there was a time when bork, bork, bork made everything okay. california adventure parks! >> stephen: thank you, jon. well, folks, that's it for tonight's "late show"." i hope you enjoyed watching it as much as i enjoyed not doing it. on behalf of myself and the jon, the band, the amazing staff and crew here "the late show," we are so grateful to you for your watching these past three because there's something cleansing about having a laugh, and there's something funny about having a cleanse. and every day the news makes me want both. i'll be back tomorrow night with a brand-new show and my guests emma stone and, i'm going to guess, a stoned willie nelson. now stay tuned for an all-new episode of james corden, who lives in los angeles and got home from the emmys a lot sooner than i did. good night, everybody! captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ♪ are you ready y'all to have some fun ♪ feel the love tonight don't you worry 'bout ♪ where it is you come from it'll be all right ♪ it's the late, late sh

this is subsequent to bork and thomas. democrats are intent on keeping the senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the parties' specifications. the extraordinary design without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations was launched january 30th, 2003 in the office of senate minority leader tom daschle. president were assistant leader harry reid and six judiciary committee democrats. would all pledge to secrecy the faithful decision was made to filibuster estrada's nomination, you will know why in a minute. one judiciary committee member there was senator edward m. kennedy, the senate's liberal lion. in democratic caucuses, kennedy has pressed a plan to prevent president bush from putting his ideological stamp on the federal bench, as republicans return this week from recess, they had no immediate response to this threat. internal senate sources depict a senate minority on an audacious mission, rare use of the filibuster to keep a judicial nominee off the bench is only of the tip of the ice

ben: slanderous allegations that took down robert bork. fast-forward to 2012. tight competitive race with barack obama, harry reid simply slanders him by stating on the floor of the senate that romney hasn't paid his taxes. >> so the world's out he hasn't paid any taxes for ten years. let him prove he has paid taxes because he hasn't. ben: let him prove it. it's not reed's job to prove he didn't pay taxes, romney's job he didn't pay taxes. reid released a statement saying, quote -- and i was told harry reid likes to murder puppies in his backyard. how did reid respond that reid was an abject liar? here's what he said. >> no regrets about mitt romney, about the koch brothers, some people called it mccarthyite. >> they can call it whatever they want. he didn't win, did he? ben: that's all what matters to democrats, not truth, not decency, winning. >>> next, we'll discuss polling with scott rasmussen, next. >> if you're going to name bork, you're going to be in an epic ideological battle. >> robert bork's america is a land which women would be forced into back all

was so egregious it inspired a new term, borking years later, borking was in full play during the confirmation hearings of clarence thomas. remember back in 1991, democrats do the same old routine. they rolled out a former colleague anita hill, who made sexual harassment allegations against him. the process was so vicious and so nasty, so awful that justice thomas called it a high-tech lynching. take a look. >> this is a circus. it is a national disgrace. and from my standpoint as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for deputy blacks who in any way deigned to think for themselves, to do for themselves. to have different ideas. and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the u.s., u.s. senate, rather than hung from a tree. >> sean: wow. as we speak, the democrats all-out effort to bork judge kavanaugh is in full swing. unfolding before your eyes, now democrats can do little more than just interrupt hearings and play to their constituents ahead of mid-t

as we speak, the democrats all-out effort to bork judge kavanaugh is in full swing.nfolding before your eyes, now they can do little more than just interrupt hearings. play to their constituents ahead of midterm elections. and as you can see, the presidency of donald trump is literally causing the left wing in this country to become more unhinged every day. all common decency thrown to the wind. kids escorting from the hearing. in democrats desperately trying to get back their power. this was all orchestrated. and we have warned you many times obstructing the confirmation of judge kavanaugh is only one part of their agenda. should they get back power in 63 days, they want open borders, eliminating i.c.e., raise your taxes, they want their crimes back. they want an end to all of the investigations into their friends with the biggest abuse of power in our history, the deep state. they want to impeach the president. they want to keep obamacare. and don't take my word for it, let's listen to what the most powerful democrat in the senate chuck schumer was caught on tape s

we saw what happened to robert bork and we saw what happened in the case of clarence thomas.ow let me be very clear, i don't know, i wasn't there. but i do believe in the presumption of innocence. all americans should have an open mind and all side should be heard but, this is a preview of what democrats will do if they take control of congress and 51 days. we have midterm elections and we know the left has no plan to h make this country better for the forgotten men and women inn this country. we have seen their actions in the past and we know their agenda. not only obstructing and smearing and slandering the president on a minute-by-minute basis, preventing him if they could from doing anything. we also know they want open borders and we also know that they want to keep obamacare and they want their crumbs back and they don't want constitutionalists qualifying judges with a track record like judge kavanaugh on any court, never mind the supreme court. we know the democrats who test the president and his agenda. listen to what crazy uncle joe biden said over the weekend. this

judge bork changed things. not judge bork himself but the confirmation hearings.nd every member of the current united states supreme court, including justice kennedy before he retired, all took the same position in front of the senate judiciary committee, and that is that they would not comment on current precedent and they would not comment on how they might decide one way or another a particular issue. and that's everybody from justice ginsburg to justice roberts. every single one has done the same thing that judge kavanaugh's doing here. now, having said that, the canons of judicial ethics prohibits a judge, a sitting judge -- and judge kavanaugh is a sitting judge -- from saying how he/she would vote or decide in a particular case if potentially a hypothetical is given to them and it could come before the judge. >> yes. >> so they are -- they are abiding by the canons of judicial ethics. >> it's written a little more discreetly than that, senator. >> it is. >> i'm with you about 60%. >> that's right. >> it's written more discreetly like that and it's being exe

barring any borking from the democrats, he will be confirmed.oming as the election season is heating up, 54 days away from the single most important midterm election over a lifetime, i have long been warning you what is going to happen if the democrats take back the house in november? they will rescind the trump of tax cuts, start impeachment proceedings, keep obamacare, they will block all originalist constitutionalists to the court, they went activist, open borders, eliminating i.c.e. all investigations into the deep state to end. -- even schiff said that he will go full bar on investigations into money laundering investigations against trump. i've said it a million times, the democrats want to stop this administration from being successful. in other words, helping you, the american people. how do you serve the american people by involving yourself and investigation? what do the democrats offer that will help the forgotten men and women in this country? they want to stop this success, the economic success and progress that we have, in its trac

garland is the democrat's borke. it's that same feeling, and i think the left looks at what happened with garland with that same anger that the right still has for borke. that's something i noticed. >> sure. the circumstances are a little bit different. i think the democrats take a much more oppositional attitude to these judicial nominations than the republicans do when it's on the other side. >> i don't know. it's hard to sell that now. >> the underlying issue here is the life issue and the abortion issue. there's no question about that, and that is why you see just a political warfare breaking out. >> well, let me play the uncrass political game here. this feels like one of those things where it's a victory for whoever wins here. meaning if kavanaugh dies it unites the right, and if kavanaugh jams through it unites the left. you buy that? >> i do actually. and i think it's a huge issue around mid-terms to your point. i will dare make a political prediction, i'm not trying to give republicans a strategy here. but i

and it is even lower than what we had for robert bork. judge bork insisted on going all the way through to a vote and not withdrawing the way that harriet miers did. but bork was rejected by a fairly large majority in the senate. that was a failed nomination. he didn't have enough support. brett kavanaugh's support is lower than bork's support. and the public doesn't get a direct vote on supreme court nominees but it is striking in this case that support is so low for kavanaugh. and ultimately that kind of thing does end up mat ordering the senators if they have reason to really seriously consider their vote here. ultimately, it does matter to elected officials. particularly right before an election when more americans don't want brett kavanaugh confirmed than do want him confirmed. and in national polling he is underwater that way. more want him rejected than confirmed. in that swrirmt a weak and unpopular nominee, having been chosen for the position by a weak and unpopular president, who has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in

hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment but at least it was a good old-fashionedio attempt at borkingthose efforts didn't work. when i did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like i might actually get confirmed, a new tactic when needed. some of you are lying and rape comic weight and had it ready. this first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic member of this committee and by staff. it would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits. when it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over dr. ford's wishes. this whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. fueled with apparent pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. this is a circus. the consequences will extend long past my nomination. the consequences will be with us for decades. >> sean: after those powerful remarks, judge kavanaugh addressed hi

what was done to bork and in the bork hearings was unfair. it was character assassination. it was outrageous but successful. the people that managed these nominees now from republican candidates, nominees from president -- republican presidents have learned a lot about how to deal with the hearings. when you heard kavanaugh say as he did, talking about the parties to the case that they're flesh and blood human beings and we need to have empathy for them and real world consequences of the court are very important. as a political matter, great stuff. a legal matter, it's nonsense. we're you're an appellate judge and an issue comes before you, the issue is not the parties. you're to resolve the legal issues. it's a purely legal matter. the parties may happen to be the case that they pick to do that. now, obviously it's as well as a human being to say you care about the parties, yes, you should, but that's smart to say that. bork said when he was asked about why he wanted to be on the court back then, he said among other things, he said it was an intellectual feast. his critics

so now the dems have gone from borking one man to borking the system.f saying that the accused is presumed innocent seen as progress, why not just rely in memory? the media thinks it's foolproof but is it? hillary didn't believe 18. brian brian williams believed everything he said on talk shows. memory is fallible for all. that is for accuser indicates. it is shocking how fast the media fires when they see the desired moving target. after sitting on it for many months, feinstein gave that target to them. but says the mob, let's not rush things. we all day. they twirl their robe. the media, they swarm. at home, do they look at their spouse or kid and think what if this ever happens to them? people love shakespeare's tragedies because you can go home and say i'm glad i'm not julius caesar. it made you welcome a humble life. no more. today we are all caesar, facing a mob armed with trespasses shaped like daggers and microphones. all right, jesse. we need to hear from her, don't we? >> jesse: we do. i don't think were going to. i think what happened was, th

they did it to judge bork, judge clarence thomas and now, judge kavanaugh. you all have a right to be skeptical. we will have more on this throughout the show but thanks to president trump we have important of elements on the deep state tonight. and we do have a disrupter in chief. we have someone breaking dishes and exposing the deep state and now that house of cards is coming crumbling down. yesterday the white house announced that the president declassified key fisa documents that showed up and key officials. we specifically talked about pages ten through 12, 17 through 34 of the june 2017 fisa application on carter page. all reports of russia related interviews with bruce ohr, interviews compared with carter page and fisa applications, we are now awaiting the release of these important documents which should rock the deep state to its core. by the way, that means information, emails and texts. comey, page, strzok, bruce ohr, christopher steele. where is spartacus when we need him? and congressman adam schiff, is worried all his lies about pollution will

what kennedy said about robert bork was despicable and disgusting. what was done to clearance clars was despicable. what do you make of this now that we have had time? there's not a single person in the case of professor ford that she mentioned that was there that has corroborated the story and the same thing with mr. ramirez. >> number one, to the democrats, they knew about this since july 30th. they chose to do nothing about it. for them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire. the allegations against judge kavanaugh are collapsing. this has been the worst low point in the senate for me and that is saying a lot. i never thought it would get this bad. we will have a hearing thursday and i look forward. when it comes to donald trump, there are no boundaries or no rules. what ever you need to do to destroy he and his agenda, there are no rules. >> we have a serious allegation, and i know -- a month ago the girlfriend of keith ellison, number two at the dnc, was running for attorney general in minnesota. repeated phys

i hate to say this, but this is worse than robert bork and i didn't think it could get worse than that. this is worse than clarence thomas and i didn't think it could get worse than that. this is a national disgrace, the way you are being treated. >> sean: this is sadly the democratic playbook. i warn people every single two or four years on a radio show and right here on the show, republicans, be prepared to be demonized, racist, sexist, misogynist, islamophobic, xena phobic, you want dirty air and water and you want to kill children and their son paul ryan look a like throwing your grandmother over the cliff because republicans want granny to die. it's the same now with supreme court nominees, same predictable behavior. we have now come to expect this. this has to change, this country deserves better. the people of this country deserve better. these people in d.c., and this swamp, they are supposed to serve us, you, we come at the people. it's not about a republican, democrat, liberal or conservative here, this is pure human decency that was in play today. they destroyed this man and

as mark pulliam said in an op-ed over the weekend, the barking of robert bork taught special interest groups that they could demonize judicial nominees based solely on their worldview. worse, character assassinations ,roved an effective tactic nearly sinking justice clarence thomas's appointment for years later. but he also said, by confirming judge kavanaugh, the senate can it'sme way toward atoning shameful treatment of justice robert bork 31 years ago. judge kavanaugh is one of the most qualified nominees. if not the most qualified nominee that i've seen. a graduate of young law school. clerking three federal judges including a man he nominated to replace. he spent all but three years of his career in public service and has served as a judge for 12 years on the d.c. circuit. the most influential federal circuit court. he has one of the most impressive records for a lower court judge in the supreme court in at least a dozen separate cases the supreme court adopted positions advanced by judge kavanaugh. association bar whose assessment democratic leaders have called the gold standard

supreme court, robert bork? he was never nominated because of all the slander.he guy that told nobody after he left a woman to die after a car accident and went home and went to bed? chappaquiddick kennedy. take a look. >> robert bork's america is an america where will women be forced into black alley abortions. black would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizen stores in midnight raids and writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government. >> sean: then a few years later, of course democrats tried to drag one of the supreme court justices that became one of the finest justices in our generation, clarence thomas, 1991, through the mud. senate democrats pulled out his former colleague anita hill making sexual harassment allegations against him. sound familiar? this character assassination was so vicious and so horrible, so nasty, justice thomas called it a high-tech lynching. take a look. >> this is a circus, it's a national disgrace. and from my standpoint as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high-t

was borked. he was pulled because he admitted to smoking marijuana. now fast forward to today and we have someone accused of sexual a salt and we're not pulling it. why? >> yes, where are we, anita, where are we? we can't ignore the fact we are in this me too place. we can't ignore the fact that we're now really just spitting distance from the midterm elections. there's so much going on and yet it does have these feeling, i think, of huge importance. tell me if i'm wrong about making a statement about who we are and where we are as a country and are we in a different place than we were with robert bork, in a different place than we were with clarence thomas? >> it's been less than a year since the original harvey weinstein pieces came out and we really had a moment in this country that has continued. it's continued as you see women stepping forward to run for office at every level. as you see unprecedented amounts of small donations going to those women candidates, and a house class next year, at

with robert bork nominated by ronald reagan, that seemed to go out the window. a distinguished member of the d.c. circuit court of appeals, it became extremely heated, extremely political. as soon as he was nominated ted kennedy went to the senate floor and said "in robert bork's america women will once again be getting back alley abortions." and that's where you started to see the nomination and confirmations become extremely political and it's gone downhill from there. if you look at the record, republicans have been much more likely to give deference to the choice of democratic presidents than democrats have been to give deference to republicans. >> harris: senator lindsey graham made that point and he even said, to those democrat nominees, hello. he said, i voted for you. what will it look like going forward? let's talk about what's going on on the screen right now, you are looking at the same thing that i am because we both took our reading glasses on and off. senator grassley has returned. >> yes but he's not done yet, every democrat is in this small room

that includes judge bork.ws and positions that fall well outside the mainstream of legal thought. you suggested as has been referenced at the president has the authority to refuse to enforce a law such as the affordable care act, if he were to decide it was unconstitutional. you voted to strike down net neutrality, gun safety laws, the consumer financial protection bureau and many would undercut environmental protections or workers rights or antidiscrimination laws. and you have recently appraised justice rehnquist dissent. you have embraced an approach the subsequent due process. it would undermine the rights and protections of millions of americans from basic approach for lgbt americans, access to contraception, and the ability for americans to love and marry whom they wish. i am concerned that your writings demonstrate a hostility to affirmative action and civil rights. and most importantly, i believe that you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced and interpretation of presidential power so expansiv

you don't want to get borked.h the nbc poll out today, given the election we've just come off, meaning the presidential election, how people share this information, how they're going to vote, are you depending on these polls as much as you once were, especially around issues like this? are people really showing what they're doing? >> that's the question, the 2016 example, what was the biggest scandal to hit donald trump in the home stretch was the access hollywood tape. the assumption even from republicans was he's cooked. >> the assumption was he's cooked but a large part of the president's base were christian conserve tifrs who were -- conservatives who were holding their nose after the tape because they said it is all about the judges. we want to fill that supreme court justice seat, one, maybe even two. this is the holy grail for the president, more than tax cuts, more than cultural issues, his base that truly stays with him are the ones who are there for the supreme court justice seat. you know, this is one o

. >> back in the judge bork days, we knew judge bork knew he was going to lose and y-- yet he insisted and i remember having to confront him at lunch that day with the news he'd just been defeated. >> judge, how did you read judge kavanaugh's denial of guilt? did you read it denial of guilt orrin dig nation that his old high school play days are being replayed years later? >> i think both. and when being questioned about stuff in the high school year book you reach a nadir. and he has a good legislative mcantic and doesn't brag without knowing where he's going said on the senate floor the other day that he would -- that kavanaugh would be voted on. that means it would come to a vote in the senate which means he will get out of committee and not lose any votes there which means he won't lose flake on the vote to get him to the floor. >> that is a logic -- so if flake sticks with the majority of the committee, the 11, he's one of the 11, that means one of the 50. >> no, it doesn't mean that. it means -- there is a tradition of saying i don't want to deny the man a fuel vo-- on a full v g

. >> stephen: sir, we're here because of accusations of non-consensual borking. ( laughter ) ( cheerspplause ) do you know why we're here? i wouldn't -- but despite all this, he never lost his sunny disposition. >> i am an optimistic guy. ( laughter ) >> stephen: i'm an optimistic guy! i see the bright side! the glass is half full! my smile is my umbrella!" ( laughter ) ( piano riff ) believe it or not, he got a little less optimistic: >> today, i have to say that i fear for the future. >> stephen: #metoo. ( laughter ) ( cheers and applause ) though, if you just started today, you're a little late to the party. kavanaugh acknowledged that drinking has always been one of his favorite pastimes. >> i drank beer with my friends. almost everybody did. sometimes i had too many beers. sometimes others did. i liked beer. i still like beer. >> stephen: "i have partied with spuds mackensie. the budweiser frogs. i have ridden on that silver bullet train. any beer companies out there looking for a spokesman, you know how to find me. dilly dilly. wazzaup?" ( cheers and applause ) wazzaup?" and bec

i know it's not going to happen because as soon as bork happened everybody went into hiding. clinton -- i mean bush, clinton, bush, and obama. so trump here is doing nothing different than they did. >> but the context is a little different because it is possible, slash probably, and then we'll segue into this topic so you can talk to us about mueller, that this judge may, he may deal with a case or controversy that involves the president and an investigation. don't you think he should say whether or not he thinks the president can be investigated? because he's written that he can't. >> i don't think he should. i wouldn't give my -- an indication of how i'd rule on a case before all the facts and circumstances are before me. >> but the concept of any case that's possible. you can tell me that. >> we're talking about whether the president can be subpoenaed or can be indicted -- >> investigated. investigated at all, he wrote. civil or criminal. that a president should be relieved of that, immunized. >> i actually think that because it is a question that could come up for him as

bork, subsequently retracted, the most

he was there for many years and then judge bork was nominated to replace powell. all the controversy and politics around that. anthony kennedy comes in as a swing vote. for democrats the question is as well qualified as brett kavanaugh is in the aba has said he is thoroughly well qualified, is he so conservative that he would tilt this court forever and a day to the right? and lower public trust in the ability of the court to be impartial? >> we're expecting to hear a lot from democrats in their opening statements about these documents, 42,000 pages released by the white house last evening on labor day evening on the holiday evening, judge. how does this change things? >> this is exquisitely unfair to release that number of documents the night before the hearing starts. it is literally impossible even for a team of democratic staffers in fairness to them, to go through all of this and find what they are looking for. what are they looking for? they're looking for antipathy for roe versus wade expressed by brett kavanaugh looking in the george w. bush white house an

bork was rejected by a large bipartisan party in a sense. >> that's a fair nomination. and public support is not everything. the public does not get a direct vote on supreme court nominees. it is striking in this case. that support is so low for kavanaugh. ultimately that kind of thing does end up mattering to senators. if they have reason really seriously consider their vote here. ultimately, it does matter to elected officials particularly right before an election when more americans don't want kavanaugh confirmed or do want him confirmed. brett kavanaugh is under water that way. more people want him rejected than want him confirmed. in that environment with a week of unpopular nominee and having been chosen by the up popular president who have been named as a felony case and is at the center of a huge investigation that's literally going to result in one of his campaign aids being sensed probably to prison tomorrow in the middle of brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearings while jury selection hearing for his campaign. with a week of unpopular nominee nominated by a we

i made an observation about a week ago in a column that when bob bork in 1987, i think when he was borkedey said that as that is a guess but what actually happened in nearly 30 years, that it was simply the beginning and that is actually more than 30 years now. the republicans have actually gotten worse. >> we have a fighter in our president. we have, and i love to complement senator mcconnell. he stood up on monday in defense of judge kavanaugh. very quickly, we are out of time as usual. what you think happens tomorrow? >> well, i give doctor ford credit. i did not think there was going to be a hearing. she is evidently going to testify so let's hear what she has to say for herself.>> all right, andy mccarthy, great to have you with us. thank you so much. appreciate it. the president calling out the radical democrats hell-bent on taking down the supreme court nominee, kavanaugh.>> they destroyed a man's reputation. they want to destroy even more and they know it is a big, fat con job. and they go into a room and i guarantee you, they laughed like hell at what they have pulled off on you,

president reagan nominated robert bork, a very conservative justice. democrats and republicans in the senate came together, rejected judge bork. president reagan, a very conservative president nonetheless, nominated a more moderate person to be that swing vote, anthony kennedy. and i think we are kind of seeing this would -- history repeat itself in that regard, which is judge kavanaugh, who is veryy well qualified, distinguished judge p i take nothing away from judge kavanaugh in that regard. he's a well liked member of the d.c circuit, every kind of academic and prudential. -- and credential. but he is very conservative and i think that conservatism is out of step where the middle of the supreme court should be and where the middle of our country is. so, i think a judge who more reflected that, who is more in the justice kennedy mode would be a more appropriate replacement. >> you worte in one of your columns that reversing roe v. wade would be just the beginning if judge kavanaugh is confirmed as the next up in court justice. explain why you believe

this was at the dinner after bork was turned down for the supreme court and everyone stood and gave him a standing ovation. and here's my problem. what do we do? tristan it did give a standing ovation? should i sit down and make a statement? i didn't want to do that. so i stood up and didn't clap. and that i think is a metaphor for how you work this out. plus, you have to understand what is underneath. no political fight that goes on and on like all of these do that i read about, none of them are just about politics. they are about unfinished business of the relationship, unfinished business from your childhood between siblings you should see what comes out. what if you agree with mom and her sister doesn't? it is really remarkable. one thing i think that's very positive for people to know that if they think about it, if they really think about it and understand what is going on beneath them they can really change how they talk about politics or how they don't talk about politics. what i did this with a number of the interviews where i thought there was hope. i counseled the people. wha

i would suggest it at least started with bork, or the crucifying of thomas as an example. a pretty hatch set good example after we went to the bork situation comedy thomas situation. chairman hatch, maybe he wasn't chairman then, he said we have a more careful approach to this whole thing. he worked with the clinton and you had prior get through, 87-9, you had 96-3.rg get through sudden bush gets elected and we run into the same democratic opposition to people like estrada. weree that, culture votes very rarely used in judges. >> i want to briefly say i don't friend, the senior senator from vermont and i disagree, the point i was trying to make was it is appropriate to have a lawyer, in this case bruce lindsey for the clinton administration. burke for the mr. bush library to review the documents to see if there was a basis for claim or privilege. don't think you and i disagree on that. what i would point out is that in light of the knowledge of the committee that elena kagan, during her time as solicitor general would in all likelihood have legitimate claim to privilege by

the best summary of it comes from the great photographer margaret bork white who is one of the great "life" magazine photographers. she captured the age when she declared i worship factories. i worship factories. henry ford was very shrewd guy and he promoted interest in his factories in order to sell cars. he had a design as an advertising tool with buildings. window on a glass power plant to expose the missionaries. this is an aerial photograph from the early plant. -- those arehe the pipe stacks. ford insisted on it because he wanted to put one of -- one letter of his name in between when they introduced the model a to replace the model t, the first car produced at river route, his new factory, for its advertising agency hired charles schiller, the photographer, to photograph not the car, but the factory. and schiller said i speak in the tongue of my times, the mechanical, industrial. our factories are substitutes for religious expression. and this is the most famous of schiller's photograph of world war ii, it is called conveyors, ford plant, 1927, and this was used in advertisin

i feel having covered every confirmation hearing since bork. i f like something is wrong with our cspoli i feel sick to my stomach indeed. >> i will say this. it is never permanent. we weren't there in the 1950s and 60s. it was mccarthy, that was an ugly era of american politics. you know, we can get through it spot.e're in a rough >> the culmination of so many things happening. how divided our country is. i've never seen, i have nev seen federal judge cry. i have never seen somebody on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, one of, if not the most respected court in the nation, in tears on national television repeatedly talking about the utter destruction of his reputation and his family had what should be a battle but not a personalized bruising, destructive battle. and on the other ha you have christine ford. a woman well respect in the palo alto who is devoted to helping people in the psychiatric field in what was obviously an honest testimonial, even if wasn't him, as he claims, or wasn't as bad as othersave suggested. and i have to tell you,