tomorrow on limiting debate on the nomination, setting up a final vote for over the weekend. the senate floor debate on the nomination continues live under way on c-span two. 215 p.m.,0 minutes, eastern time, mitch mcconnell is expected to brief reporters about his plan for the supreme court nomination when his news conference gets underway, we will bring you that live as well here on c-span. a look outside the supreme court at this hour as groups of activists opposed to the bret cavanagh nomination have been speaking today and you can continue watching the scene outside the court on c-span3. ♪ ♪ our next guest is nelson cunningham, the former white house general counsel in the clinton administration. he is here to talk about the latest concerning the confirmation process of judge >> brett kavanaugh, good morning. >>it's a pleasure to be here. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2018] host: remind us of your experience with supreme court nominations. guest: i was general counsel of the senate judiciary committee working for then chairman joe biden. i handled the supreme court nomination of stephen breyer which, at that time, was hardly controversial but looking back on it, it was a cakewalk. then i went from there to the clinton white house. i have seen this world as a former federal prosecutor, as a white house judiciary committee aid, and a white house lawyer. what did you think about the scope of what this white house gave the fbi looking into judge kavanaugh? guest: there is a lot that is not understood about the background check process. thought because i i should lay it out as someone who's been on both sides of this . background checks are not full-fledged criminal investigations.

the fbi is a tool to look into the background of potential nominees. they serve a double purpose. first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate. everyone has a basic fbi background check. of documents, and the fbi takes those, interviews people, and produces a background report. the president uses that, whoever the president is, as part of his dossier on who to nominate. then that file goes to the senate and forms the basis for the senate's advise and consent function. it's never a full-fledged criminal process. you can't use a subpoena. you can't compel people to interview. it is all voluntary. in this case in particular, the investigation this past week was clearly run from the senate judiciary committee.

they set the terms because it is assisting them in making their decision, and the white house served as a conduit from the senate to the fbi. to the white house and the senate have a lot of conversations on the scope of this? that is certainly the way i've seen this work in the past. host: what do you think about the vehicle the senate majority leader employed to have senators roomat the document in a and closed, saying it was a previous agreement done with republicans when they controlled the committee -- i'm sorry, when democrats controlled the committee? guest: it is not unfair of him to try out this process -- to trot out this process, but it is a little strange given we are not talking about national security issues. we are talking about something that was the subject of hours of public testimony just a week ago today. we all know everything that happened in that room because we

heard both sides talk about it at length for hours. the notion that there is anything in this report that should not be in the public eye given that is pretty unusual. the process that's been set up is that they have one hour for republicans. there is one copy of the document in one room. republicans get to look at it for one hour. then the next hour, democrats get to come in and look at. democratic senators, only senators, and a very small number of staffers. you can't take a copy with you. it is going to alternate back and forth all day long. one hour republican, when our democrat. the crucial vote is tomorrow. we have to get 100 senators in and out of that room between now and tomorrow if you want them to have an informed vote on judge kavanaugh. ast: is there a sense redacted copy could have been distributed to senators at large

and speed up the process of reviewing the document? guest: there are certainly ways to inform the senators. senators have clearances. alsourse, many of them have good relations with the press and let's talk to the press. i understand the sensitivities. but nothing is going to keep senators from leaving that room and sharing what they know, even if they promise they won't, with the press and the public. frankly, it is too important a public matter for this to happen without some notion of what is in that report. again, we spent hours last thursday listening to this. this is a natural follow line. , atpublic needs to know least the outlines of what is in that dossier, i would think. host: nelson cunningham joining us for this confirmation. you can ask him questions at (202) 748-8001 four republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, independentss --

at (202) 748-8002. people outside the capital building holding protests and signs. we he reported that there will be people coming in from maine, from alaska to talk to senators collins and murkowski. somef the criticisms people had is that there was no follow-up fbi interviewed with christine ford herself. should that have been a part of that, considering her testimony last week? if this had been a terrorist incident or a terrible shooting on the steps of the capitol building, there would have been dozens or even hundreds of fbi agents combing the country, tracking down every lead they could possibly find. served in with whom i the u.s. attorney's office in new york many years ago when we both worked for rudy giuliani,

wrote a piece this week in "the new york times" that said the fbi is up to the task if you let them do it, but they were not unleashed to go track down every lead to fund the fact. they were given a carefully circumscribed list of witnesses, as i understand it. they interview those witnesses. there was, as i understand it, in a follow-up, no effort to collect documents, no effort to get corroborating evidence. but we have is quite a limited report, even in the course of a week. there could've been a lot more with the resources the fbi has. as somebody who believes in process, and getting the facts out there and letting people make decisions based on actual facts rather than hearsay or supposition. it is a shame to me that we are not going to have this nailed down in a way that would give the public some sense of certainty one side or the other. call's stephen dennis

saying it was the white house spokesman that said there was a list of only four for the fbi to interview that expanded to 10. guest: it is a just the facts document. the fbi goes in and just lays out the facts. we interviewed so-and-so. this is what the person said. they summarize it in a clear, crisp fashion. there's no editorializing. there's no attempt to say this person was shifty, this person appeared to be lying. it is very much a just the facts summary of what was said, presented in a concise fashion. not nearly the same as seeing upfront and being able

to cross examine them to cross examine them emojis the way we typically find fact in our system. host: we have calls lined up. the first is from matthew and alabama, democrats line. good morning. caller: yes sir, thank you. i'm just wondering. there's 350 million american citizens. on theist one man we put highest court in the land? i don't understand this. like he says, he enjoys alcohol. he likes beer. i like beer, too. i've drank beer myself. but he was sober during that hearing and acted like a drunk, in my opinion. caller.rry about that, guest: you asked a good question. there are lots of people the president could have nominated to fill that.

talking to my republican friends in washington, they interpret judge kavanaugh's testimony very differently than i might as a democrat, and then you seem to. rancor, strong partisan sharply divided over judge kavanaugh's testimony and the current situation. as i've seen in the last two years in washington, even in a superheated environment. testimony last's week, this controversy, the way republicans feel that democrats unfairly brought these charges forward at the last minute as an effort to block judge kavanaugh, that has united republicans in a way we haven't seen. there's actually some polls in the last couple of days that show republican enthusiasm as we head into the midterm elections has increased as a result of the controversy over the last two weeks because republicans have been reminded why they need to get out to vote.

not just to support trump, but to support things they have in common with president trump, which includes conservative judges. there are others that could be chosen at this point, of course, but right now it is all about this man. host: from maine, dean. republican line. hi. caller: hi. , one of the big problems we hear about, one of the democrats' reasons for being so stalwartly against judge kavanaugh, is they claim merrick garland was so mistreated and abused. now, i know that there was a president set -- a precedent set for nominations to the supreme court done some time ago by the democrats. they agreed, i think, not to

nominate supreme court justice in an election year. as far as i know, the republicans abided by that. the reason for the anger is because obama went ahead and nominated merrick garland regardless of this agreement. could you talk about that a little bit and enlighten people who don't know about it that talks, nobody ever about obama doing this, but he did this? he broke the rules and made it look like the republicans had been so mean to merrick garland. host: thank you. guest: ma'am, i will respectfully disagree with your understanding of what the precedent is on these matters. over wheno precedent supreme court justices can be nominated and when they can be acted upon. we've had, in fact, justice kennedy himself confirmed in an

election year. we've done it in the past. i think what you're referring to , back in 1996 senator biden, my old boss, made a statement on the floor in the summer a few months before a midterm election . there was some concern that one of the republican justices might step down at the last minute to permit republicans to fill it. senator biden said i hope republicans don't do that. that would be gaming the system. that has been interpreted by some on the republican side as some kind of binding precedent. i think that is quite a stretch to read it that way. this seat opened up not because of any easement ship -- any gamesmanship, but because justice kennedy died. under actual precedent, the

court should have handled -- the senate should have handled that hearing. every other during an election year has been processed by the supreme court. that one, in fairness, should have been processed also. but you ask a good question because it is based on what i must respectfully say is some misinformation out there about what the actual history is on these matters. what happened to the merrick garland seat in the senate's refusal to even get him a hearing is, in fact, unprecedented in modern history. we simply have not seen that. host: independent line from michigan, christina. caller: thank you for c-span. it is great to be able to talk. i am an independent, but i tell you, what the republicans are doing, i've had it. i'm listening to people say, well, he had six background checks before, and none of this came up. i want everybody to remember

what happened to dennis hastert, who was speaker of the house, a republican for seven years, eight years, and what happened when they found out he's a felon. he went to jail for molestation of kids when he was a high school teacher. and that's fact. look it up. it's history. i get tired of hearing these talking points and the facts aren't put out there. mr. cavanaugh, judge kavanaugh, the way he acted thursday, if a woman had acted like that, she would have been called hysterical or she's got hormone problems, everything under the sun. i'm really triggered, the republicans with their hypocrisy. the more you pay attention, the more you find out that this is just a scam done by the republicans and their wonderful

oral president mr. trump, who doesn't have any morals in his bones whatsoever. and here's the family party, the religious party you are all about trump. host: ok, thank you. guest: you know, your question reflects what i have seen so much in the last couple of weeks and the last couple of days, which is the intensity of division between those on one side of the issue and those on the other side of the issue around judge kavanaugh. the piece i wrote in politico is part of a series that i've written in politico, "the washington post," and some other places as i tried to lay out, as someone who has experienced these small worlds of investigation and judiciary committee hearings, to try to give people an objective sense of how this normally happens and what the rules are. i try to be very fair-minded about it. the piece i wrote this week in

politico i thought was pretty fair-minded about why these background checks are different, and in particular, why chris wray, the fbi director, and rod rosenstein come in deputy wereney general, who longtime colleagues of judge kavanaugh, why we could not expect them to push back on instructions for a background investigation by the the -- by the fbi. so your question really reflects what so many people out there are feeling right now, incredible intensity on both sides. very few people are able to actually look at this with any kind of dispassionate objectivity. i can't pretend i can come about -- pretend i can, but wow, i see a lot of anger on both sides. first of all, they've known each

other a long time. chris wray was two years behind brett kavanaugh at yale and yale law school, which is tiny. it has less than 200 students per class. there judiciary committee questionnaire showed that they schoolrived at yale law and joined the federalist society, and have been members ever since. rod rosenstein was a member of the federalist society, but at harvard, where he went to law school. comeederalist society has over the last 30 years, become an incredibly influential, conservative group of lawyers advancing conservative legal principles, judges, and justices. president trump famously, during the campaign in 2016, held up a list given to him by the federalist society of 16 conservative judges and said

these are the people from whom i will pick my supreme court, and the federalist society, the list included neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. is the've seen federalist society very jurists,ive group of aimed at shifting the judiciary to the right. kavanaugh was an active member. wray has been an active member. rod rosenstein has been an active member. i am not saying that wray and rosenstein would throw the investigation at all. they are men of great integrity. but they agree with the mission of putting men like brett kavanaugh on high courts, that has to affect the way they look at their supervision of the fbi in this matter. host: "the wall street journal" editorial talking about the itderalist society, saying "

is the gold standard for legal talent that believes in the original meaning of the constitution." guest: their version of the original meaning of the constitution, yes. host: let's go to the republican line. susan, hello. caller: hello. just wanted to say thank you to c-span and the rebel -- and the ability for republicans, democrats, an independents to come on and talk about this issue. have respect for mr. cunningham, and anybody who will come out and talk about this in less than what i will call a very crazy manner. but i want to point out some facts. one, judge kavanaugh came onto the hill for his hearing, and the democrats came on board to talk about how they will block this at any cost. two, every democrat has drawn out the u.s. constitution and everything that makes america wonderful and different from the

rest of the world, which is we are innocent until proven guilty. there is not one democrat the canal even talk about those issues. three, dr. ford had so many that nod so many facts one in the mainstream media even talked about, except if you listen to fox news. they did talk about some of these holes on that aspect. fourth, the lady that just spoke about what happened with the leader of the house, yes. circumstances like that can happen. yes, there are terrible things that can happen to people. but i have seen too many women out there -- i know too many things that are going on right now in some of the independent schools in the d.c. area -- and sayrls participate they are sorry about the spitting in things when they are high school students, but we are in a time and our country where only men are raked across the coals for something they are doing. not saying mr. cavanaugh did any

of these things, but just as a general. i just want to throw some of those things out there and let viewers know some of these facts that i think are being misrepresented, although i do appreciate you, mr. cunningham. i do have respect for your opinions. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: you lay out very well, i think, the conservative case for judge kavanaugh and the way this has been handled. i will note this. last thursday, when many of us watched the testimony or exerts of the testimony, after spoke, theresey was no when that day saying she looked like she was lying or question what she said. i turned on fox news and watched chris wallace and others shaking their heads saying, wow, she seems quite truthful. we need to really take this extremely seriously. at that time, nobody was questioning dr. ford's testimony.

after judge kavanaugh spoke, he of course came forcefully, angrily, pushed back very hard. you did hear a lot of people questioning his veracity. and i am at the same people on the left, but people on the right who said that wasn't quite the approach that i think i might have taken. so i have to say i'm as somebody who watched the testimony of both, i personally found it hard not to credit dr. ford hearing her testimony. whether something that happened 36 years ago when people were 17 and 15 ought to be dispositive on the supreme court nomination? i think that is a question that can be asked and discussed. somebody can be shown to have lied before the senate judiciary committee, i think that is coming that clearly should be shown. we will never know because the fbi investigation has been,

frankly, shortened, and is not as full as it should be. i will end with this. oftt kavanaugh was a member ken starr's impeachment team against bill clinton. he's the one who wrote the final report that when out under ken starr's signature recommending impeachment. let's remember, what they run that's what they wanted to remove the president of the united states for his because he lied about a central allegation. it is kind of a rich irony that judge kavanaugh finds himself 20 years later being accused of having lied about a sexual encounter. host: from arizona, republican line come at jerry. caller: good morning. just a couple of things. number one, you mentioned earlier that trump is stuffing the judiciary with conservative judges. isn't that exactly what obama did? guest: i didn't use the word

stuff, but he is putting conservative judges on the court. caller: yes he did. number two, let's just say that with these republicans controlling the senate, let's just say they took obama's nomination. what if they had put him through the same process and borked him? i would be willing to bet all the democrats out there, their hair would be on fire and it would be going crazy. thank you. guest: what this is really about, i think, is the direction of the supreme court. the reason why there is so much intensity about this right now is because kavanaugh would become a based on background, his history, what we know of his , would be a reliable extremely conservative vote on the supreme court, and somebody who would come on issues of marriage equality, reproductive

choice, voting, discrimination, and others could very well change the direction of the that iscourt in a way very different from what we've seen over the last decade. , truly on the democratic side, there is such intensity here. i personally, as somebody who believes in process and all the fact being on the table, and letting people determine them in as objective eight fashion as thatble, i regret the fact his nomination is turning now not on issues of the conservative voice he will bring to the court, but rather on charges of a personal existence. i would feel that way whether it were a democrat or a republican. that is not to minimize at all the seriousness which a lot of people view the allegations that have been raised against judge kavanaugh at all. i've heard with great passion

women talk about what has happened to them in their lives, including one very close to me, and it is shocking and disturbing and depressing. but i wish we were talking about his judicial views and not these allegations as a determinative factor on whether he should be on the supreme court. host: a reporter saying senator feinstein, the ranking democratic member of the senate judiciary committee, has now entered the room to read the fbi report in that room that we heard our guest talk about. what previous investigations or background checks with a have shown instances of what is being asked to look into judge kavanaugh? typically a background check, and i have been submitted ,o a number of them in my time and given statements to a lot of

background checks for friends being nominated to be ambassadors or assistant secretaries of state or white on both sides, republican and democrat. when the fbi comes to ask you these questions, they are broad ranging, thorough. they touch on every aspect of someone's life. financial, professional, personal. does this person live beyond their means? do they appear to have assets not explained by the income they get from their job? do you know them to use drugs, alcohol? is there something in their background that can cause embarrassment to the president is nominated or moved forward? it is wide ranging. and then at the end, they say can you give us the names of additional people who can give us evidence or statements about this person so we can do a thorough background check?

that might have been done in the past of judge kavanaugh. i expect it was in his earlier background checks, but clearly no one asking at that time about the earlier allegations of both drinking and difficult behavior when drinking, and certainly not issues involving women. it is a shame we can't have the kind of broad ranging, definitive look at this right now, just put this to bed one way or another. he's going to have a shadow hanging over him for the rest of his life because we do not have and myss this week, view, that allows us to get to the bottom of this and determine if she telling the truth, is he telling the truth, what happened to the best as we can determine it now. host: what this clarence

thomas's presence on the court say about that cloud hanging over? guest: given judge kavanaugh's frankly fairly extraordinary opening statement last thursday, where he said i am subjected to a hit job by left-wing groups putting millions of dollars into an effort to do me in, and it is revenge by the clintons, that was really quite an extraordinary statement by somebody who is being put arbiterto be a neutral of law. the concern that i have here, lefthat many have on the is that any group that comes from the left, maybe the aclu that is been running ads criticizing judge kavanaugh, they are frequently before the supreme court. how is he going to feel when he sees the aclu's name on a brief?

the concern is he is going to reflexively rule against them because they were against his confirmation. justice thomas, although he is famously silent, his opinions are reliably extremely conservative. i can't help but think that is shaped in part by the experience he went through in his confirmation hearings. withy well see the same justice kavanaugh he gets there. host: one more call. this is hank in new york on a democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. brett kavanaugh is the worst nominee ever for the supreme court. he had a terrible past. he's unreliable. he's a man we can't send to the court, i believe.

you worked in the white house .taff under president clinton john kerry into the reservoir. guest: i see you -- in 2004 on his presidential campaign. guest: i see you googled me. thank you for doing that. caller: i appreciate your doing job. world'syour view on the military response to latest terrorist attacks? --

i don'tdon't -- guest: want to be flip, but the nation will return to its regular programming in another week or two. this has been the white-hot center of public attention, the kavanaugh nomination. will be back with the midterms just a month away. as soon as this is behind us one way or another, he's confirmed back is we will be discussing the broad range of issues facing the country now and that people will be voting on next november. there is way too many people who sit back and do not vote and wonder why the country is not heading in the right direction. if you want to read his

thinking about the current [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2018] >> heidi heitkamp said she would be vote nothing on the kavanaugh nomination. joe mansion has yet to state his position. and both are up for re-election in states that president trump won in 2016. also in the capitol today, -- capital today, a group of women from maine visited senator king's office. we'll show that to you after this briefing by the majority leader.

>> we're about three minutes away, f.y.i.