sotomayor. president obama nominated sotomayor because he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his, which is applied to the law and constitutional principles was be ready to adopt them to a modern context. so president obama nominated sotomayor because he wanted someone whose philosophy of judging was his. i expect that to happen, the donald trump is president in 2020, he will be our next president. if it's somebody else, i expect that to happen. to my colleagues on the other side, what do you really expect? you should celebrate, even though you don't vote for him. i don't know why you wouldn't, the quality of the man chosen by president obama. kagan and sotomayor came from

the progressive wing of the judging world and of legal thought. they are absolutely highly qualified, good, decent people. and they got see if i can find the vote totals, miss kagan got 63 votes and sotomayor got 68. it is going to bother me that you don't get those numbers but what bothers me they should have gotten 90, 95. anthony kennedy got 97. anthony scalia got 98. ruth bader ginsburg got 96. so what's happened? between then and now, advise and consent has taken on a different meaning. it used to be the understanding of this body that elections have consequences and you would expect the president who won

the election to pick somebody of their philosophy. i promise you when strom thurmond voted for ginsburg he didn't agree with her philosophy and i don't think senator lee agreed with justice scale leah. senator lee has voted for a lot of republicans. i have voted for everyone presented since i've been here because i find them to be highly qualified coming from backgrounds i would expect the president in question to choose from. so as to your qualifications, how long have you been a judge? >> i've been a judge for 12 years. >> how many opinions have you written? >> i have written over 300 opinions. >> okay. do you think there is a lot we can learn from those opinions if we spent time looking at them? >> yes. i am very proud of my opinions and as i mentioned, i tell people don't just read about

the opinions, read the opinions. i'm very proud of them. >> you were nominated by president trump on july 9th. my birthday, which i thought was a pretty good birthday president for somebody thinks like i do, at 9:00. by 9:23 chuck schumer says i will oppose judge kavanaugh. by 9:25 senator harris, trump supreme court justice nominee judge kavanaugh represents a fundamental threat to the hundreds of millions of americans. i will oppose his nomination. 9:55, elizabeth warren, bret kavanaugh's record is clear hostile to healthcare for millions, opposed, thinks president trump is above the law. on and on and on. nancy pelosi at 10:11. bernie sanders at 10:18.

if bret kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court it will have a negative effect on workers rights, women's rights and voting rights for the decades to come. all i can say within an hour and 18 minutes of your nomination, you became the biggest threat to democracy in the eyes of some of the most partisan people in the country who would hold kagan and sotomayor up as highly qualified and would challenge any republican to dare vote against them. we live in unusual times, as i do. you should get more than 90 votes, but you won't. and i am sorry it has gotten to where it has. it has nothing to do about you. if you don't mind and you don't have to, what did you tell your children yesterday about the hearing?

>> they did as they -- i'll tell them what they told me. they gave me a big hug and said good job, daddy. margaret before she went to bed made a special trip down and said, gave me a special hug. >> i just wish if we could have a hearing where the nominee's kids could show up, is that asking too much? what kind of country have we become? none of this happened just a couple years ago. it's getting worse and worse and worse and all of us have an obligation to try to correct it where we can. roe versus wade, are you familiar with the case? >> i am, senator. [laughter] >> can you in 30 seconds give me the general holding of roe versus wade?

>> as elaborated upon in planned parenthood versus casey a woman has a constitutional right as interpr*eted by the supreme court to obtain an abortion up to the point of viability subject to reasonable regulations by the state so long as those reasonable regulations do not constitute an undue burden on the wom's right. >> as to how the system works can you sit down with you and four other judges and overrule roe versus wade just because you want to? >> senator, roe versus wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> don't you have to have a case? what are you doing for lunch? let's overrule roe versus wade. it doesn't work that way. >> i see what you are asking, senator, right. the way cases come up to us in that context or another context would be -- >> can i give you an example to do it quicker? >> yes. >> some state somewhere or some town somewhere passes a law

that runs into the face of roe. somebody will object, they'll go to lower courts and eventually it might come up to the supreme court challenging the foundations roe versus wade. it would take some legislative enactment for that to happen, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> if there was such an action by a state or local government challenging roe and it came before the supreme court, would you listen to both sides? >> i listen to both sides in every case, senator, i have for 12 years, yes. >> when it comes to overruling a longstanding precedent of the court is there a formula that you use? >> first of all, you start with the notion of precedent and as i've said to senator feinstein in this context, this is a precedent that has been reaffirmed many times over 45 years including in planned parent hood versus casey where they considered whether to overrule and reaffirm and applied all the factors that

importantly became precedent on precedent in this context. but you look at there are factors you look at whenever you are considering any precedent. >> so there is a process in place that the court has followed for a very long time, is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> citizens united, if somebody said citizens united has been harmful to the country and made a record that the effects of citizen united has empowered 20 or 30 people in the country to run all the elections in some state or locality somewhere passed a ban on soft money and it got to the court, would you at least listen to the argument that citizens united needs to be revisited? >> of course i listen to all arguments. you have an open mind. you get the briefs and arguments and some arguments are better than others. precedent is critically important. it's the foundation of our

system but you listen to all arguments. >> okay. where were you on september 11, 2001? >> i was in -- initially i was in my office in the eob and after the first as i recall the first building was hit i was in the counsel's office on the second floor of the west wing for the next few minutes, then we were all told to go down to the bottom of the west wing and then we were all evacuated and i think the thought was flight 93 might have been heading for the white house and might be heading here, and secret service, we were being hustled out and then kind of panic started screaming at us, sprint, run. and we sprinted out. my wife was a few steps ahead of me. she was president bush's

personal aide at the time and we sprinted out. she was wearing a black and white checked shirt i remember and we sprinted out the front gate kind of into lafayette park and no iphones or anything like that, blackberries at that point in time. we didn't have that and cell phones didn't work so we were just kind of out there and then i remember somehow ending up seeing on tv down more on connecticut avenue there were tvs out. i was with sarah taylor who worked at the white house and we were watching as the -- standing with her when the two buildings -- when the buildings fell. >> so when somebody says post 9/11, that we've been at war and it's called the war an terrorism, you generally agree with that concept? >> i do, senator, because congress passed the authorization for use of military force which is still in effect.

that was passed, of course, on september 14th, 2001, three days later. >> let's talk about the law and war. is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? >> there is such a body. >> is there a body of law called basic criminal law? >> yes is. >> are there differences? >> yes, sir. >> do you recall constitutional rights follow you? if you're in paris does the fourth amount protect you from your own government? >> from your own government, yes. >> if you're in afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? >> if you're an american in afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the u.s. government. >> is there a longstanding -- >> that's long settled law. >> isn't there also a long settled law that goes back to

johnson versus ice en traiger that american citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants. >> they >> if they can be. >> let's talk about "can be." there is a supreme court decision that says, those that collaborated with saboteurs were executed. >> yes. >> so if anybody doubts there's a long-standing history in this country, that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don't have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. you will be treated differently. what's the name of the case, if you can recall that reaffirm the concept that you could hold one

of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged with terrorist activities? >> yes. >> we do not have a constitutional right to can collaborate with the enemy. there is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law firm conflict. >> i do understand that they are different bodies of law, of course. >> if you are confirmed, and i believe you will be, what is your hope when all of this is said and done, and your time is up, how would you like to be remembered? >> a good dad, a good judge.

>> a good husband. >> i think he is getting there. >> a good husband. >> thanks diane, you helped him a lot. it will be better for you tonight. [laughter] >> i owe you. a good son, i will quickly add up. good friend. i think about the pillars of my life, which are being a judge of course. and being a teacher. either way this ends up, i will continue teaching. coaching, as i mentioned is a huge part of my life and i will try to continue that. senator kennedy advised me when we met, make sure you keep coaching. volunteering, being a dad and a

son, a husband and a friend. i talked about my friends yesterday, i got a little choked up talking about my friends. >> that was well said it, you have to tighten it up because i just ran out of time. >> we are about ready to break for lunch on the vote that we have, and it will be 30 minutes. but before i do that, i have letters that senator feinstein asked me to put in the record from -- 70 letters from people in opposition to her nomination. and we also have letters in support of judge kavanaugh from hundreds of those who support his confirmation without objection and those will also be entered in the record. and then i wanted to explain that the exchange of that i had with senator leahy, just so people don't think that that is

something that i did on my own. we had previously sent out a letter and only senator klobuchar at that point had taken advantage of the letter to ask for documents that were committee confidential so they could use them at the hearing. the only thing i have done for senator lahey that wasn't already in that letter was to remind people that we did the same thing for the judge or noo the supreme court. so the only courtesy was extended to senator leahy for the fact that he did make the request by the time line in the letter which i think was august 25th. we will adjourn 30 minutes for a lunch break, and i think that we will be back here exactly in

30 minutes. if not, judge kavanaugh will let your staff know if it's going to be a little later because you never know what happens in the united states senate when you have a vote. >> judge brett kavanaugh fielding questions for the first time in the senate judiciary committee hearing as he heads out for lunch. taking some tough questions from democrats on guns, abortion, executive power, saying in his answer is that no one is above the law. pointing to what he said were for supreme court moments that were key, view. establishing the principle of judicial review, young stone steel which was against president truman, brown versus board of education, which is of course about racial segregation in public's facilities, and u.s. versus nixon, he cited

concluding that the president nixon had to produce subpoenaed recordings and documents. really interesting to see his answer specifically on some of the charges that he knew were coming at him. >> and that was one of the most newsy moments that we saw so far this morning because he was pressed on what he thought about u.s. versus nixon. there had been an article that had been written, and i think most of us saw that in the course of getting ready for all of this, which suggested that he did not agree with that decision. and he had some skepticism about whether or not president nixon was constitutionally compelled to turn over the tapes, which of course is the seminal moment in the investigation. he made it clear today that he believed that was a constitutional decision and in that case president nixon had to comply with the subpoena to turn over those tapes. obviously that is a direct sort of appeal to where he would stand on any subpoena of

president trump and a similar situation, but when asked about that, he said that he couldn't apply when it happened before to any situation that might come before the court then. brit hume has joined us again this morning. your thoughts on that and how he handled this morning in general? >> i think in some, his answers today marked him as very much a judge in the mainstream. any hope his opponents have of stopping him would come to an effort to portray him as an exotic, radical, far right, or whatever. the cases he chose, and he obviously thought them through ahead of time, and has other answers marked him i think as a very careful judge. his temperament is of the kind that you would want coming from a judge. fair-minded and open-minded and all the rest of it. i think he advanced his cause. i don't think any of the lines of questioning did him any harm whatsoever and it gives you an

idea of why democrats seem so frustrated about him because he is pretty hard to touch up. >> a.b. stoddard, juan williams, and questioning from senator leahy, the democrat from vermont, we kind of went into the weeds there, a rabbit hole, for a lot of time about a specific email. it sounded that senator leahy wanted that released as part of that committee confidential record. >> there is an incident at the end of 2003, a former republican staffer who was involved in working on judicial nominations licking emails, and brett kavanaugh had to answer that he had received one. i don't really know where the senator was going with this but, brett kavanaugh as brett said was very smooth in anticipation of what the key questions would be from democrats besides the email league of 2003.

he was prepared for the conversation about roe, and he was talking about what could happen if he settled law. he talks repeatedly about the important of precedent and how it constitutionally primary, and it is one of the most important parts of the law because people have to be dependent generation after generation upon precedent and not just what we all think going in and out of the court. he was prepared for the questioning from dianne feinstein on guns, so much so that she thanked him at the end for being forthcoming even though he actually wasn't about how he would decide any case. so in his presentation, he was so effective and so careful to say things like, i know how passionately people feel and i know how much of these decisions personally impact their lives. so he really made a compelling case for how much he has thought about these things, and of course he made a compelling case for president. he did not reveal whether or not

he thought the president could fight a subpoena, even though he labored over and spent a lot of time making us believe that he thought that justice burger being appointed by nixon, right writing that opinion was one of the great moments in supreme court history. a very good show but he didn't give us a lot of help. >> let's bring judge napolitano from new york. it appears, judge, that he has spent a lot of time explaining that you can be a human being and walk in and put the robe on and look at things in a way that demands that you base your decisions on careful precedent-setting cases that went before it, and to take into account only the circumstances of the case that you are looking at right now, and how those bear on them. >> and that indeed it was his goal this morning, and will be his goal this afternoon. i think senator graham made a great point. you expect a president to appoint a person with whom the

president generally agrees. barack obama, elena kagan, sonia sotomayor ora, donald trump, neil gorsuch. donald trump, brett kavanaugh. that's not newsworthy, it's not surprising. that's not even relevant. but for him to come across as a human being and take the fact that he is a conservative republican out of the equation when he addresses the legal issues before him is the case that he needed to make for himself and the case which i think he did make. now i must say i think i do believe the more difficult questions will come from the more aggressive questioners such as senator whitehouse and senator blumenthal, and senator booker later today. if this morning as an indication of how well he will hold up and continue, martha, to portray that, what in my view is a genuine view of neutrality, he will do well. we will see the fireworks, we will watch them and maybe even

enjoy them but i think he will survive them. >> dana, one of the things that we look at was really how those answers are developed. this is, as ab mentioned, emoting about people who have come before his court, making sure that they know that he knows that they are people that have a right to be heard. and ever since that work hearing, the answers have been a lot different from judicial nominees. >> yes, and that has been true republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals. and that is something that people have come to respect about supreme court nominees and those who eventually get confirmed, because they are clear that the supreme court is the final stop. that is where the decisions are made and those decisions are almost always respected. now some decisions are questioned about how they were made and whether they were done

correctly. roe v. wade is certainly comes to mind. but as judge kavanaugh said, precedent upon precedent is something he respects. as we heard yesterday, he wrote the book on precedent along with a few other judges and that is used in law school today. i also agree that the democratic senators that we saw today, senator feinstein and senator leahy, they've been on this committee for a long time. they are proud that they have been there, overseeing hearings and many of the supreme court justices are included that we have today. they are establishment. i said this morning that politico reported that the left wing of the party is telling senator schumer that you are failing us on this nomination. senator feinstein and senator leahy are very polite in tone and in style and i think that that will change this afternoon. >> let's go to juan williams

with regard to that. and, i think he's doing what's possible and i think the democrats on the panel are asking real questions. so to my mind it, there are a couple of takeaways from this morning just to that point. i don't think he answered very many questions with regard to whether the president can pardon himself or even issue pardons in exchange for people not testifying against him. he simply said is hypothetical, as much as he dealt with the abortion question, and i think you heard senator feinstein indicate that when neil gorsuch came before the court he said he was about precedent but then he went on and overturned a labor case that had been in the law

for 40 plus years. i think the real energy was in the lahey exchange were a sanity and senator leahy he used a video prompting senator senator grassley. here's the deal, if you feel that this video was taken out of context, the i was so glad that senator grassley took that moment because it did have some historical import the key here is, senator leahy he going after cavanaugh on the idea that he is a political hack. he was the guy that was involved with hanging chads, he was the guy that may have had access to stolen documents from lahey and feinstein when he was trying to help other people become supreme court justices. and as such i think they are trying to dirty him up and he said it, i'm an catholic boy that volunteers to help the

hungry, when in fact he is a dyed in the world, hard right fighter. and that's what he will be on the court. >> it's it's called the ginsberg rule because ruth bader ginsburg when she was approved at 96-3 didn't answer 70 specific questions from senators. from that point on, answering hypothetical questions about how you may rule is not done. chris wallace joins us again, your thoughts on really questioning? >> as i often do, i feel like i saw a different hearing than he did particularly on the question of abortion. i actually think there will be some pro-lifers who will be a little bit concerned by the answers of judge kavanaugh. i remember back when arlen specter was the chairman of this committee, i used to talk about precedence, super precedents and super-duper precedents. basically a super-duper

precedent is a precedent that is really based in the law and on which people rely. that's one of the ways in which they are judged and in which the world operates based on that assumption. when he talked about the kc which was a decision 20 years after roe v. wade, this is precedent upon precedent and basically reaffirming a precedent and that was giving it a lot of extra weight. and we would see judge kavanaugh sustained some limitation, rather than overturn it. in terms of lahey, i thought lahey was actually pretty effective. the point of lahey it seemed to me was like a country prosecutor and he's basically trying to say, this guy is a liar.

he says he doesn't have anything to do with enhanced interrogation and what was so effective, there was a lot of talk here about memos and did you see this and it did you see that, did you know you got stolen information, no. were you ever a part of the enhanced interrogation program, no. so he was basically going back to say, you can get little minute points there, and i want to continue on the roe v. wade at question and get shannon's thoughts on that because i thought it was also interesting that lindsey graham had him go through the definition of roe v. wade in which he brought up the line, to the point of viability, which become sort of a moving question as technology

informs this issue. shannon, what did you make of that part of the discussion? >> i thought it was also interesting that senator graham walked him through what i would take. he said it, you don't one day say, i'm going to go to lunch and then overturn roe v. wade. he talked about the laws being passed and it's not as if cavanaugh could get confirmed to the court and then six weeks from now say, let's get together and get look at roe v. wade. another big issue was his seeming evolution on this idea, whether a sitting president can be a sitting president. and that's a start report outlining the means of potential impeachment. years later, he wrote a law review article questioning whether or not you should be going after a sitting president. he said congress has other options and he was asked today

when his elevation happened. and he said it was 9/11. he said he walked into the white house on 9-12 and said president bush needed to have every bit of his focus for the next seven years on making sure it didn't happen again and said that to me was a game changer. running out of the white house on the day of 9-11, trying to get as far away from they could. it was an emotional moment, and he got emotional, also. he choked up a little bit when he said they gave him a hug and said daddy, you did a great job. in one of his daughters came back to give him a special hug. when asked how he'd like to be remembered he talked about being a good dad and a good judge and i believe it was senator feinstein who said, and husband. and he said it, oh, yes. so they're certainly the tough legal and judicial moments but there are the personal moments as well. >> yes, humanizing him as a big part of what republican

questioning was about, at least some of that. >> so as we have been watching this and will continue to watch throughout the course of the day, there is some other news going on today as well including another big hearing on capitol hill that has also been quite fiery with the social media executives from google and twitter, and a home a scare on the tarmac at one of the nation's busiest airports. we will have all of that coming up and more of the kavanaugh hearing as well as we getal underway in just a moment. stay tuned. i'm all bent out of shape. (vo tv) if you have bent fingers and can't put your hand flat, talk to your doctor. it may be dupuytren's contracture. (gary) see ya! (hand) you're all about friendly service, and you won't even shake hands? come on! (vo) your hand is talking. isn't it time you listened? learn more about dupuytren's contracture... at factsonhand.com. the information could be quite handy.

tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>> while the kavanaugh hearing has been going on, it's now their lunch break. social media executives have been testifying before the senate intelligence committee, twitter ceo jack dorsey and also facebook coo sheryl sandberg, grilled about stopping foreign interference and protecting personal information. peter doocy is live on capitol hill with more on that

and i assume they were on a lunch break, also. >> this hearing actually just wrapped up. for the most part the lawmakers this morning democratic and republican were very civil towards the ceos from facebook and twitter who showed up, but they did not extend the same courtesy to the ceo of google who will was invited and decided not to come. >> there is an empty chair from google, and they did not show up today. maybe they are arrogant, but this group, they were able to buy ads online and place them on sites like cnn and cbs this morning. >> there was a little bit of talk about the way russian

actors to interfere in the election, but more the focus here was forward. and democratic senator mark warner was pitching some new regulations on social media companies where the government would require those companies to i.d. real accounts as they compare to so-called bot accounts. >> with that go as far as actually having a policy on your platform? at least they are allowing the user to know whether that contact was initiated by him being versus a machine? >> as far as we can detect them, we can certainly label and add context to accounts that come through our api. what becomes a lot trickier is where i automation actually scripting our website to look like a human actor. >> from here on the senate side, they are heading to the house

side and thus potential bias in the way that algorithms are written. some republican rep lawmakers are obviously written that these algorithms have led to them being shadow band or had situations where their posts are minimized where their liberal colleagues posts are promoted. >> peter doocy, live on the hill. >> let's get to some other white house headlines as well. we bring in john roberts. good morning, or good afternoon i guess. >> good morning or good afternoon to you martha, whatever the case may be. we have things going on at the white house, any one of which i would have been doing breaking news coverage of, but the cavanaugh hearing is keeping things in the headlines at least for the moment. the white house is watching judge kavanaugh very closely on what i'm reading so far is that they believe he is doing a very good job. now to some of the other headlines coming out of the white house, we do know that the white house attorneys received a response to their august 6th

response to robert mueller from robert mueller, in which he offered to ask questions about russia and collision in the trunk and pain. there was no request for any questions that would go to obstruction of justice or anything that would fall under the president's article to powers under the constitution. so the response has now gone back from the president's attorneys to say we may consider answering written questions only on the russian collision, but mueller had also asked for the possibility of an in person follow up if those questions, or at least answers for those questions raised more questions that he felt they needed answers to, and that something the president's attorneys did not want to agree to barring some sort of significant obsession on mueller's part, depending on whether he gets to sit down and interview the president for an hour or so, he has to have that part of the investigation wrapped up in a week or so.

that's one big headline, the other is a continuing response from the white house to the woodward book "fear." the president weighed in saying it's already been refuted and discredited by general james mattis, secretary of defense, general chief of staff, john kelly. the quotes were made up frauds, and woodward is a operative. notice the timing. the president also denying that he ever called jeff sessions "mentally and a dumb southerner." james mattis of the contemptuous words contributed to me were never uttered by me or in my presence. press secretary sarah huckabee sanders saying this is no more than fabricated stories, many by former disgruntled employees. and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. he always knows where i stand and he and i both know the story

is total b.s. clearly, the white house has a vested interest in trying to push back against this book as hard as it can with those midterm elections looming because the portrait that is painted in woodward's new book of the president and the west wing in general is not favorable at all. i thought? >> martha: as a president said himself in that recording, this doesn't sound like it will be a good book for me. john, thank you very much. john roberts of the white house. so we are watching now they are on a break right now, and we expect they will be back shortly as we see some fireworks this afternoon. >> bret: the questioning will continue. you see that committee chairman, chuck grassley, getting into position. but there will be sometime ahead of the vote. also happening today, former senator john kyle will be sworn in as senator again from arizona. he's committed today and he is

also the sherpa who was kind of guiding this nomination through the senate. so let's take a break here and we will get back into the committee testimony and questioning after this. these digestive issues can start in the colon and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. phillips' colon health caps have this unique combination of probiotics to help replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense. also try our delicious new probiotic gummies.

we really pride ourselves on making it easy for you >> tech: at safelite autoglass, to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

>> martha: welcome back as we get underway for the afternoon portion of the brett kavanaugh hearings. we are still waiting for kamala harris and cory booker, both of those senators are in the mixed and have been very vehement in their disgruntlement about the whole thing and wanted to adjourn it yesterday. as you saw blumenthal, blumenthal is expected to be fiery this afternoon as well as we get ready to watch what happens today. >> judge kavanaugh back in position now as we get the gavel from the committee chairman. so let's head back in. >> the next person to ask questions is senator durbin. >> judge kavanaugh, thank you for being back today for facing this next round. if i had to pick an area of clear expertise, it would be the area of judicial nominations. they have been engaged at

several different levels and i would like to comment on the strategy of your own nomination. specifically, only those who are planning that strategy sat down and cleared with you their decision on the release of documents. >> no, i was not involved in the documents process or a substance. >> no one told you that you would be the first supreme court nominee to exert executive privilege to limit the access to hundreds of thousands of documents relating to your service in the white house? >> senator, there are a couple things packed into your question. i did study the nominee president at all of the hearings. this came up in justice scalia's hearings, and he was asked about

that. chief justice roberts had four years of information when he was solicitor general, that those were not disclosed either. >> so you are breaking new ground here, and, again i wasn't involved in the documents, discussions, in terms of the decisions that were made but in terms of thinking about the issues, and chief justice roberts, i guess it's all executive branch documents. >> but you realize that when it comes to the role of the national archives, we are not going to give you special treatment? >> i can't comment because i don't know -- >> judge kavanaugh, this is your nomination. you are now embarking on this

journey, and this committee, denying us access to documents which were routinely provided for other judicial nominees. you had to have known that was taking place. >> i think what justice scalia said, that's a decision for the senate and the executive branch to work out as a nominee. i will in the long term privileges and protections, as he mentioned that were in effect for that discussion, it's not for the nominee to make that decision. >> weld that is an interesting comment because, the way you are being presented with only 10% of the public documentation that could be provided to this committee, of course you know that. >> again looking at the nominee

president center, that was true in justice scalia's case, all his memos from 1970 through 1977 when he was in the office. and, -- >> you are perfectly fine with this notion? >> i am -- it's up to the chairman and you, the committee, the senate and the executive branch. >> i think it's up to you. i think it's up to you, and if you stop, pause and hit the pause button, i don't want any cloud or shadow over this. he was not the only victim, and

i didn't realize that this republican staffer had hacked into my computer and stolen my staff memos and release them to "the wall street journal" ." so now your knowledge of this, your role in this way are limited to even discuss, because of the fact that we were classifying and withholding nomination about -- information about your nomination. and then your decision by those to put your nomination before u us, and to exclude the documents, then the unilateral classification of documents coming to this committee as committee classified in a matter that no one has ever seen in the history of this committee. judge kavanaugh, that reflects on your reputation and your credibility. if you said at this moment, i have cloud over this nomination,

i'm prepared to suggest to the committee and asked the committee humbly please withhold further hearings until you disclose everything. why won't you do that? >> senator, i do not believe that's consistent with what prior nominees have done in this circumstance, if the decision for the senate and the executive branch. justice scalia explained that very clearly. >> are you happy with that decision? >> it's not for me to say. the long-term interests of the senate and the executive branch, particularly the executive branch are at play. and justice scalia i believe explained that as well. >> i wasn't here, but i will tell you -- >> let me interrupt without taking time away from you. don't charge him for this time. but here's something -- the nominee doesn't need any help for me to answer this, but we don't care what the nominee thinks. we have a dash to follow the

presidential records act and that is what we are following, is the law. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, following the presidential records act involves a national archives. the national archives is not involved in this process. it was bill burke, a former assistant to the nominee >> so it isn't the presidential record act, please. >> let me make clear here, criticized the committee process for obtaining judge kavanaugh's record, they have accused us of cutting the national honor guard out of the process. so this is where we want to set the record straight. president bush acted consistently with federal law when he expedited the process and gave us unprecedented access in record time an end this is

the same as if the archives had done the initial review. in fact the archives is not permitted by law to produce records to the committee without giving both president bush and a current president an opportunity to review. the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush is representative -- as president bush's representative confirmed from the letter. we have received views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting production of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if nara had conducted its review first. and then sought our views and the current administration views as required by law. in other words the documents this committee received are the same as if the archives had done the initial review. we were able to get the documents faster by doing it

this way, which gave the senate and the american people unprecedented access in record time to a supreme court nominee record, continue. >> mr. chairman, the national archives have stated publicly that the way we are handling the records for this nomination are unprecedented and they have had nothing to do with it. they have asked until the end of october to produce records, and they have been told, we don't need you. i would like to ask that it be placed in the record, the statement from the national archives related to the records related to judge kavanaugh. do i have consent to place us in the record? the statement from the national archives? >> yes, without objection. >> now i am going to throw a pitch which you've seen coming for 12 years. let me talk to you about 2006 testimony which you gave before this committee. it was a different time and we were very concerned about the

issue of torture, detention and interrogation. yesterday i asked you to show the american people that you have nothing to hide by coming clean with this issue. i'd like to refer specifically to some of the questions that were raised because of that 2006 testimony. we have here a statement. my question as well as your response, and i'm sure you've seen this because it's been reported in the paper that you've been waiting for this question for a long time. when i was back in the day, a trial attorney preparing a witness for interrogation, testimony, deposition and getting testimony and a trial. i said two things. tell the truth and don't answer more than you are asked. don't volunteer information. judge kavanaugh, you failed on the second count. the question i ask you, what was

your role in the original haze nomination for decision to renominate? at the time of the nomination, what did you know about esther haynes role in crafting the detention and policies? your answer, senator i was not and am not involved, i am not involved in the rules about detention governing combatants, so i don't have involvement in that. i have known >> i asked you about this when we had a meeting in my office. i still don't understand answer. >> yes. >> in terms of how you can state as clearly and unequivocally, i was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants. you were involved in the discussions about access to counsel for detainees. you confirmed this during the meeting that we had in my office

and multiple media reports as well. you were involved in discussions regarding detained u.s. combatants like jose podella. you were involved -- this is one i want to be specific about. you were involved with president bush's 2005 signing statement on senator john mccain's amendment banning cruel and inhuman and degreating treatment of detainees. you confirmed that in the meeting. there were no exceptions in your answer given to me in 2006. not for litigation or detainee access or the mccain torture amendment. if those three based on the limited documents which we've been given are obvious, what were you trying to tell me here? did you really disclose accurately your role? >> yes, i understood the question then and my answer then an