later, leo asuncion with the hawaii office of planning discusses affordable housing in the state of quiet and nationwide -- hawaii and nationwide. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." it is almost the end of the road for the confirmation battle over supreme court nominee brett toanaugh with the senate set take a final vote later this afternoon. republican senator susan collins of maine's decision to support kavanaugh despite allegations of misconduct all but guarantee he will become the 114th justice of the supreme court. a final vote is expected later this afternoon around 4:30.

judge kavanaugh is expected to be at work at the supreme court later this week. we want to know what you think about the confirmation vote on judge kavanaugh. if you support judge kavanaugh, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. judge kavanaugh, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure how you feel on the final vote on the caps on nomination, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8002. you can always reach us on social media on twitter and on facebook. the decision by senator collins and the decision but democratic senator joe manchin to support to support kavanaugh on friday all the guarantees he will become the next supreme court justice despite the opposition from alaskan senator lisa murkowski. here is what collins have to say

when she came to the floor for a 45 minute speech yesterday on why she was going to vote for kavanaugh. [video clip] >> mr. president, we have heard a lot of charges and countercharges about judge kavanaugh. as those who have known him best ane attested, he has been exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. bitter the turbulent, fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that brett kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the supreme court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so

that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. mr. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. thank you, mr. president. [applause] to: once again, we want know what you think about the final vote on judge kavanaugh that is coming later this afternoon around 4:30. let's go to daniel in washington, d.c., not sure about the final vote. good morning. caller: thank you. good morning. my concern is how the government structure of the senate, of even the division of powers is an anachronism. it is 230 years old. it was formed in a patriarchal country with slaves.

women were property at the time. only a few years before we formed the government, we were a kingdom. george washington was offered to be king. this majority, the majority of one in the senate gives one party al qaeda power and control of power andds control of the committees. ore our to rest government. look at the department heads of housing. those departments have control of our lives. it is a monarchy basically. of whathe open abuse the republicans have just done on the senate judiciary committee we have to look at our -- committee. we have to look at our government.

we need to be less foldable to the power -- vulnerable to the power of individuals. host: are you supporting judge kavanaugh at this point? are you opposing him? after all this discussion we have heard in washington, where do you stand on his nomination? kavanaugh was questioned by committee members before any allegations of sexual assault or poor conduct. he was questioned and perjured himself about his involvement with the bush administration, with so-called enhanced interrogation. he perjured himself earlier in the hearings. how these powerful republicans can use their unbalanced majority of one person to force through a nomination, and the

president can run his own investigation of his own candidate, this is really a crazy system. crazy. host: let's go to kenneth, calling from arkansas. he opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: i have a remedy for this whole situation. you remember those kids down in texas when they got slaughtered down there? are goingsaid that we to do, anybody who supports the nra, we are going to vote against them. those kids have not been mentioned yet. with the democrats need to do is they need to contact those kids that got shot up and include them in voting in november. my wife mentioned it to me the other day. florida. my wife just told me florida. those kids that got killed and democrats need to

contact all those kids that are eligible to vote right now and get them to vote in his november election. as congressman and senators need to change that house and senate. live on the not not lie ontor did the hill. really, he needs to be increased. .hey need -- impeached they need to contact those kids that are eligible to vote, that way they can change that senate and that house and correct all these injustices. host: thank you very much. , and he isgo to mike not sure about the nomination. caller: good morning. i called on the not sure line because i am usually there when c-span is on.

this man is not qualified. this man is a sexual predator. this man lied all the way through his confirmation hearings. i am sorry i called on the not sure line. i agree with all the colors who called on the two not confirm. host: let's go to don from north carolina. he supports the kavanaugh no mission. caller: my name is john. it is not done. i support kavanaugh. jesus christ looked down and said father forgive them. where is our forgiveness today? who are we to really judge? only god knows the truth and to see what our leaders are doing and how they are teaching our kids to badger and bring things up. tell me, i cannot throw the first stone. this is jesus said.

he who is without sin cast the first stone. let's bring god back into our country. and pray hit our knees for our leaders for discernment. thank you. host: lisa murkowski of alaska was going to be one of the few if only republican senators to vote against judge kavanaugh. she came to the senate floor on friday to explain why. here is what she said. [video clip] >> i believe that judge kavanaugh is a good man. he is a good man. judge,learly a learned , because conscience that is how i have to vote at the end of the day, with my conscience, i could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time.

this has been agonizing for me with this decision. choice, probably as close a call as any i can ever remember. i hope and pray that we don't find ourselves in this situation again, but i am worried. i am really worried that this weomes the new normal, where find new and even more creative down,o terror one another ar one another down, the good people are going to say it is just not worth it. i am looking at some of the comments, statements being made against me, against my good

friend, my dear friend from hateful, be the aggressive, the truly awful manner which so .any are acting now it has got to end. this is not the we are. this is not who we should be. this is not who we raise our children to be. mccarthyl senator spposes -- murkowski oppose , she will vote present today.

she said on the floor that she opposes the nomination. let's go to bob from kentucky. he supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think that kavanaugh is a pretty good guy. what really changes my vote is on account of all them protesters, paid protesters raising all kinds of hell. them, theydy like are all against him, that guy, i figure that god must be a pretty good man -- guy must be a pretty good man if they are against him. i believe this more than anything, if it is all about trump, and if he would have nominated jesus christ, the democrats would have figured out something they don't like about

him. it is just trump that they hate. it is not kavanaugh. host: let's go to bob from florida. he is not sure. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my comment. process problem is the from which he is selected. i think politics gets in the way. if you look at the goals of the republicans, i think it is really do have a conservative judge who will decide things that will support the conservative base. the democrats, of course, want liberal philosophy represented. what i would like to see is a selection based on trying to find somebody who can see both sides and give them some respect and appreciation when they decide on each individual issue instead of trying to balance the court with conservative and

liberal. i think the real problem here is political gain and trying issue on the news. "we really need to do is fix the system and compensate for all -- iolitical problems think what we really need to do is try to fix the system and compensate for all the political problems caused. we need to find a man that will make decisions based on issues that willnto account respect everybody's principles. i think that is the worst part of the issue. host: let's go to kathleen, calling from mississippi. she opposes the caps on nomination. good morning. -- kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. , iler: the reason i oppose

am a me too person. i was a child. i told my mom. mom did not believe me. thed to go to life help to age of 50. at the age of 50, everything came out, all my stress, all, everything went. it started coming out, and i cannot stop. i told all my sister. i told my family. i told my brother. i told everybody that i know. ago, our mom said you are going to love your uncle. if he would have came near me, i am 62 now, i would have been in jail. we don't have nothing. my granddaughter, they got a 30 minute break down. she gets paid every two weeks. she is full-time.

everybody talk about we get a good. we got nothing. all these bills, the omnibus bill, the department of defense bill, who can pay this? we don't have no money. i get a check, social security disability. we can barely pay cast and water. this man run around and say we got mine. we ain't got nothing. he taking our health care. scared for our life, not just mine. my mother 85. she have an open heart. she needs her meds, sir. we are just trying to make it. the rich are getting richer. the poor in the middle-class, we

have nothing. everything going up higher. we can't pay no bill. the farmers that lost their farm, i feel sorry for them. the people in the earthquake, i am so sorry. i'm soifornia fire, sick. rico,rgin islands, puerto i am so sorry. all these children lost to the gun issue, i'm so sorry. where are we going to stand now? host: let's go to henry, calling from new york. he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i will be very specific. hisirst reason is i think judicial temperament is evidence in his hearing when he said senator, you like beer, the you like beer? i agree with justice stevens and

what he was saying. the kind of says what i believe. i agree with him. the third item is that amongst all the people i know, i don't know anyone who is in favor of this nomination. i just don't know anyone. the last thing i want to say has to do with the racial hatred that is going on right now and the plaintiff and -- blatant and obvious encouragement of hatred. that is wrong. that is a little off-topic, but that is what i want to say this morning. host: the senate is debating the kavanaugh nomination right now. you can follow that debate on c-span2. the senate is in session right now. some of the senators are coming up occasionally to debate the

kavanaugh nomination. you can watch that right now on c-span two. let's go to alan, calling from new york. he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. thank you very much. i want to focus on a slightly broader picture of the senate and the way it exercises power. uphave a system that was set in revolutionary times to entice the slave states into the union by giving them more than their fair share of democratic representation so that every state regardless of population gets to senators. in revolutionary times, you could have 50% of the states control the senate confirmation vote representing only 28% of the population. because population is more concentrated in some states, you can get 50% of the senate vote from states representing small areas, mostly white states,

representing only 18% of the population. if we get a senate confirmation of kavanaugh from the small republican states, you could get 82% of the public not .epresented in that both at least -- that vote. a least when we had filibuster rule, that was closer to representing the publishing. this is a dictatorship under another name. we have to revisit these basic rules because we cannot continue to bottle up the will of a majority or super majority, 82% of the public and act against their interests and expect to have a peaceful and just nation. that is totally aside from the basics people have mentioned before. senator murkowski in her statement of why she voted 2 of thefocused on 1.

judicial code of conduct, which made clear that the judge cannot behave well most of the time. he has to behave well all the time and not even appear biased. clearly the statement by this and is showing his anger supposedly since violated that rule several times over. he also perjured himself during the testimony before the accusations were made. there is no way this man would be confirmed if 82% of the public were not being excluded from the majority that is allowing him to be confirmed. 18% majority to confirm this person when the actual preparation of represented states is not a democratic confirmation. host: let's go to tammy, calling from north carolina. she supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am calling in reference to this nomination, and i support it. the reason i support it is because this is the only way we as a country will sit back and trump thing.s a it will show us if him being put in place will go against the mueller probe. we need to understand that mue ller is taking care of business. you can rest assured that the justices will put him in place. he is only one man. we all need to understand he is just one man. thing itis this is the is going to take to put our country together because right now we are truly divided. i am so upset about as being divided. that is why i approve him. let's see what he is going to do.

if he goes up there and starts doing the bidding of our president can that is the only thing that is going to -- pr esident, that is the only thing that is going to let the world know that it is a crooked thing. if it is not a crooked thing, it is a good thing. sit back, relax, and let things take their place. in due process, we have to allow him time to do the right thing. if he is there to do the wrong thing, we have people in place to put his checks and balances in place. host: senator richard blumenthal came to the senate floor yesterday with a message for dr. christine blasey ford's family. here is what senator blumenthal had to say. [video clip] >> let me say to dr. blasey ford's son, you should be proud of your mom.

proud of your mom because she is a profile in courage. to mr. ford, you should be proud of your wife. , well the men in america need to believe survivors of sexual assault. we need to protect and respect them, not just in word, but indeed so that they will come forward and tell their stories so that we can conquer this scourge. we should be proud of the brave women who have brought us truth that cannot be denied the matter how much character's estimation in public shaming -- character assassination and public shaming

they have endeared. we know their truth. issue of how america moves forward on sexual assault is bigger than this nomination. it will last beyond the vote tomorrow. it will be a defining question for each of us, as men, as human beings. caller earlier brought up retired justice john paul stevens in the comments he had earlier this week about the kavanaugh nomination. here is what robert barnes at the washington post wrote about retired justice john paul stevens and his statement. an event before retirees in boca raton, florida, stevens said he thought enough of the opinions to feature

them in a book, but he agreed that some of the comments at the hearing were so sharp that they would warrant recusal of certain groups. stevens did not specify which once. they suggest he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities. i think there is merit in that criticism and that senators should really pay attention to it. for the good of the court, it is not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job." let's go to sheldon from louisiana, and he opposes the confirmation vote. good morning. process has whole given pause for us to take a look at the way the whole structure of our system is set up. we have got in place a president

of the united states that did not win the majority of the votes of the people of this country. we had a process that was tailored not to try to find the truth in whether or not this woman was telling the truth or lying. this was a sham. the investigation was restrained. .he process was curtailed it was a rush job. the way that the republicans carried on in terms of the way this woman was treated was a ponpawn. like one of the callers said earlier, the founding fathers of this country, the founding

commit did not, did not fornot have the respect women to be part of the process. there were slaves. jefferson. haiti overthrew slavery, jefferson attacked them for overthrowing slavery and helped france impose. that is why haiti is -- imposed that country to pay restitution. democracy really has to be looked at. there is something wrong. when a person that can be elected can be elected and don't get the majority of the votes, this is terrible. host: let's go to jim calling

from texas. he supports kavanaugh's nomination. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: i'm doing fine. go ahead. caller: i don't know why everybody is getting off on these tangents about different trump didt supposedly and everything else. i support kavanaugh because when i was in the marine corps in boot camp, i was accused of sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl on my birthday. i was in boot camp when that happened. traumatic experience for me to get that straightened out even though i knew where i was at, and the government knew where i was at, and the police officer that came to my house

and brought me to the police station nowhere i was at because ere i was atw wh because i had known him for several years. to go off on this deal about he did it or he did not do it, when you are in this situation, it is toy difficult for you reconcile it even when you know that everything -- you did nothing to cause the problem. somebody convict without all the information. that is what everybody is trying to do. all these protesters, they're going offetely without all the information they

need. from what i have heard from most of the people that are opposed , thes nomination where youon is set up are innocent until proven guilty. they don't have any idea what they are trying -- that they even have enough information to prove him guilty. that is pretty much all i have got to say about it. host: the senate is expected to vote on the final confirmation of judge kavanaugh around 4:30 today. if we look at the washington post has a great graphic that shows the vote on the most recent supreme court justices. if you look at the most recent vote for neil gorsuch, you can see that he had 54 votes in the

senate. if you go back in history, we see how that waxes and wanes. the closest vote so far for supreme court in current time has been justice clarence thomas, who got 52 votes to send to the supreme court. thomas is now the longest-serving supreme court justice on the court. planned, judge kavanaugh will get a final confirmation vote today to join him on the supreme court and could start as early as tuesday. let's go to cap lane, calling from pennsylvania, and she opposes the kavanaugh nomination. host: -- caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i oppose it mainly because this man is just an instrument of trump. as far as christine forwards

testimony, the senate just gave her lip service. people like senators grassley and graham and their indignation at the protests is just a case for term limits. that is another subject. voted the waythey they did because we have no choice, however i oppose him because he believes and truly will try to put into law that the president is not indictable while he is in office. because that is leaning towards authoritarianism. i thought we lived in a democratic society. that is the reason for my opposition. thanks. host: let's go to a link, calling from michigan. he opposes the cap nomination. good morning.

did i lose you? i think i lost owen. let's go to mary lou, and she supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: i sure do support him. i was also falsely accused by a lot of people. i will tell you. it made me feel like crying. when kavanaugh was breaking up. he felt like crying, too. i know what he is going through. i will tell the rest of the people out there, i have been abused, raped, and everything else for most of my life. now.64 i will not turn my heart to hatred and revenge. i forgive them all. that gentleman that mentioned about jesus and casting the

first stone, anyone who is without sin, i say that also. we are being pitted against each other, and the media is not helping on any of the channels because i have been watching them all. history is being white about and everything else. -- lied about and everything else. i am for god, and i will always try to do what is right. thank you. host: senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley came to the floor yesterday for a message for his colleagues on brett kavanaugh. here is what chuck grassley had to say. [video clip] >> it would be a travesty if the senate did not confirm the most qualified nomination in our nation's history. the multitude of allegations against him have proven to be false. they have also proven that no discussion of his qualifications

discussion of his qualifications, nothing showed he was not qualified. we had a campaign of distraction from his outstanding qualifications, a campaign of destruction of this fine individual. thewe have learned is has existedhat since the day after the november 2016 election is centered right here on capitol hill. rule.ave encouraged mob about getear things in their face, bother people at every restaurant where you can find a cabinet member, that ought to set an example of stability for american society, and it has been made worse by what has happened to judge

kavanaugh. i hope we can say no to mob rule confirm judge kavanaugh. host: the final confirmation vote for judge kavanaugh should today.ound 4:30 that does not mean the political part of his confirmation will end. there is a story in the new york times today where house democrats are promising an investigation of kavanaugh if they win control. "house democrats will open an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury against judge brett kavanaugh if they went house in november. the new york democrat in line to houseirman of the judiciary committee said on friday. he said that there was evidence

that some republicans and the fbi had overseen a whitewash investigation of the allegations and that the legitimacy of the supreme court was at stake. he sidestepped the issue of impeachment. 'it is not something we are eager to do.' the senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advice and consent, they're going to have to do something to provide a check and balance." .et's go to carol she supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am also a victim of the me too movement. i've got my own story. here is the thing. judge kavanaugh is supporting the things we want protected. as far as him making donald trump a came, there is -- came

king, there is only one of him. an independent. i am upset with both sides of the aisle. we should stand together and unified. i believems. ford, her. there are things i am trying to wrap my head around about her story. host: you said earlier that you were tha victim of the me too movement. can you elaborate on that? caller: yes, i was actually raped by my boyfriend when i was sick. i told him no. i kept pushing him away. i had a temperature. he continued. he did not stop.

when it was over, i was torn up inside. i had to let it go and go forward. i'm just hoping that we as a nation can heal. i thank you for taking my call. you have been a good host. callingt's go to will from wisconsin. he opposes the nomination. caller: thank you for taking my call. to the lady that just spoke, my heart goes out to her. i oppose kavanaugh because i sat and watched the need a hell hillrmation -- anita confirmation. leading up to this decision, i watched all of the hearings on kavanaugh. if you will put aside the allegations that was made by ms.

ford, and which i believe her, then kavanaugh's temperament and demeanor during those hearings is enough to not allow him on a court, the supreme court of the land, to make decisions for other people that affects them the rest of their lives. when i hear people talk about the mob rule that will come into play if you don't confirm him, republicans seem to have forgotten what they did to neil gorsuch and how they did not even allow him to come to the floor for a vote for over 10 months. host: i think you mean merrick garland, not supreme court

justice neil gorsuch. ight, merrick garland. as i watched this, it made me shudder. i am 75 years old. i watched this court become political on both sides. more recently, i watched this side against the working people and the poor. i watched them side with corporations. but putting cannot in -- by in, it'savanaugh almost a rubber stamp. he is not fit to be on court. when you have a former supreme court justice who came out and said the same words, that he supported him up until the hearings when he saw his temperament and his demeanor, that he could no longer support him, and yet you have people

like grassley, graham, and other bad its who say how is what they are doing to the court. it is ridiculous. people have got to come together and challenge this system because it is wrong, and it has been wrong ever since it has cepted.st when i hear people talk about the guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty, black people have been going through that all of their lives. the people that are in the supreme court now, the majority will do nothing to change it. thank you for taking my call. host: let's go to greg, calling from north carolina. he supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for c-span.

your very first caller talked about the popular vote, and he was correct. trump lost the popular vote. that's not how we do it here in america. it is the electoral college, which trump won. it shocked his opponents that he could do that. i think he had something like 18 opponents when he went into the by one they one went down. finally his democratic opponent went down. the democrats have not been happy campers ever since he came into office. if you were to sit down and look at the laundry list of things that he has done, including, again, the first caller pulled .p the race card black, but i not

have seen the statistics. , they are as well off as they have never been were better off. that kind of debunks that whole this economically boom is not going across the board. thank you, c-span. host: connecticut senator chris murphy, democrat, talked about his feelings about how the senate has handled the nomination of brett kavanaugh. [video clip] >> i have heard my republican colleagues ad nauseam treat this selection as if we are a court defendant sitting in front of us whose freedom is going to be taken away if he

doesn't get a positive vote for confirmation. why do i say that? over and over again i have heard this idea that brett kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty, that there is a presumption of innocence with respect to the claims that surround him. those are not traditionally terms that have been used with respect to the choices we make over nominees to the judicial branch or to the executive branch. those are terms that are used in courts of law. the presumption of innocence is given to a defendant. the high burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is placed on the prosecutor because the stakes in a criminal trial are fundamentally different than the stakes in appointment to a

court order department. in criminal law, the standard is set high because the consequence to that defendant is his liberty being taken away from him or her. that is not the case for brett kavanaugh or any other name that gets sent to this body for confirmation. if brett kavanaugh was not to receive confirmation to the supreme court, he would go right back to the appellate court with , asce job and a nice salary would many other nominees that don't get a confirmation vote from this body. their liberty is not taken away. they go back to some pretty good jobs. that is why it is nonsensical to suggest that the standard we apply to a nominee is similar to that of a criminal court.

host: let's go to barbara, calling from texas. she supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. i was just listening to christopher murphy here. he must be some kind of wacko lawyer or something. this will hurt kavanaugh. it is already hurting because people have come out and said he should not be teaching girls basketball anymore. . damaged ouras country so much, and people have got to realize that we are being used. we are being used by the media. we are being used by the democrats, and we are being used by some of the republicans to split us down the middle.

if people will go back and read the communist manifesto or rules for radicals, this is their playbook. the democrats have it down pat. somebody of ae crime, and he was accused of a crime, yes, he gets the opportunity that burden goes to the accuser because it hurts him in his life. he may not lose his job, or he .ay lose his job personally, he has a bad reputation. we have had excerpts come out that these people have lied under oath against him. i think eventually it will all come out in the open. point.one more as far as the president can be

indicted, this is a constitutional thing. under our constitution, the only way a president can be ousted out of office is by impeachment. nothing else. he can be charged after, but he cannot be thrown out or indicted while in office. people need to read their constitution and the federalist papers because brett kavanaugh follows the constitution. thank you. host: once again, the senate will be moving toward a final vote on the supreme court nomination of judge brett kavanaugh round 4:30 today. the senate is in session right now. you can know is go to c-span2 to watch the confirmation process for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. we are also watching outside the capital, where we expect to see

protesters show up to protest for or against the confirmation of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. we will keep the ninth inside eye inside -- an the capital. let's go to ray in florida. he is not sure about the confirmation of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. what i am going to say is going to disturb a lot of people spiritually. at the end of the day, this is ponzig more than a between the democrats and the republicans. this is to disturb you emotionally so that you can go out and vote. i did not vote for obama the last time. i voted for him the first time. i did not get what i expected from him.

i know that a lot of -- as a minority, a black man, there are some people that would say you are an uncle tom. obviously, you don't know the history of uncle tom. i would rather be an uncle tom than a sambo. somethingactually did . he actually did for black people. as a black man, i know what it is like to grow up being accused of things, to go through the court system and be in front of a racist judge at the end of the day. to be accused by alisa that make up lies and this racist judge that has these questions with .he officers people need to realize that the end of the day that this is nothing more than to get you to get out and vote this is not a democracy.

this is a republic. out soo get you to get that you can go and vote. look for you are voting for. i do not want the united states to be like california. most people have not even traveled outside the united states or even throughout the state. how do we keep electing? how do you guys keep electing these people to office instead of electing people like yourselves if you want something to actually happen? you keep electing these attorneys, these millionaires, celebrities, and you expect to get results. you are going to get nothing but the same old ponzi scheme over and over and over until the day you die, from the time you are a little child and your girl. the same things are happening over and over -- and you grow up. the same things are happening over and over again.

i hope the american people wake up and take responsibility. this man serves an opportunity question deserves an opportunity. -- this man deserves an opportunity, just like we all deserve an opportunity. when it comes down to it, she says she doesn't know nothing. host: let's go to nancy. she opposes the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. mayald just like to quote angelou when she said, when someone tells you who they are, believe them. people were not listening. even senator collins from maine. thank you so much. grahamenator lindsey offered a message to senator collins when she announced she was going to vote yes on judge kavanaugh. [video clip] >> all i can say is that it is

not about you. i have never admired you more, and we often agree and sometimes don't. it is about the systems that used to buy today that have stood the test of time. i don't know what kind of pressure it has been for you. i can only imagine. senator was for me. whatever happened to me, it has been 100 times worse for you. senator flake, thank you. without sons of collins and jeff flake -- without susan collins and jeff flake, we would not have heard from dr. ford. , weout their assistance would not be where we are today. you did a good thing. the one thing you would not do is be intimidated.

the one thing you would not do is destroy judge kavanaugh's life for no good reason. the one thing you would not do is play politics with the law. god bless you. i doubt ever hear anybody more courageous in my political life. when they write the history of our times, you will be in it. if john mccain were here, he would be your greatest cheerleader. ken callinggo to from indiana. he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. i oppose the nomination. i think this decision is going to leave a stain on our politics. mpian just a tru veneer that we have now transferred to the courts. i think kavanaugh has demonstrated he is unfit to be a

supreme court jurist. just look at the facts. a prior spring court jurist had to say about this nominee. look at what the aba has said. they are reviewing his assessment based on his testimony over the past couple weeks where it is clear is a highly partisan individual and temperament to be a supreme court justice. i was disappointed with senator collins. she misrepresented this whole event. the evidence from dr. ford was not adequately reviewed. they selected specific individuals that they wanted to evaluate. moreover, this idea of no evidence is such a travesty for

by person that is the demise crimes violence. the demand for corroborating evidence is illogical because these episodes happen where there is no corroborating evidence. there is rarely another witness. there is rarely physical evidence. the testimony, the testimony of the victimized first has to be taken into account and assess -- person has to be taken into account and assess for credibility. i think dr. ford was very credible in what she presented. arecorroborating evidence prior representations years past on this incident. theink senator collins did american people a great disservice by misrepresenting this episode, and i think the republican party is guilty of

carrying out a great fraud in terms of putting kavanaugh on the court. this is going to be a great stain on our politics. host: coming up next, we are going to continue the conversation on the kavanaugh nomination with alex bolton of the hill newspaper. he will give us what he saw yesterday on the kavanaugh vote and talk about what is coming next. later on, it is hawaii weekend on c-span. we will be talking about issues impacting the alone state all state all aloha weekend long. we will be with leo asuncion discussing affordable housing. we will be right back.

>> the c-span bus is traveling across the country. we recently stopped in indianapolis. looking forward to the november midterm election, we are asking which party should control congress and why. party i want to take over congress is the democratic party. it is not just because i support the values of the democratic party, but i think the republican party has completely its responsibility to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch. in addition to legislation, the respondent -- responsibility of congress to be the check and balance and we have not seen that. we have seen a presidency run amok. >> if it changes in november, i would be impacted in several ways. i am a college student who is just now getting out of school

soon and i will be entering the workforce. things like tax breaks for financial matters that will be decided across congress will directly affect me in my future success. also, i'm an african-american woman. the representation there for me and those who are fighting for my rights and my civil rights is very important. i believe this will be impacted if there is a change in congress. year, ifections this by some strange chance congress should change to another party, we would have some impact here. but generally in indiana we are pretty independent folks. as with our infrastructure program, we have moved ahead with whatever congress does. we make sure we operate in a responsible and businesslike way. we passed a major infrastructure bill last year.

the federal government helps us out, that's great. if they don't, we will continue to march. we are now working with water also. >> i think the democrats should control congress. our country needs to swing more left or progressive. i'm interested in issues pertaining to women, women's ability to choose, and also women's right to a safe workplace. >> voices from the states. part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. >> washington journal continues. host: we're talking with alex bolton of the hill about the kavanaugh nomination. is it over? guest: i think it is over. the votes are there for him. it is clear. by 5:00 this afternoon, he is going to be confirmed the next justice of the supreme court.

host: you don't expect any last-minute surprises? none of the lobbying overnight changing anything? guest: i don't think so. it would be a huge surprise. every senator has already stated their position. we know where the votes are in the key votes are susan collins, who was the key to this nomination being confirmed from the get-go. in a 40 minute speech on friday she explained why she was going to vote for him. and joe manchin, the centrist democrat sealed to israel election victory by saying he would also vote for kavanaugh. host: let's talk about the political consequences for those senators. they seem to have been the key votes, and possibly lisa murkowski. the three key votes for brett kavanaugh. when does susan collins face voters again and will does have an effect on her campaign and

her reelection chance? guest: she is up for reelection in 2020. if she decides to run again, this will certainly be an issue in the race. campaign is already raised $3 million to fund her opponent. they say they raised $1 million while she was giving her floor speech on friday defending why she was going to vote for kavanaugh. that $3 million is more than twice the amount collins has in cash on hand. she is definitely going to face a challenge or. r.me -- face a challenge some say susan rice might challenge her. if the democrats win a race in the house in november, that person could go on to challenge collins. some people in maine wonder if she's going to run again because

of how little money she has in her campaign account. host: were not sure quite yet? guest: i tried to ask her the other day in her answer was, we will talk about 2020 in 2020. she says she is not looking at it. who has to jenna martin watched her closely over the years. she does not think collins will run again because her fundraising activity has not been robust. i think it is clear from yesterday that colin's enjoys the spotlight. an impact onking major national decisions. she certainly did so with this kavanaugh case. that gives a reason to run again. host: let's go to joe manchin. he said he pretty much sealed his reelection. of evenhat was the view some republican strategists.

he is already up in the polls on patrick morrissey, the west virginia ag. by being the only democrat to break ranks and support kavanaugh it bolsters and helps his argument that he is independent, he does what is right for west virginia, and it will be tough for morsi take -- morrissey to go after him. other candidates are against kavanaugh and are already being attacked viciously for it. argumentderscore his that i'm independent and i do with right for west virginia. it looks like he will be reelected. host: and lisa murkowski announced she opposes the kavanaugh nomination. how does that affect her? window she face voters again? -- when does she face voters again? guest: in 2022.

we are talking more than four years. it could be an issue. sarah palin, the former governor of alaska, paraphrase her old line on twitter yesterday. "i can see 2020 to from my window -- 2022 from my window." in other words, watch out. you will be in trouble at some point. a convincing reelection in 2016. it looks like she is safe. atalked to james mueller, professor of political science at the university of anchorage -- university of alaska, anchorage. she thinks the victory was so convincing she feels pretty safe and joe miller, the conservative challenger who beat her in the republican primary in 2010, calloused as a libertarian in 2016, he's pretty much discredited. a badthis was not

political move for murkowski. the alaskan tribes did not like kavanaugh. they had concerns about his issues on tribal sovereignty. that's an important constituency for murkowski. she picked up some political support where she may not have it otherwise. i think all in all she will be fine. about there talking political ramifications are of the confirmation vote of judge brett kavanaugh. we want you to join the conversation. if you support judge kavanaugh's confirmation, collect (202) 748-8000. if you oppose judge kavanaugh's confirmation, call us at (202) 748-8001. if you're not sure about judge kavanaugh's confirmation, call at (202) 748-8002. you can always reach us on social media, on twitter @cspanwj and on facebook.

let's go to michelle, and from wisconsin. she opposes the nomination. caller: thank you for taking my call. i oppose judge kavanaugh, not only because of the issue of sexual harassment, but his temperament and how he presented himself during the hearings. i was a little upset with short-term of investigation by the fbi, that someone had set limits on that. people aree how long sexually harassed before they come out. boys, ando molest they come out 20, 30 years later. those priests are investigated, as they should be. there are not any limits put on that investigation. they investigate it until they

get all the information together and then they go with their findings. i don't understand how some of these people who were actually good witnesses to these instances with kavanaugh poor not even questions. i find that a little disturbing there were limitations put on this investigation. thank you very much. host: what effect did the extended time and one-week fbi investigation have on the nomination? guest: i think the investigation helped kavanaugh because the report the fbi came back with the not find any corroborating evidence of christine blasey ford's claimed that he attempted to a sexually assaulted 36 years ago. that is something the swing vote to voted for kavanaugh, that is what they emphasized in the last couple of days. joe manchin said the fbi report will tell us a lot.

he was putting that much emphasis on the fbi report, i thought it was a clear sign he was going to vote for the nominee if the report came back clean. it was not a big surprise it did. there was a report last week that rod rosenstein told chris twons and jeff flake, members who struck the deal to delay the nomination for a week, he told of a week ago we can get this investigation done on time but probably not going to find anything given how long ago this happened and a number of the key witnesses had already made statements that they did not recall the events that ford alleged, for the party, for the location, etc. -- or the party or the location, etc. they felt they had to give kavanaugh a presumption of innocence.

they had to give him due process, and that really gave them political cover to vote the way they did. murkowski, when she voted against him, she cited his judicial temperament in saying objects needs to show the proper temperament at all times. i think that's an instance where -- an example of where kavanaugh in defense of the allegations, that very angry performance before the committee, probably wind up hurting him. host: that is something we have not talked about morning, senator jeff flake. how does this affect him? there was always talk about future political ambitions. how does in asking for this investigation and then voting for judge kavanaugh affect him? guest: there are rumors that flake will run in 2020 to challenge president trump in the

primary. that is such a long shot. i think jeff flake is a great he has a lot of respect on both sides of the aisle, put the challenge trump and a republican primary when his numbers for the gop base are close to 90% is a total pipedream. they would have to be a massive scandal to bring down the president. even then, they would be more candidates more credible than flake. flake has been one of trump's's biggest critics. he is not loved by the base and that is why he decided to retire. reelection he would have to embrace the president in a primary. if you cannot win his own primary, it is hard to know how he will win the republican presidential primary. because he played such a high profile role here he is going to

be a sought after voice on the political scene. there will be other opportunities for him. host: constant from warfield, virginia. she opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. i oppose it not really because of the sexual allegations, but because of the materials with held from the committee, and there is a case coming in front of the supreme court. where it is17646, gambill versus the last -- the u.s. where the nra funneled money into the pockets of how speaker ryan, mcconnell, graham, rubio, and they wanted him

seated on the court when this case came up. then of course there is president trump wanting his own lawyer -- his own judge on the court in case he gets a subpoena from the mueller investigation. i would like for someone to look up this case, gambill versus the 6, wherese number 1764 the nra funneled money into the thep campaign and into pockets of how speaker ryan, mcconnell, graham, and rubio, and they wanted this judge -- this is the reason for the rush.

they wanted this judge of the court to exonerate them. it's a double jeopardy case. i don't know all the particulars, but i would like for it to be looked up and recorded. what do we expect ago one outside the senate today? they will be voting on the final confirmation inside. ofwe expect to see lots protesters outside the capital and supreme court? guest: absolutely. they will be protesters throughout the week. i know some people in d.c. that are planning to protest today. i expect there to be a large crowd and lots of sign waving, chanting. people are obviously -- protesters and sexual assault victims having been coming to capitol hill to pressure collins and murkowski. they will want to vent their displeasure with collins.

we have seen some angry confrontations on capitol hill in recent days. last week when jeff flake asked for the delay, he did that after two sexual assault survivors confronted him in an elevator angrily and asked and demand if you look them in the high and explain --in the eye and explain what he was voting for kavanaugh. that is when he was confronted. yesterday, joe manchin, moments afterwards came out in the andway to explain his vote you can barely understand or hear his answer because he was drowned out by the chance and -- chants and angry yells of protesters who were shouting "shame," and "look at us." the assault survivors you are disrespecting with his vote. host: charles from new jersey.

he supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. gladly have a show to what people give their opinions on everything. know, people, you say he did it and some people say he didn't. the proof was not there as far as i'm concerned to convict a man of that crime. when you bring allegations against somebody you should have enough proof to prove what you're saying is true. i did not see it. i am taking the politics out of it and going with the proof. i don't think they presented the proof to have him not be appointed. host: what is going to be the manchinor democrats on voting for him?

guest: i don't think so. he was not the guy that pushed kavanaugh over the top. he was talking with susan collins throughout the process. they were keeping tabs on each other. after kavanaugh testified, manchin met with collins in rakowski and flake. he knew at all times which you wou -- at all times which she was thinking. he did not want to be the democrat that saved the kavanaugh nomination. that i think would have provoked a lot of anger and created some problems. he was a team player. chuck schumer asked the democrats to hold their fire, keep their powder dry, not announce positions until after republicans made clear they have the votes to confirm kavanaugh,

and he did that. when he announced his support for kavanaugh, it was clear republicans have the votes because of susan collins. host: andriy from crown point, new mexico. he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. andrew, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will try to be brief but it want to cover a couple of things. firstly, in my opinion, do i think brett kavanaugh was a little creepy, drunk with a bunch of money in his pocket that did some sexual things he should not have? yeah. he was yelling one that never said give me a light detector. my concern as he came out of the bush white house, a white house that started spying on all waged war ond

iraq, torture, and he was part of the legal proceedings that led to war crimes. they will not release his work from the bush white house, like 10% of it. that is a big red flag. i think his biggest problem is he bends the law, usually in the favor of corporate relations against people, workers and the environment. i would like to get your comment on that because i think this is a scary day for america. this is not an honest guy. folks, you better wake up. thank you. guest: one thing overlooked in all of this drama over kavanaugh is his record. it divided the parties starkly. one of the things of particular concern to advocates of the fourth amendment and privacy were some decisions he made, in particular when that said any

government search is warranted as long as it's motivated by the desire to combat terrorism. that was a very broad mandate and it caused heartburn for libertarian paul, a conservative on capitol hill. he was undecided for a while and eventually came out in favor of kavanaugh. jon tester, another vulnerable democrat in montana, he cited kavanaugh's position of the fourth amendment on privacy. kavanaugh had a ruling that justified -- a decision to justify the use of gps tracking devices to track a vehicle. placing a device on a vehicle to track it. and was a concern that paul tester had. tester said he opposed because of fourth amendment concerns and felt concerned that kavanaugh

would be very weak on campaign finance limits. he would do nothing to limit thatens united versus fec opened up the floodgates for campaign financing of federal elections. his record is very much in play here, but one thing i think is interesting is collins emphasized kavanaugh had developed and built a record as duringnsus-seeking judge his 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. she noted judge merrick garlands, for president obama nominated in 2016 and kavanaugh agreed on 96% on majority opinions that kavanaugh wrote. garland dissented on only one of his majority opinions. she viewed him as a

consensus-builder. that is why i think she was going to vote for him all along barring some corroborating evidence of sexual misconduct that never surfaced. she thought he was a better pick than some of the other people on that heshort list, would be a justice in the mold of anthony kennedy who retired. that he was a former clerk at kennedy's and he would basically be in the same old. -- same mold. i think his record, while it did not get a lot of discussion, that is why collins was there for him in the end. host: tina smith had concerns about the nomination. she went out to the senate floor to talk about this. [video] it is troubling enough that judge kavanaugh to be the deciding vote on cases that affect every aspect of life in america. cases that determine who you can

marry, whether you can access health care, for your rights in the workplace. it is also extremely concerning about judge commitment to fulfill the other sacred responsibility of the supreme court, to be a check against executive and legislative overreach. systemy design of our and constitutional checks and balances demonstrates that no one, not even elected leaders are above the law. this is a fundamental american principle. adge kavanaugh has dangerously expansive view of executive power that is well outside the mainstream of current legal thought. he argued the president are above the law. his writings and speeches suggest he believes a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted. he has argued presidents can only be investigated by

congress, raising questions about his views of the constitutionality of the ongoing muller investigation. he hast troubling, claimed that presidents don't have to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. 's expansive views of the limits of executive power suggest he would advocate the solemn responsibility of the court to hold the executive branch accountable to its constitutional duties and prevented from engaging in constitutional excesses. host: vincent from boston. he supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. and goodr c-span morning, alex. i'm a little nervous so bear with me. i felt many of your callers seemed like they were activists with their comments. i wanted to make a few points about recent history. joe biden changed the rules in

the early 1990's so the last year of a presidency, a supreme justice appointee cannot be approved. they can hold it. precedent that was basically adopted by the republicans a couple of years ago. i can't remember the name. marland? garland? host: you are talking about mary garland -- merrick garland. caller: the president started way back -- precedent started back in the 1990's. and in harry reid decided they would eliminate the nuclear option. this whole thing has been political for so long and i hate the way the whole process has been politicized. if you don't like trump, you

don't like bush, you obviously come down one way. there are a lot of people that don't like trump but they look at this appointee in a more nuanced fashion. i hate the way the whole process was politicized. i looked at -- i have watched a lot of these because of newly retired. i thought the democratic members of the judicial committee are pretty aggressive in pretty rude judge kavanaugh. have a chance to defend himself for 10 days. when he came out he came out as a man rather than a judge. i agree he was a little sharp. probably should have left the clinton comments out of his sharp rebukes, but it exposed

him for being a man. rapes charged with gang and other outrages stuff without any evidence. there is still no evidence to this day as we speak. bet there will be no evidence if there was a trial, but why would there be a trial? this whole thing was a sham. not a single democrat voted for this? it indicates how politicized this is. host: how does the kavanaugh nomination change the senate? for future supreme court nominations? did anything change in this process or will we see the same thing, the same argument back and forth from now on? guest: what a couple of republican said, including susan collins yesterday was this kavanaugh confirmation fight has

marked rock-bottom for senate confirmations. let's not forget the clarence thomas-and need a hill hillrmation -- anita confirmation was very contentious. i'm not sure if this is that much different from the clarence figh things did get better aftert. thomas was confirmed. ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer were confirmed with a large bipartisan vote. i think it will be a cooling-off period. the senators have gotten it out of their system. the republicans were saying this can't happen again, this character assassination can't happen again. we will see if there is a

democratic president and the appoint someone whom the republicans don't like or change the balance of the court. will they refrain from attacks? kaganave justice elena and sonia sotomayor -- they were not too tough on either of those justices when obama nominated them. they tend to go a little easier. my prediction is we see a cooling-off period. the reason this was such a contentious fight is it was so close to the midterm election following a very divisive presidential election. eventually it would alter the balance of the court -- potentially it would alter the balance of the court. divisivede, the most decision in recent history. it made it a perfect storm. i don't think it will be quite as nasty the next couple of times, but who knows? host: there are no permanent

rule changes or precedents set that will be applied for the next nomination? guest: i don't think so. hereresident -- precedent is the majority leader stuck to the timeline and averages for confirming a supreme court nominee even though you could argue this was a special case because garland had such a voluminous record. --s nomination host: you mean kavanaugh? guest: yes. this nomination merited more time. that was the argument the democrats made because kavanaugh has such a long record. and because of these sexual assault allegations, they needed more time for the fbi investigation. averagel stuck with the

for confirming -- the average time spent for confirming injustice. i think they went a little over it. that may be used in the future to say this is the time that is allotted to confirm these guys, even if there are extenuating circumstances. host: do you expect to see changes in the background nominees?ions done on or is that out of the senate hands and completely up to the white house? guest: i don't think so. morning aboutthis the decision making at the white house and how expensive the supplemental fbi background check would be. there was a finding that there was no legal basis for using subpoenas to aggressively investigate someone's background if there isn't an actual allegation of a crime or a criminal charge being investigated.

some sort ofd probable cause, a prosecutor pushing it. i don't think they will change the rules for that. future to avoid controversies that the white house may push for more extensive reviews. even if the fbi had conducted a very -- a more thorough review the first time around, i don't think they would necessarily found anything. host: but good at davis, from los angeles. he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: how are you doing? factsed to share a few and a little bit of common sense with your guest and your listeners. your guests is incorrect. the fbi could have interviewed a pretty relevant witness, one of

which was capital's roommate --kavanaugh's roommate who stated he was hostile towards women and that he drank until he was blue in the face. he also stated he knew exactly what apple's triangle math -- devil's triangle men.' that is a sexual act. he stated kavanaugh new exactly what that meant. if you put that in context with mrs. ford's accusation, i would say that is overwhelming evidence. they also did not interview who hecan friend of his went to college with who stated they used to drink until he was blue in the face. things i would say -- i wouldn't hire the guy for my babysitter, let alone a supreme court justice. guest: that is what the

democrats were arguing. that this was a circumscribed investigation. that the fbi did not go far enough. what robp in mind rosenstein told them a week ago, the fbi was probably not going to find anything. the sexual assault allegation was the question before the senate and white flake and collins and murkowski wanted investigated. that specific sexual assault allegation. looking at the kavanaugh's conduct in college was seen as extraneous to the central question. where?at, when, why and the central facts of the allegation. that was the thing they investigated. what really hurt ford was the people she named as witnesses, including her best friend, did

not remember this party. as collins said yesterday, she did not know who brett kavanaugh was. that was something very damaging. you can go into talking to his roommate at yale and disputing kavanaugh that he didn't know they were unsavory definitions to his yearbook entry he did not admit before the senate judiciary committee, that was not the question before the senate. the question before the senate and fbi with the sexual assault allegation in high school. it was not a wide-ranging review of kavanaugh's conduct about life. that is what i was trying to explain to my earlier answer. the new york times has a good piece on that this morning. the fbi does not have the legal ability to do a wide-ranging

fishing expedition in someone's life for a background investigation if there is not an actual criminal charge on the table. good job of laying out in part by don mcgann kept the review circumscribed. it was something rock rosenstein warned-- rod rosenstein for the investigation. the democrats pushed very hard for the fbi investigation, but what ended up indicating kavanaugh and secured the vote of manchin and collins. host: mark from ohio. he supports the nomination. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate the other people's comments. into the temple and overturn the money changers'

table. of righteous indignation kavanaugh showed when defending his honor was similar. i'm sure it be overturned a table, and let it prevented him from being a judge. i don't think the democratic senators or people that hate capital, item -- hate kavanaugh, they would not support jesus himself to be a supreme court justice. guest: jesus would probably be pro-life. that's a joke, i'm sorry. i think jesus could probably get the votes to be the next supreme court justice. with you think? host: we will leave that when there. dennis from pennsylvania who opposes the nomination. caller: thanks for taking my call. i like the comment that susan collins in her speech yesterday said about the supreme court.

in this last session this up and put overturned long-standing about states being given to collect sales tax across state lines. they also overturned a long-standing ruling on government employee unions on employees having to pay a fair share fee. you can see how far precedent goes. we have another nominee that will toe the republican line. weapon,wn an assault you will have lots of rights. women's rights, minority rights, they no longer exist. they will say republicans can rig elections like they did here in pennsylvania. congressional elections so 13 seats went to republicans and five to democrats in this eight that is a majority democrat state bragged howa has

election, ande further bragged have it enabled to figure out a way they would two1 republicans and democrats. you have a total republican hack as a supreme court justice. the republicans as they move more towards the fascist regime, of president roosevelt with dictators and loves them -- the president runs around with dictators and loves them. that's my comment. guest: redistricting will be a big issue going forward. it was something the court and and do noty really resolved to the satisfaction of democrats. i think that is why there is so much anger over this nomination right now, because the democrats

are counting on hillary clinton winning the election. they were counting on her appointed justice to replace antonin scalia, a well-known conservative with someone much more liberal. that would have changed the balance of the court on redistricting and on campaign-finance reform. that he was merrick garland, had he been confirmed, or whoever clinton appointed would have overturned citizens united. would have taken a much tougher view on redistricting. thatact posted not happen, those things are so important to the balance of political power going forward, the democrats fec redistricting and the versus citizens united was a major advantage to the republican party.

the fact those are not being addressed and trump's election which they think was done with suspicious circumstances with russian involvement, will have an impact on political power in this country. nominationugh underscores that and that is wider so much anger and why we're seeing what we are seeing in terms of these angry confrontations in the halls of the capitol. which is why when the vote happens, i think there will be a big crowd of protesters outside. this is a landmark moment, but there is not a lot the democrats can do except win the midterm elections in november and the presidency in 2020. host: we will keep her ion outside the capital. you can keep your eye on what's going on inside the senate returning to c-span 2 where they will have live views of the senate floor. chris from leavenworth, kansas and he supports the kavanaugh

nomination. good morning. caller: thank you. i think it is going to get crazier. the reason it's going to get -- not is the issues about the fourth amendment or citizens united, the issue is abortion. democrats are determined to protect abortion and i know that is directly tied to the supreme court seats. nominationt the last although we got no democratic support or very little. they knew that was the scalia seat. this one was kennedy's seat and the temperature was raised. the next seat, most likely ruth bader ginsburg or some other liberal judge, is going to completely turn the tables. i think we have not seen anything yet.

it will be literally scorched earth because they will do whatever they have to do to keep that seat from turning over to a conservative justice. not only that, they were able to by claimingues sexual assault and all these other issues that have nothing to do with why they were opposing kavanaugh. it was basically because he was a male, they were able to tag him with drinking, being angry, like sexual assault. when trump nominates amy coney barrett, it will be a straight up battle politically between abortion and non-abortion. thing the republicans can do is to have a solid 51-v ote majority in the senate to be

able to confirm the next justice. guest: that's a good point. thank you for making it. as contentious as this fight has been, if ruth bader ginsburg worry to come down sick and retire or something else, step down from the court before trump leaves office and he appoints a conservative justice to replace her, that would truly change the direction and the balance of the court. as much as kavanaugh has been maligned, he was a clerk to justice anthony kennedy. he did rule often with merrick garland on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he was viewed as a consensus-building judge. that is why collins supported him. ifwould be a real explosion

someone as liberal as ruth bader ginsburg or stephen breyer, if they were going to be replaced by a trump pic. without for as pro-life during the campaign, they would be pressure on susan collins and lisa murkowski and joe manchin to hold the line. this will happen after the midterm election. we will see what happens. do republicans expand the majority? in which case collins will not be as important anymore. and are a bunch of racists won by largep margins. heidi heitkamp will vote against kavanaugh today. that will be the death nail of her campaign. republicans are pulling money out of her state. if republicans pick up more --ts, certainly the court

the future of the court to be dramatically changed going forward if rick bader ginsburg or stephen breyer retires. that is not lost on candidates this election. next month will be litigated on the court and we will see how that plays. i think the conventional wisdom is even though house members don't vote on supreme court isinees, this kavanaugh damaging to republicans running in districts that hillary clinton won in 2016. vice versa, democrats running in states where trump won by double digits are hurt by the supreme court play such a dominant role. mitch mcconnell always vision that is the key to keeping the senate. host: we would like to thank alex bolton for talking to us today. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will open the phones again and talk about the final vote on the kavanaugh nomination.

if you want to call in and support the kavanaugh nomination, call in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the nomination, (202) 748-8001. if you're not sure, call in at (202) 748-8002. we will get back to the phones in just a moment. first, this week on "newsmakers," they interviewed brian walsh, head of a super pac affiliated with president trump, the america first action-packed -- action pac. >> this has been a tough two weeks for the whole country. it has been a very emotional time. ofcomments are a reflection a for political observation in terms of how it's having an effect on the electorate in what we think in terms of the terms. over the course of this year one of the concerns republicans of hat is this complacency amongst the electorate and the

enthusiasm gap between republicans and democrats. we have certainly seen an awakening within the universe of republicans. we are starting to see it on the senate side. numbers are starting to shift and things are starting to move. back in june i was talking to folks within our organization. i said what we need -- there has to be something to make these people up and a half since -- and it has to happen around the first week of october. we are starting to see the enthusiasm grow from a republican point of view and presuming the confirmation goes forward tomorrow, the fact we are 30 days out, i don't think you will see them go back. host: welcome back. we will open the phones for you to call and tell us what you think about the final vote today on the kavanaugh nomination to

the supreme court. if you support judge kavanaugh, call in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure on the kavanaugh nomination, call at (202) 748-8002. we are always open on social media, on twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. sheila from kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. einsteindering when withheld information -- feinstein withheld information, i'm wondering if she should be censured for withholding evidence pertinent to an investigation. from maryland. she is not sure on the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning.

i'm a little disturbed about the idea he lied or perjured himself. that is what is bothering me more than anything. i can understand they never have answers to what happened when he was in high school and college, but to put somebody in the supreme court that perjured themselves just seems kind of ridiculous. year -- javier from miami, florida. caller: good morning, sir. this is spiritual warfare. this is good versus evil, life versus death. this is all about abortion really. the democrats are not pro-women.

society, infertility. it leads to a bunch of symptoms and suicides. that is not being pro-women. that is being against women. that is my comment. host: let's go to robert from key largo, florida. he opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to say to people that are voting for this -- these republicans today have got to remember what george bush did this country. suffer forave to allowing the republicans to do the damage that they have been doing. i feel sorry for those people that don't realize that god is watching them. to allowe so terrible

a person like this to keep going on. just think of mussolini and hitler. that is all you need to do. i'm sorry for the world. i'm sorry for everything. have a nice day. host: valerie from florida. she supports the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. i do support judge kavanaugh. the democrats are sitting a very dangerous precedent. when you have any male think use of any sexual crime, it is automatic according to liberals that anyone accused is automatically guilty because a female is accusing. what happened with the judge was a circus. there was no corroborating

evidence. the accuser did not have any credible witnesses. her testimony was not even credible. there were too many inconsistencies in her testimony. i have a legal background. there were way too many inconsistencies. automatically e deeming him guilty. and also feinstein definitely needs to be investigated. why did she hold that letter until july? there could've been an fbi investigation. i want an investigation into that. i want an investigation into the -- sorry,at basically that were attending the hearing with her. white her lawyers basically say she could not fly but she testified she could fly?

there is a lot going on for this case. we are setting a dangerous precedent when an accuser can make an accusation without any corroborating evidence or witnesses. i support the judge. host: maria from north carolina. maria is not sure on the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i think you are just marvelous in moderating this painful subject. i am not sure whether for the good of our country kavanaugh will serve our interests as he -- on thetherefore other side, i'm not sure if true colors were shown and the partisanship will continue to separate our very pained, separated country.

--crazy dream is whether he this vote happens or not, that he could perhaps, like gerald ford, for the good of the talkry, let us heal and without it being a super bowl of who is going to win and who is not. i am so grateful for c-span. i am just praying the judge actually has the power right now. if he were to recuse himself and stay on the federal bench, what an opportunity for discussion that might be ahead. thank you. host: chris murphy of connecticut came out to the floor yesterday and talked about how the senate has handled this nomination. here is what he had to say. [video] >> i have heard my republican colleagues ad nauseam treat this selection as if we are a court

of law. sitting inndant front of us whose freedom is going to be taken away if he doesn't get a positive vote for confirmation. why do i say that? over and over i for this idea that brett kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. that there is a presumption of innocence with respect to the claims that surround him. those are not traditionally terms used with respect to the choices we make over nominees to the judicial branch or to the executive branch. those are terms used in court of law. the presumption of innocence is given to a defendant. the high burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is

placed on the prosecutor because the state, in a criminal trial takes in a criminal trial -- different from becoming the standard is set high because the consequence to that defendant is his liberty being taken away from him. or her. that is not the case for brett kavanaugh, or any other name sent to this body for confirmation. not tot kavanaugh was receive a confirmation vote for the supreme court, he would go right back to the appellate court with a nice job and a nice salary. theyth many other nominees don't get a confirmation vote from this body. their liberty is not taken away.

that is why it is nonsensical to suggest the standard we apply here to a nominee is similar to that of a criminal court. we are keeping an eye on thesenate floor and senators talking about the nomination of brett kavanaugh. wellan keep an eye on as on c-span two. this tweet reminds us the senate has been in session since friday and nine: 30 debating the kavanaugh nomination. senators on both parties are speaking throughout the night and are still speaking today. the confirmation for kavanaugh for supreme court associate justice is still set for four: 52 later today. we are keeping an i on what is going on outside the capital as

for andrs gathered both against judge kavanaugh's confirmation. simon is calling from fort lauderdale, florida. he is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. from everything i am the rapet seems to me allegation or molestation is a makeup story. man withd come at this anything that would derail him. the mee democrats chose you wouldnt, i feel, cave then. they didn't cave in on the republican side, because if they did it with the bad for the country. na from alexandria, virginia opposes the kavanaugh nomination.

caller: good morning, c-span. tried to the lord intervene three times. the first time when george firstugh was lying in the hearing. the second time was when dr. ford came forward. the third time was when he threatened my democratic senators with all out disrespect. furthermore, if he gets on the supreme court i want ruth bader ,insburg to have a food taster i want them to increase her security detail. this man is dangerous. , we have say, ladies to start telling. as soon as something like this happens, get some dna under your fingernails. that's all you have to take to

the police. scratch them and take it to the police. i am there for you, sisters. thank you for taking my call. supports the kavanaugh nomination. you have like your tie on before i begin. yes, i support the kavanaugh nomination. if we go back to the beginning, people talked about his temperament. questioned him, they were horrible. demeanor.s he held his temperament very well. , an ruth bader ginsburg liberal, thought what the democrats did in the first session was wrong. she was on tv and said it is just wrong. not lied and perjured.

most has come out supporting what he had to say. secondly, i would like to say so many people say because of this we want to go back to balance and check, we need to vote for democrats. everyone has to vote for who they choose. think of all the good things president trump has done they do not know about. he doesn't take pay full stymies working for getting reform for prisoners. he is working for getting education and internship for people to get good jobs without going to college. protesters, of the they have a right to protest, but ro used to be more peaceful. all thesee me too and women screaming and blocking the halls are doing more harm to the women's movement.

i am 69 years old. i was known as a feminist and all for women's rights. i think what they are doing now is hurting women's rights's i have heard so many comments for that that were for women weren't. the only good thing about the circus is many women have come forward that have had these horrible things happen to them. that is the good thing. brett kavanaugh did not cross them. it is like he is being tried for every crime ever committed. we may be need to do more, whether it is for laws for people reporting and letting women know they can come forward, but it has to be the truth. open line you had an and asked how many men had been unjustly accused, you might be

surprised. it is not as many as women that have been abused, but you would be surprised. we need to hear women, but sometimes maybe read -- maybe we need to do checking before we believe them. host: senator collins talk to the senate before the brett kavanaugh nomination. here's what senator mcconnell had to say. [video clip] mcconnell: the senate has the opportunity to advance his nomination. each of us will go on the record with one of the most consequential votes you ever cast in the senate. the stakes are always high for a supreme court nomination. colleagues, the extraordinary events of recent weeks have raised them higher this time. morning,ote later this we will not only be deciding whether to elevate a stunningly

well-qualified judge to our not anymore, not after all of this. the united states senate will also be making a statement. state of partisan politics can override the assumption of innocence, or reaffirm that in the united states of america everyone is innocent until proven guilty. andither state that facts evidence can be brushed aside when politically inconvenient and signal that media bullying validb intimidation are tactics for shaping a senate, the mob can attack and the we can stand up and say that serious, thoughtful , deliberation will still define

this body. host: calling from charleston, west virginia. linda opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. i oppose judge kavanaugh on the basis of his drinking beer. beere known a lot of drinkers. some of them are already dead. i am retired. i've seen this through my father and personal friends. beer changes your personality over time. all alcohol does, but it leads to one thing or another. the expression on kavanaugh's wife was of dismay and fearfulness that this was going to come out and his real personality. it changes the way you handle things. you can see the way his temperament was, the way he

handled this hearing at times. alcohol that changes a person. this man should not be a lifetime appointee on such a high position with this past. thank you. host: we have a schedule tweeted longtime reporter for fox that covers capitol hill. he says the kavanaugh nomination vote will be expected to start between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. debated through the night with 30 hours of were expectedime to trigger a confirmation vote at 4:42 p.m. today. instead, between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m.

you can watch what is going on right senate on c-span now. you can see what is going on. andill keep an eye on that what is going on outside the senate chamber where protesters are gathering as we get closer to the confirmation vote. let's go to gary who is calling from pennsylvania. gary supports the kavanaugh nomination. caller: i support the kavanaugh nomination and will vote for the senator here that is running depending on how he votes for kavanaugh. i urge the people in new york, missouri, and especially hawaii -- i know it is early, but especially the people in hawaii -- to do the same thing. murphy was talking about how he is not being deprived of his he is being deprived of

his job. the majority leader made the attacks,t the crowd the senateacks, and caves. what happens when they are considering some think where he is being deprived of his senate or his life by the law? if we accuse people by what people feel instead of what they where do you go? people can feel any they say they feel. there is no perjury about how you say you feel. maybe that is why they are being so -- it goes way beyond polite -- to this accuser. apply thisyone to same test to the senators up for election that i will apply to the one in pennsylvania. thank you. calling from hampton,

virginia. donna supports judge kavanaugh's confirmation. caller: i am a lifelong independent. i was a democrat, but changed when i grew up and got my own thinking from not what my parents wanted me to think. i have raised three boys and two girls on my own. i was widowed very young. i am so upset about what has happened. sonsreally worried for my especially. today, any woman can say anything about any man, including you as a host could have a guest that didn't like what you said to her and leave the show and say you made an attack at her, or whatever. i feel sorry for men. my daughters would never join

the me too movement, which has caused probably the majority of problems. i'm so happy to see kavanaugh is going to be nominated, and i think there should be an investigation into dianne feinstein. i think she is stressed out. she is looking for anything to help her out. i think all she has done, and done,mocratic party has is turn november into a red wave . they brought it on themselves. i appreciate this show. i watched every morning since its inception. i love all you guys. it is probably the best show to watch. thank you. will talk to mike sheppard from "the bangor daily

news." he is a political reporter and we'll talk about how this will affect susan collins in maine. good morning. confirm -- toote judge kavanaugh to the supreme court affect senator collins in maine? caller: that is a difficult question to answer. votese seen 2 landmark from senator collins. one was yesterday, and one was to vote against her party to block 2 bids to appeal the affordable care act. she frustrated and a lot of conservatives with that one. i think she gave democrats something to as they make their case against her in 2020. i still think she is typical to unseat, but she will face as she wakes up a much heavier

challenge than she was a week ago. question came up earlier. do we know if senator collins will run for reelection or not in 2020? caller: we don't. she has not said. she recently said she would make that decision next year. -- only one other person i believe has served for 30 years in the senate for maine. what is it like on the ground? are we seeing protesters for and against kavanaugh around susan collins' office in maine, or mostly in washington? caller: there has been a lot of focus on the ones in washington. in maine there have been largely anti-kavanaugh protests outside her office. the republican effort has been

more person-to-person. we are seeing more today, and i think we will continue to see this as long as it is in the national conversation. host: will senator collins' vote herjudge kavanaugh help with any possible conservative , orary opponent in maine does she have the republican nomination locked down? thatr: i mentioned earlier she made a a lot of conservatives upset with her vote to preserve the affordable care act. this certainly helps her on the right. it gives her something to bring back to the conservative base. it certainly temps down any conservative primary challenger in 2020.

she has had support from the succumbing to the pressure others have come to in primary challenges and the like. she helps yourself with her constituency, but we will see if the democrats can keep up the pressure and bring something to their base as well. who will be her democratic? is there one name that people are coalescing around, or is it up in the air? caller: it was crazy yesterday. ambassador, she tweeted and walked back in a subsequent tweet that she was in the running. richards, the former leader of planned parenthood, she was floated out there by some. maine is not a great place for

.omeone to run in house speaker sarah gideon, a well-known democrat here, she was the only one yesterday to confirm she was interested in running. i think it is too early to tell. -- for a lot of people, 2018 is a test run. host: we were talking to another guest about fundraising going on in maine around susan collins' seat, she hasn't done as much as some of her her opponents have done. not opponents, but liberals have mane around the kavanaugh nomination. what is the money looking like in this race? mitch mcconnell on the laura ingraham show on fox saying collins would be well-funded and 20 if she

decides to run. i think the money being raised is approaching $3 million in the crowd funding effort alone. others reported last night national groups, think tanks, can raise $4 million fine anti-collins effort. that willallenge if materialize, but there is momentum on the fundraising and. fundraising end. she has been a good fundraiser, but hasn't had to raise money like other people in other states has had to. it will look like a regular political campaign, but it is also 2 years away. the kavanaugh nomination affect susan collin'' future? will this be her defining moment? is a defining moment,

it could be. like i said before, it makes her next race more of a fight than ince shehad to have s was elected. it makes this look more like a normal race. for calling in and telling us how this affects susan collins. we will go back to your call. bronx, new york. he supports judge kavanaugh. caller: i wanted to reiterate to you that the democrats are rule. about the they did the filibuster for gorsuch. and he willrong

only have to have 51 votes to be approved. have a scorched earth policy. they don't care about the country. it is all about party. it is to bring down trump. they hate trump. a lot of rich people, like bloomberg, they put down $100 million each to bring down trump . they already failed on kavanaugh. trump election runs, promised he could possibly have three-judge nominations. he has delivered it. democrats have nothing, and they of themselves.

thank you. host: good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. too.a me i have family and friends that are also. people -- hello? host: we can hear you. youer: people that think have to have evidence or be able to show something has happened to you when it has been a , collinse situation and mitch mcconnell, jeff flake, even our senator in tennessee, needs to wake up. approve of his

ford, the way he screamed and was so disrespectful and threatening what goes around comes around. that is not somebody we want on our courts. there have been at least 3000 statinghat have signed they didn't think he should be in the supreme court, lawyers and professors. i mean, and judges and stuff. that has to mean something. we have never had people like that they don't even

believe he needs to be there. state,tennessee is a red blue statebecome a real quick. , and i amy upset hoping and praying today that god touches people's hearts and let's them vote the way they need to vote. that is all i've got to say. senator collins came to the floor to talk about sexual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh. [video clip] this is not a criminal trial. i do not believe claims such as these need to be proved beyond a

reasonable doubt. nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. cts presented does not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude the thegations failed to meet more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe preventarges can fairly judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. that mymphasize approach to this question should

not be misconstrued as suggesting unwanted sexual not at of any nature is serious problem in this country. to the contrary. if any good at all has come from ,his ugly confirmation process it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem. i have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who that unless judge kavanaugh's nomination is rejected the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. can watch in mind you what is going on on the senate

floor live on c-span two as they talk about the confirmation vote later today for judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. we are keeping an eye on the growing number of protesters outside the supreme court and the capitol. let's go to your calls. marietta, georgia. they support judge kavanaugh. . you it when i first saw of south america. that is what you resemble when i see you. i support his nomination. he has been treated like dark men and women in this country.

black men are always treated as guilty. like women are treated as the angry black woman. is notough people say it a criminal proceeding, it does have repercussions of a criminal isceeding when an allegation made and your reputation is destroyed. you can't fix that. right.every he had been serving as a judge for 12 years. there was never anything about his judiciary temperament. the reason why is probably because of the allegations made against him. about -- i can't remember her name -- she was getting desperate, so was he and his family. the whole thing about a woman making an allegation is to be believed, should not be correct.

no one should have that right. you should be able to prove what you say. when there is a case of a man and woman in this situation, it is imperative women tell someone , get it on the record. a he said, shebe said. that does not negate an allegation does not mean proof. you need to prove it. he had every right to be upset. i know i would be upset. i have a son. if someone accused him of something and by the nature of that he up for himself would be against women, that is not fair. belinda opposes judge kavanaugh. thank you for taking my call. everybody has good points that i

am hearing from the callers. regardless ofk your political views, what ever side you support, i still have to say outside of this thing with ford and your political to what ishappened supposed to be the ultimate display and representation of a judicial temperament and impartial integrity? . scratch my head sometimes i don't understand why we couldn't perhaps find someone else in this case just for the thee of calming down heat of division in this country. there are a lot of qualified candidates. it might have been wise to say

for the sake of this country and the outcry that may be we should look into someone else's credentials and select somebody else. it almost seems like we have gotten to the point where we are so divided it is about winning at all costs. i think, regardless of political views, kavanaugh had time to think and write out a written .tatement that he presented he was very sincere about him saying a lot of this stems from conspiracy. the thing about conspiracy and the democrats, anger because trump was voted in, what goes around comes around, and this is revenge for hillary clinton -- i think right away, regardless of

your political views, as someone who is supposed to display the ultimate display of a judicial temperament am you have to be able to take the punches and retain your temperament. those opening statements should disqualify him regardless of what the case is presented to him. drinking,ground, beer whatever it is, his presentation believe a cloud with many , aboutns, including me wondering how much of this will be carried into the supreme court, which is a lifetime. we are not just talking about people voting right now for political views, but how this will affect your children and grandchildren. a lot of the senators have

served their time. for crying out loud, they are in their 80's. time to go. if you live another 5-10 years the decisions you make today won't affect you after you are no longer serving, whether you leave office or pass on. there is a lot of disconnection and people that are out of touch. we need to look at the ultimate display of integrity and impartiality. the opening angry statement of his is something we need to pay attention to, regardless of your things wered and if done properly or not. that display disqualifies him alone. from youngstown, ohio. sandy supports judge kavanaugh.

good morning. caller: yes. the woman before this woman, the agree with, i everything she said. you can't just accuse someone. she had no proof. she couldn't remember how she got there before she drank. she scrubbed her social media before this. found a pagewas where she wrote that she drank until she passed out. this woman is talking about his temperament. if someoneu be upset was trying to call you all the things that came out on him? .rapist if you didn't do that, how would you feel? if someone said that about you and had no proof, how would you

feel? conspiracy theories, every democrat has said, as soon as , resist, inaugurated resist, mph, mph -- resist, resist, impeach, impeach. they even said a want to stop anybody he put on the court, it anybody. that is not a conspiracy. there was a video i was watching last night of protesters being told what to say by a man. we know the majority of these protesters are paid by george soros, who used to be a member of the hillary youth. there is another video -- of the hitler youth. there is another video of obama

who said that he drank a sixpack in one hour and then went back to college, and did illegal drugs. -- he has been accused. how would you like to be going for the best job in the world and someone brings these accusations against you? it is just a job. no, it is not. host: calling from brooklyn, new york. opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. when he was first brought up for nomination, i kept my eyes open. when this came out i did not judge until he stated he was a said he couldn't do this when no one was accusing him of rape. he chose certain words to avert

stating whether or not he did this. then he turns around and goes on and threatens the democrats, brings up hillary clinton. as democrats, we don't care no more about hillary. stated, previous caller he is going to be ruling on cases. this, he isover all as a to set as -- sit judge voting on our health care, infrastructure issues, whether .r not the states have to file we need to figure out if this

-- i am a conservative. in a conservative way. he stated he feels the president should not have to deal with any criminal issue while he is in office. say anything, she is not above the law. he is not above the law. his view is something different. i don't like says the way he was treated, your next comment needs to be if you think he will be fair. if you can threaten the democrats and say, what is the case that comes before him that may affect children's school?

he will protect himself. that is what he is used to. host: kamala harris of on thenia talked about senate floor for she believes her same buzzy ford's testimony will mean. [video clip] >> i believe this is a reflection moment on sexual assault. everyoneis is a moment should agree no one should silently suffer. let's talk about this. seconds that every 98 in united states of america someone is sexually assaulted. let's talk about the fact that are notexual assaults reported to the police. let's talk about the fact that sense dr. ford had the courage of the biggeste

organizations that addresses sexual assault had a 138% increase in calls they received from survivors of these cases. support judge kavanaugh, good morning. changed my mind today. i was against him. i was listening to the program. ruled in a consensus matter, just like obama's appointee that never got the time of day that was a consensus builder. i appreciate senator flake's ideas. he is nonpolitical, he is not running. i appreciate his morality. i appreciate what senator collins had to say.

trump. like president i don't understand why he was elected president. however, he was and gets to nominate. i am pro-choice, but trump was elected president. this is the rules of the game. you have to follow the rules. the abortion issue is not why i was against kavanaugh. i think ford was very credible. you have to follow the rules. because of the consensus building, what flake said, senator collins, i changed my mind. notnot afraid because i am voting for democrats, republicans, pro-choice, i believe god is in control. i am not afraid. an eye onre keeping outside the u.s. capitol as protesters gather in support and against the final confirmation

vote for judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. we are keeping and i on what is going on inside the u.s. capitol on the senate floor. you can too if you turn to will broadcastwe live the conversations on the senate floor on the confirmation vote for judge kavanaugh, which should happen later this afternoon. missouri is not sure on the kavanaugh nomination. though anfeel as old-time cartoon of uncle sam from world war ii where he is standing there with his mouth 's headd brett kavanaugh withing rammed down it donald trump holding one leg and mitch mcconnell the other. i had the previous caller say something to the effect that she heard susan collins.

i am a c-span junkie. i would encourage her to look at the speeches last evening from , from severale other senators, independent senator angus king. i think she will reconsider what she has to say. i don't believe we got a fair hearing whatsoever. of bothtrump spoke out sides of his mouth in terms of the fbi investigation. i think kavanaugh lied during the investigation. as far as him being on a current court, we have been denied access to documentation that would have shown that he lied in 2010. we have been given 7% of the documentation of when he was in

the white house. a lifetime nomination deserves better than someone who lies. john paul stevens, the retired supreme court judge, said he no longer supports judge kavanaugh. the american bar association says they don't endorse him. 2400 of their lawyers signed letters about why they don't endorse him. there are reasons people said these things. i don't believe he will be impartial. i don't think he will ride out overturn things, instead he will gut them. it is important for our next gets aions since he lifetime appointment. i he is appointed i decided will give a lifetime of not

voting for people like mitch is anell, who i think absolute disaster in this entire thing. i want to thank c-span for everything they do and ask people to please look at the speeches of some of the other youtors, because they give their good reasons why this man is -- from let's go to karen oklahoma. karen supports judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning, everybody. the lady a few calls ahead said because of his temperament. because he had trumped up that shouldnst him disqualify him. i wonder if that same lady voted for bill clinton when he had .een proven to have raped women

, innted to say something dianne feinstein's speech she was talking about how judge kavanaugh ruled against making illegal some of our guns. they call them assault weapons or military-grade weapons, that thank goodness our military guys aren't over there with because they would be blown up. he didn't want to make them illegal because too many people have them. she didn't say how would they take them away if they made them illegal? how would you go against law-abiding people of that own these guns? how would you take them from all of the legal gun owners? if you can tell me that sotomayor and kagan are not

political one way or the other i might believe it about kavanaugh, but they are certainly up there politically. i think all of the charges made against kavanaugh have been proven to not be true. in 2012 she said she thought kavanaugh would come to get her. , it was 2008. up she had a side entrance for her interns to come in. they weren't good enough for the front door, so she made them their same door. i'm sorry the lady before me is so worried. you don't have to be so worried, i promise you. to all of the callers. we will turn now to the issue of affordable housing. hawaii office of planning director leo asuncion

calling on skype to talk about the issue. good morning. what do you define as affordable housing in the united states? hawaii, there is always by the numbers. we can use the area median for a, but it is also person to say what is affordable? hawaiiyour mortgage and -- 30% of your mortgage? in hawaii it is 40%-60% of your income towards your mortgage and transportation. we stick to the high numbers, but look at how we do it locally in what is affordable for our

residents. especially for us with a high cost of living. host: what is hawaii doing to help people find affordable housing? is the state doing anything out of the ordinary to make sure people have a place to live? caller: the state is trying to partner with our private developers in the state. basically it is through the financing. a 10,000 unitat 2020.y then we have other studies that have been done where demand is upward of 66,000, of which 22,500 would be affordable rentals. my office completed a study on how we would get there, at least for the rental part. that goal is 2026 have 22,500

affordable rental units completed for residents. we are looking at targeting the middle gap area where 60% to .0% of area mediancompleted fore that is a nationwide problem as well. host: is the problem of affordable housing worse in hawaii than the mainland united states? compare and contrast for us. caller: i think it is. we have a limited amount of land. none of the islands are connected in any way except by air. you could take a boat. it takes a couple of days to traverse the pacific to another island. mosty, you take oahu, our

dense island, we have one million people here and 640 square miles. ourto 50% of it is conservation area, foothills to the mountains. then we have other factors we are looking at, sea level rise, climate change and what that will bring in where we can develop. we have quite a bit of urban la nd, we probably need a little more. if we change the densities in our current urban land, the projection -- i was talking about the 22,500 affordable rental units -- the projection and theill be on oahu rest spread throughout the islands. we have unique challenges.

we just don't have the space to build, but we do have different opportunities. we have a real system coming in. we're looking at development as a way to bring affordable housing as well. that is a few years off. we are doing the planning for it now. lands alonge-owned rridor,nsit rail co seeing what we can do on our state lands partnering with the developers. host: has affordable housing always been a problem in hawaii, or something that has come up in recent years? when i firstember started my career in planning almost 30 years ago. i remember one of the first meetings was talking about affordable housing. it has been a perennial problem

probably since statehood, 1959. there were boom years are we got a letter projects done. over the past 10-15 years, production has slowed down. process, wed to our are trying to streamline those to a minimum. is communities will seek to file suit against into more of ats court setting that you have to go through before you can proceed. we are trying to look through different barriers. we do have an effort that says these are the

, let's talk about it. over the past two years of effort we have made great strides in getting affordable housing production going. host: how do you describe fair market rent, and how does that impact affordable housing in hawaii? caller: fair market rent is something that is sensitive and hawaii given that we have limited land. usually, landowners are not developers as well. you are adding another piece. if you take out the developer side, the profitability of a project. we try to look at fair market rent, but really it is supply and demand. if we do not provide the supply, the demand will keep growing.

thus rents will go up as well. we have a limited amount of land block thatng, a city becomes a couple of high-rises for affordable housing, that for square footage, even construction and rent tends to increase. . host: i heard you use the term ll, can you tell us what that is? caller: we have a lot of areas, especially on honolulu, they used to be plantation towns. almost metropolitan, but then there is old stock, like an old building.

right across the street from my office there is a 12-story used to be office building that a developer just got her permit to renovate that into affordable rent homes. newically, right next to a condo that used to be a parking lot that goes above 25 stories. opened,es, when they because they were not required to do affordable, private capital did it, they are upwards of $800,000. you have pockets of land, parcels, and buildings, and even vacant land that used to have something on it that the use terminated 10 years ago and is vacant land. we're looking at these types of properties to see if we can do urban infill.

host: how much does the state of hawaii work with the federal government on the affordable housing issue? caller: we work mainly for our public housing, which is defined roughly of 0% to 32% of area median income. include theto homeless as well, those who are 0% median income. that is our main conduit. we also work with different federal grants, housing grants. that would be through our state housing and finance development corporation. we work with them trying to make sure there is enough funding that is pipelined that comes to the state. then we distribute that to our counties, who also work with hud

and federal agencies to ensure they can do their part in achieving affordable housing goals. host: you brought homeless into this. how often does the lack of affordable housing lead to homelessness, and help -- and how big of a problem of that -- of a problem is that in hawaii? caller: we had a serious homeless problem. they were camping out in the gypsys, sort of like homelessness. when the police came in, they just moved to another public site. we have put emphasis on transitional shelters. , alsoty club of honolulu

looking for lowrise apartments purchasing them and making them into transitional shelters and apartments for the homeless. of work ine a lot the philanthropy world. philanthropists in hawaii took it upon themselves. he saw vacant land on the outskirts of an industrial area that had the components, public transit. get a little village community. to do the next phase. the first phase, my understanding, is he did it with sweat equity and volunteers. the total cost was about $20 million to do the village. there are different efforts.

through those different types of efforts, we have to be able to -- like last year was the first year we saw a homelessness. we focused first on the families that are homeless, get them into shelters, transition them to affordable housing. of course, you have those that are impacted by drugs and the like and are homeless. we have different programs trying to go other ways working with service providers in honolulu and statewide, to try -- et to these folks host: thank you for coming.