators, who are because they do not know all the facts, why they did not meet with him when there was an opportunity. many refused to have him come when he was going around, offering to come and be interviewed by them independently. they are the ones that are the fools right now, because they are grandstanding, but they really do not have any idea, because they refused to listen and get to know what he stood for. he doess his record, uphold the law. there are too many judges that decide to make their own law. so i am very thankful that there

is a somebody who is like him holds the lawsd up of our land, which so many people are not doing. these senators have no reason to whine and cry, because they had their opportunity. they aere an embarrassment to the people who pay them. debbie's devon on sat on the step, instead of fighting for us. host: i will go to joyce in i was -- in iowa city. caller: good morning. thank you. i cannot get with this kavanaugh nomination, it does not feel right. he is not for the people. he has voted more for corporations than for the people's needs. he has turned his back on the father whose daughter was

murdered in parkland, yesterday. security people did not stop him into afterwards. he was in the process of him, guttenberg, coming after him. dianne feinstein invited him to be there. it was not like he was a protester. and the other thing i want to say about people calling in, it seems like they put information out there, but they are not backing it with any kind of facts. they just say that they are against what the democrats are doing, but the republicans did it against obama. and they were all behind what the republicans were doing. so it is the same thing happening now. host: ok. i will check to get in james. in maryland, a republican. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for your show. host: you bet. caller: i voted for donald trump, but i feel like i do not appreciate the hecklers in the court room, but i think the democrats still have a point in getting access to all the other paperwork. i mean, they are fast readers. they could skip through that stuff and if they see something objectionable, they could bring it up. host: i will leave it at that. i want to remind viewers, go to c-span3 this moniker that is where you will find coverage of day two of judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. also, our website, c-span.org. and the free radio app. here on c-span, the house is about the gavel in further morning session. we will bring you that live coverage here on c-span.