bush library and the george w. bush institute. they had decided to create a brand-new institution to study the presidency, especially as an academic counterweight to the political think tank on campus. i do not mean to suggest these are equal in weight, but they wanted something purely scholarly. when the opportunity arose to create a new center from scratch , that was something i had to jump on. brian: president bush was here in 1998 when he had his book about foreign policy. about to run some video george bush talking about the power of the oval office. i know we are jumping way ahead. but when we hear him talk about this i want your reaction. >> every president would confirm that experience. i'm going to tell this guy off, i will get him, then they go in and there is something about the office itself and the respect all americans have for that office where you do not feel like calling out the president or taking him on the way you told your colleagues you were going to. brian: what do you see their? china,el: when he was in he

bush and george w. bush." mark is a commentator for abc news, good morning america, and "this week." and finally, our third panelist is stewart mclaurin. his 30-plus career in washington has been in senior roles at georgetown university, the american red cross, and the motion picture association. he also worked with the ronald reagan presidential foundation to conceptualize, plan, and execute the ronald reagan centennial celebration in 2011. please join in welcoming me -- please join me in welcoming today's panel, anita mcbride, mark updegrove, and stewart mclaurin. [ applause ] >> thank you, bob, very much. and i would also lake to recognize gael west on our board of directors and teresa barrett, the wife of our other board member, john barrett, who couldn't be with us today. wonderful board members and anita is on our board. and these men and women give extraordinary leadership, guidance, and governance to our organization. it was founded by mrs. kennedy in 1961 as a nonprofit, non-partisan partner to the wh

bush. she directed the first lady's travel to 67 countries in four years to support foreign policy objectives in human rights, women's empowerment, global health, and education. she is a member of the u.s. afghan women's council, the international republican institute's women's diplomacy network, the national italian american foundation, and most importantly a board member of the white house historical association, and chair of the committee that organized the presidential sites summit. mark updegrove is an author, presidential historian and president and ceo of the lbj foundation in austin, texas. until recently, he served as the director of the lyndon johnson library and museum for eight years he has authored four books on presidential history, including his newest book, the last republicans, inside the extraordinarily relationship between george h.w. bush and george w. bush. mark is commentator for abc news, good morning america, and this week. and, finally, our third panelist is stewart

bush and george w. bush." mark is a commentator for abc news, "good morning america," and -- finally, our third panelist is stuart mclauren. he's president of the white house historical association. his 30-plus year career in washington has been in senior roles at georgetown university, the american red cross and the motion picture association. he also worked with the ronald reagan presidential foundation to conceptualize, plan, and execute the ronald reagan se centennial celebration in 2011. please join in welcoming -- please join me in welcoming today's panel, anita mcbride, mark, and stuart. >> thank you, bob, very much, and i'd also like to recognize gail west on our board of directors and teresa bar et. these men and women give extraordinary leadership, guidance, and governance to our organization. it was founded by mrs. kennedy in 1961 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan partner to the white house, and we're honored to be the convener of this presidential site summit this week. today, we're going to talk a littl

bush. condoleezza: yes.id: you become the national security advisor, the first woman to be the national security adviser. condoleezza: yes. you are there and then 9/11 happens. condoleezza: yes. david: so where were you on 9/11? condoleezza: 9/11, i was at my desk. president bush was at that event in florida, the education event. and just to show you our pre-9/11 thinking, i did not go with him that day. my assistant came in and said a plane hit the world trade center. first we thought it was an accident. i called president bush. then, a few minutes later, we learned the second plane hit the world trade center and we knew now it was a terrorist attack. and then just a procession over the day and really the next several months of choices for the president of the united states. the united states had not been attacked on its own territory since the war of 1812. we had no structures, no institutions for internal security for the country. it was flying without a compass. david: subsequently president bush decided

bush. i think it is fair to say, you were close to president bush. you worked for him for a number of years. can you give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration, notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? >> senator, the most prominent example is the hamdan case. that was the military commissions case. it was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually, after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the courts, establish military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda, terrorists who had committed war crimes. one case came to us, hamdan, and the question was, was the prosecution unlawful because the crime of which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001, when he was alleged to have committed it. expose facto principles. i wrote the opinion, reversing his conviction, even though it was a signature prosecution of the united states. even though it was a national security case. becau

i called president bush.ew minutes later, we learned the second plane hit the world trade center and we knew it was a terrorist attack. and then just a procession over the day and the next several months of decisions for the president of the united states. the united states had not been attacked on its own territory since the war of 1812. we had no structures or institutions for internal security for the country. it was flying without a compass. david: subsequently president bush decided to invade iraq to topple saddam hussein. so in light of hindsight, had you known there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you have still gone forward? condoleezza: i say to people what you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not yesterday. we simply believed as all the intelligence agencies around the world did, that he had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting them quickly, and it was on that basis that we decided that you finally had to do what the international community had been threatenin

i called president bush.few minutes later, we learned the second plane hit the world trade center and we knew it was a terrorist attack. and then just a procession over the day and the next several months of choices for the president of the united states. the united states had not been attacked on its own territory since the war of 1812. we had no structures, no institutions, for internal security for the country. it was flying without a compass. david: subsequently president bush decided to invade iraq to topple saddam hussein. so in light of hindsight, had you known there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you have still gone forward? condoleezza: welcome me know, i always say to people what you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not what you did yesterday. we simply believed as all the intelligence agencies around the world did, that he had weapons of mass destruction and was reconstituting them quickly, and it was on that basis that we decided that you finally had to do what the inter

why not under bush, when he served under bush at the very first time he took office? i find this very disturbing by the democrats. can you get someone to ask these questions, why is she coming out now? thank you. guest: well, i think two points that i would like to make to your questions. one, i think when has all of this started to happen and deteriorate? i personally think we have been chipping away at the study of our civic education and our democracy for years. where, at a young age, students are not learning about our institutions of government and how they operate and how they affect them. i think we have got to get back on track in that. because now, when there is something like this, like a nomination. whether it is a democratic president or republican president that nominates them, the other side goes nuclear without really understanding the full process and due process as this caller said. we have lost a bit of civility again because we don't understand fully and we are questioning our own institutions. to your other point, i think as to why this did not com

bush and barack obama to deliver. a funeral and we have to say that he was not close to either of them they were his rivals george w. bush was his republican rival in two thousand primaries and. democratic for in the two thousand and eight federal elections but these two men who men who dashed his dreams of the white house to speak here is sending a message not only to his fellow republicans democrats to all americans that it's important to put. country over party that it's more that unifies that separates them all right i'd like to bring in tyson who's here with me in studio obviously tyson we've heard glowing. things being said about this man mccain but obviously he did have critics as well what did they have to say well i mean you had critics from the right and the left from the right people so the. he was a rhino a republican in name only that as it was mentioned that he put sometimes country before party but he wasn't a loyal party hollower and sometimes he would defect from his party beat on torture be it on cam

bush presidency. they felt as though the party wasn't sufficiently unified around conservative principles. now, when you looked at george w. bush, by that time, the republican party had really changed -- certainly at its elite level -- and there was a very strong consensus around free trade, around low taxes, around this vision of a smaller government, and the tricky thing is that that didn't always actually line up with the voting base of the republican party. if you think about 2004, george w. bush won that election -- you know, he won it narrowly, but he won a majority, and he won it because of working-class moms in ohio, you know, in communities that felt left behind. >> donald trump was able to solidify the exact voters that you identified a decade earlier. >> yes, that's right. so, here's the challenge. so, if you're looking at trump's victory, it was not an overwhelming victory. >> 78,000 votes in three states. >> yep, that's very well said. >> wisconsin, pennsylvania, and michigan. that's exac

bush white house. democrats say that even with the few documents they have been given access to, they're already seeing evidence that undercuts his assertion he didn't have any involvement in terrorism policies. even those documents they have reviewed on the committee, those are being withheld from public view by the committee chairman, chuck grassley. democrats want them released so the public can see it themselves. that's one thing to keep an eye on, to what extent brett kavanaugh's 2006 confirmation hearing comes back to haunt him. and just one last point i will make on this. that letter written in 2007 asking the attorney general to open an investigation into whether brett kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing, that letter didn't go unanswered. months later, the justice department did respond to him. they said, don't worry. they said they had, quote, reviewed this matter and determined that there was not a sufficient basis to initiate a criminal investigation of brett kavanaugh. justice de

bush. i think it is fair to say you were close to president bush. you worked for him for a number of years. you can you give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? >> senator, the most prominent example is the homdon case, the military commissions case. that was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the court, established military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda terrorists who had committed wash crimes and one case came to us, homdon, and the question was wthe prosecution unlawful because the crime in which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001 when he was alleged to have committed it. a i wrote the pin dwroopinion r his quikts even though it was a signature prosecution of the united states, even though it was a national security case, because that was the right answer under

bush and former president obama we heard from bush he praised john mccain for his courage and decency he said that he was very often frustrated by the senator and what he had to say but at the same time he made him a better man so it was a very porous powerful. we also heard as you said from president obama. when he was asked by john mccain to speak here today he was sad and surprised a little bit because he's he was his political rival in the two thousand general election but he of course thought that it would be to speak here today and then he joked seeing that john mccain is no probably laughing that both his political rivals bush and obama are speaking very talking telling very nice things about john mccain but president former president obama's speech was also sort of political when he said that john mccain fought against a habit of bending the truth because it. tarm the u.s. democracy when he said that john mccain championed the three a free and independent press it could be. in direct criticism of president who is known for not telling the truth all the time and who regularly a

bush. both of these gentlemen were competitors and rivals and sometimes serious rivals of the president. i don't know how john mccain got over the treatment he got at the hands of george w. bush back when he lost the fight for the nomination back in 2000, especially what happened in south carolina, but he has gotten over it. he picked him to speak today. he also has barack obama who put him out for the presidency in 2008 and he's also speaking today, as meghan mccain who has been crying all morning here. we've been watching that. his daughter is going to be speaking today as his fellow amigo as he put it, joe lieberman, a democrat who he wanted to put on the ticket with him in 2008. maybe we should go back to steve for a thought on that. was that a real possibility that he was going to break all protocol and run a bipartisan ticket for president and vice president? >> sure was, chris. it came very, very close to happening. he wanted to pick joe lieberman and basically the message of the cam

bush who was pro-life.was on the staff. >> i think the answers are good because he's probably prepared to answer any number of things. i will say and speaks to why you can't just release this stuff from the beginning because he can defend himself perfectly well. i will say the documents and the substantive stuff here is a better strategy than random people yelling at the committee which was what we were going with for the first part of it. we have the same sort of tribal situation all the time of not sure anyone's convincing anyone of anything at this point. >> tribal, an interesting perspective that right now outside of this committee three or four or five trump state democratic senators up for re-election waiting for murkowski and collins. they are hiding. they want to see if they'll crack. maybe they'll stay on the democratic side. if it's a done deal and run for re-election in states trump carried that's a separate issue. but for now inside the room let's listen to the democrats. corey booker says this

bush white house. what you have seen since the hearings began this week is democrats needing -- knowing they don't necessarily have the votes to stop brett kavanaugh -- >> diane feinstein is reading an important e-mail having to do with roe versus wade. >> if you could, do you believe it is correctly settled? >> thank you, senator feinstein. in that draft letter, it was referring to the views of legal scholars. i think my comment in the e-mail was that might be overstating the position of legal scholars. so it wasn't a technically accurate description in the letter of what legal scholars thought. at that time, i believe chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia were still on the court at that time. the broader point was simply that i think it was overstating something about legal scholars. i'm always concerned with accuracy. i thought that was not quite accurate description of all legal scholars. it referred to all. to your broader point, roe v. wade is an important precedent in the supreme court. it'

bush, laura bush, the obamas, the clintons.the a number of trump administration officials. director of national intelligen intelligence, economic adviser, ambassador john bolton, national ppresident.viser to the and of course, john kelly, chief of staff there, longtime friend of the mccain family. ivanka trump along with jared kushner, family members of the trump family, personally representing him and former vice president al gore. former defense secretaries panetta and ash carter there, who served in the administration. leon panetta served many roles, cia director as well, longtime congressman. the voice you were hearing earlier with the opening prayer is the right reverend mariann edgar budde there at the national cathedral, beginning the ceremony. ♪ >> of course, henry kissinger, former secretary of state, national security adviser, someone whose fate was very much intertwined with john mccain. he, of course, negotiated the end to combat in vietnam in 1973. and john mccain recalls thanking him after the fact for not persona

bush right there.he's got that smirk on his face and it's a serious moment but he's always got a slight grin. >> always got something going on, as well, president clinton and president barack obama, first ladies laura bush and michelle obama. senator mitch mcconnell. another adversary along with elaine chao,hertio ng who ma ot giving a moving speech on thi w about what it was like,

bush appeared to lack empathy.aper towels to a crowd in a relief certainty and bush flying over new orleans on air force one instead of viewing the damage from the ground. and in both storms federal and local leaders blamed each other. >> president donald trump taking aim at san juan mayor after her public plea. >> i am done being polite. i am done being politically correct. i am mad as hell. >> the challenges that we face on the ground are unprecedented. but there is to doubt in my mind we'll success. >> 20,000 people are coming here. they're not here. it is too dog gone late. now get off your as and let's do something and fix the biggest [ bleep ] crisis in the history of this country. >> you can't put a price tag on the loss of life but the damage in dollars for hurricane maria is estimated at $90 billion and for katrina $125 billion. it took a decade for some part of thes gulf coast to recover and there is no telling how long puerto rico will need help. but one thing both storms proved is that there are still l

bush. i think it's fair to say you were close to president bush.ked for him for a number of years. can you give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? >> senator, the most prominent example is the homdon case. that was the military commissions says. a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the courts. establish military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda terrorists who had committed war crimes and one case came to us, homdon, and the question was, was the prosecution unlawful because the crime of which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001 when he was alleged to have committed it, expose facto principles. i wrote the opinion reversing his conviction. it was a signature prosecution of the united states and a national security case, because that was the right answer under the law. i

the airline bill as president bush spoke as you recall. and afterward we were in that meeting room together, you and i and others working on the airline bill, but there were other things going on. the patriot act was going on. >> i was involved in all of those, i remember the discussions, but what i want to know did you ever raise questions about surveillance? >> there was so much going on after september 11th, as you remember, in the white house office and counsel's office, we had eight lawyers in there, eight or nine as i recall. and there was so many issues to consider. for the president, for the legal time and those issues, like i said, for president bush, every day for the next seven years was september 12th, 2001. for the legal team-- >> for a lot of us it was. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, a letter to senators feinstein and durbin august 16th of this year asking do we make documents related to this issue public. without it being public it's not fair to me and not fair to judge kavanaugh, i can't hand him the actual documents which i thin

bush and michelle obama share an you are watching george w.ush slip a piece of candy to obama.e he only slipped her one candy. michelle obama shared an unlikely friendship, and the internet is happy about it. >> now that i get to see the video, that's actually coming from laura bush, the candy. >> i do want to know what kind of candyy 91 degrees is the big number we're talking about, because we are inching into a bit of a warm and hot zone, then we cool down an a little bit by labor day. don't worry, it will still be sunny outside. >> big question, with the candy in the wrapper, you have to be worried about the noise. >> it was a mint. >> thanks so much for join bein us, "saturday night live" is next. >> you're watching iraqi state television -- your only alternative. >> hello, and welcome back to continuing coverage of the 2002 iraqi presidential election.we r hands tonight. and so far, it shows few signs

bush white house. as secretary price has just said very well, those of us who worked with him universally praise his work ethic, his intelligence and his integrity. i visited with the george w. bush a few days, talked about brett. he put it simply brett kavanaugh is a class act. and endorsing brett conformable to president bill clinton bob bennet called him a strong advocateet of decency and civility. by the way, of all the attribution to appoint a judge what could be more important than good judgment? but definitely showed good judgment in marrying ashley. so did she. and they are a great family. it's wonderful to have their daughters, margaret and liza with us here today. brights parents are also here. that's a special appropriate since brights first introduction to block it from listening to his mom, practice closing arguments at the dinner table. she was afi trailblazer. went to law school at age 34 and eventually became a trial judge. wright has said to him, martha kavanaugh will always be the tru

bush white house. i am not sure that all legal scholars refer to roe as the settled law of the land since court can overrule its precedent. >> i think it was over stating something about legal scholars. i thought that was not a quite accurate description of all legal scholars. to your broader point, roe v wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it's been reaffirmed many times. >> reporter: kavanaugh also faced questions from an exchange from senator kamala harris, also a possible 2020 candidate late wednesday night. >> have you discussed mueller or his investigation with anyone at the law firm founded by president trump's personal lawyer? >> i need to know -- i'm not sure i know everyone who works at that law firm. >> i don't think you need to. who did you talk to? >> i would like to know the person you're thinking of. >> i think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us. >> reporter: thursday morning kavanaugh was resolute. >> i haven't had any inappropriate conversations a

bush will move or. bush to the gusts we have. just heard about them or is it all some fun now to cover up an austrian most dead. didn't that there was one day here washing at your door as i knew my manhood a little bit of that of all that so many of. them that i think was so much that all of them mama. talked to you would you have i believe i was on the scene through pua choked. up with oracle for more warm weather upon the path of this one both for more cards and the much for the full circle. doesn't because it was yours and we think there's some. sort of all the good of all of this goes on in the form of. citizen as long as it only a store or. a local host of the local. liquor such as for instance the local. or the host overthrow of the. local most. of them what's up with all of this what one of unfortunate for for. all schools of a. little bit is also for the. local the local school and this one school all are good for several the cost to the portions of the church that a school child a center. this is exactly where dr tiller

bush put on roberts and alito .rounding out the group is justice scalia, justice kennedy, justice thomas. have onesual to protestant, stevens, and the other two are jewish, ginsburg and breyer. mostly onay out issues of abortion when the public consciousness calms. as i note in the book, the supreme court received some criticism of the catholicism issue in 2000 seven when the justices for the first time struck down an abortion procedure which is known by its critics at the partial-birth abortion procedure and the majority of justices happen to be catholic. this is before justice sotomayor. that is when a lot of the criticism came to the forefront of our people voting their religion. , and sincee scalia he is conservative, he has a convincing argument at where he is at on the law anyway, even barry said about being influenced by his catholicism. he said there is no right to privacy which would protect abortion rights in the constitution. that is the end of the matter for me. i am just interpreting the constitution. i

bush. he went out for a jog. we went out to cover the jog because this is not a swimming pool, this is a press pool. it was a small group of people. he was jogging by and we were in the middle of a debate in the country over the budget compromise. folks were negotiating at the time and there was word out there that the president was going to raise taxes. member what he said at the convention? so i screamed reading -- being the minor digging for information, are you going to raise taxes mr. president x -- president? he said read my hips. i thought i did my job that day, don't you? what we want to talk about here is the historical and contextual sense of the relationship between the press and the president. come to say that the press has moved from watchdog to tax doll, there has always been an adversarial component but it has changed over time. so we will talk about that. and we will have some reflection of where we are today but not a preoccupation. i am just trying to contextualize it. so

>> eighty-four women signed a letter who had worked in the bush white house,er in the bush white house, work and that intensify that. but i came to be a judge in 2006, may 2006, and august 2006 linda greenhouse of the "new york times" runs a story in the "new york times" about the scarcity of women law clerks in the supreme court that year. there were seven i believe that year out of 37. she wrote a story about that. and that seemed to me very odd and unacceptable. and i started thinking about what i could do -- first welcome wise that happen and what could i do about it. what's the problem and what can i do? so the problem seemed toit me m,these networks that people, judges rely on for clerk hire is an professor networks were getting comp are excluding women or a lease women were not fully represented in those. that's true with minorities as well, by the way. and so i make sure when us talking to professors at law schools, and they made sure i want to see a broad pool of qualified, well-qualified applicants, including women, and in that you can for example, the fall of 2006 which of t

the list of the bushes daughter robin in leukemia of 1953. the last child to be born in 59 this is the voice of a son writing his mother at the loss of his own daughter. i share this with you it is unique in the literature of the presidency but i often think if i could be 5%% of the man who wrote this letter so this is the voice of george hw bush. there is about our house a need the running full cd restlessness of the boys we need some starch to go with our toward knees and blue jeans and helmets and soft blonde hair to offset the crewcut or the dollhouse to stand firm against the baseball cards. we need a legitimate christmas angel one who doesn't have cuts beneath address or someone who was afraid and someone who will cry when i get mad and not argue. we need a little wind on -- one. we need a girl. she would fight and cry and play and make her way just like all the rest. we had one once. but she was patient. she would stand beside our bed until i filter there silently and comfortable to put those precious box blocks against my chest and fa

bush. i think it's fair to say you were close to president bush. you work ford him for a number of years. can you give, give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? >> senator the most prominent example is the hamdon case, that was the military commission's case, that was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the courts, established military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda terrorists who had committed war crimes. and won case came to us, saleem hamdon. and the question was was the prosecution unlawful because the crime of which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001 when he was alleged to have committed it. ex post facto principles, i wrote the opinion reversing his conviction. even though it was a signature prosecution of the united states, even though it was a national secur

bush, bill clinton and george w. bush. >> susan. >> so i'm susan page, my first campaign was in 1980. i covered president carter's final campaign trip and then i covered the white house and national politics since then. >> well, i have served president clinton, as martha said, for two years at the state department, in '93 and '94, and then went to the white house in 1995 and spent four years, which is comparatively a long time for a press secretary to be there. but i had an extra bonus year, my last year, because of a certain intern at the white house. >> i remember those days well. as much as i may try to forget them. i just started covering the white house in the reagan administration and went through george h.w. bush and had an opportunity and privilege to interview five presidents. so, here we are. so, mike, let me start with you with this question and then ask all to chime in. as we've noted there is an often adversarial relationship between the press corps and the white house, and yet there's also a fundamental

whether it's the ken starr investigation, bush versus gore, the bush white house, you've been there. we also know that before naming you, president trump made it clear that he would appoint justices, only appoint justices to the supreme court who would overturn roe versus wade and the affordable care act. those were his litmus tests. now, he didn't ask the question. what he did was to delegate this responsibility to two special interest groups, the federalist society and the heritage foundation. the other groups that are spending millions of dollars in support of your candidacy, they're confident you're going to favor the interest of corporations over workers and give the president wide berth when it comes to executive authority. and your own law clerks, men and women you chose, men and women who wrote the words that had your signature at the bottom of the page, have told us what they think of you. one wrote in an article entitled, quote, brett kavanaugh said obamacare was unprecedented, unlawful. that's from one of your clerks. another wrote, when it comes to, quote, enforcing restr

bush president on all truong who had a bitter feud with mccain was not invited to attend. well our correspondent alexandra phenomenas outside washington national cathedral where the service is being held and here in studio with me i do have tyson from the aspen institute here in germany thank you both for joining us so alexandra i'd like to begin with you you are obviously at the cathedral and you've been following the service what's been happening so far. quite remarkable speech held by meghan mccain mccain store to a very emotional and a very powerful speech he told she told she would like to reveal who her father really was not only. a war hero or a congressman and senator but also a love. and he shared with the audience her stories about john mccain telling how. he carried her to her bed. with her and then he also told her to get back on the horse after she of her horse. and his understanding shaped her character but she also. president in her speech when she said that america there is no need to make america great again because america has always been great all right

so president bush by choosing mr. burke is doing exactly what president clinton did in choosing bruce lindsey for that same purpose. >> mr. chairman? i thank my colleague. count me in too. mr. chairman, i, too, referred to a so-called committee confidential document deemed such by one bill burke and what we all know who he is at this point. and had the nominee asked me for a copy of that so-called committee confidential document, i would have been happy to release it to him or give it to him. i am releasing that document to the press. and i would defy anyone reading this document to be able to conclude that this should be deemed confidential in any way, shape, or form. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i know you've mentioned a number of times that i went through the process. i do want to point out, however, that i also was on numerous letters asking for all these documents to be released and that my colleagues have repeatedly asked for documents to be released. i go back to what happened on the first morning of this hearin

bush would deliver. he knew that that message would be delivered in different ways because the men are different. in his book, it's a wonderful book by the way, the restless way, his last book, he talks about obama's a great orter. we always look for a cicero and he knew president obama was a cicero. he knew bush had his own way of saying the same thing and it's that thing he wanted us was that our nation is a cretal nation. what bring us together is a set of ideals and thats are what he spent his life defending. we are not a nation of blood and soil. we aspire to be something and that's why what we heard today it were speeches that franklin roosevelt and that abraham lincoln and john f kennedy and ronald regan could have identified with and that was john mccain's gift to us. because he didn't want people untears from how he selected the eulogies. he wanted to reaffirm those values that inspired his life. and he chose two men who could do so powerfully. george w. bush and barack obama and they did today.

bush. i think it's fair to say you were close to president bush. you work ford him for a number of years. can you give, give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? >> senator the most prominent example is the hamdon case, that was the military commission's case, that was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn't succeed in the courts, established military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda terrorists who had committed war crimes. and won case came to us, saleem hamdon. and the question was was the prosecution unlawful because the crime of which he was convicted was not an identified crime as of 2001 when he was alleged to have committed it. ex post facto principles, i wrote the opinion reversing his conviction. even though it was a signature prosecution of the united states, even though it was a national secur

bush white house. they particularly grilled him about the process of nominating juks by that white house and which of those nominations kavanaugh was involved in. >> charles pickering's nomination to the fifth circuit is, the committee learns he collected letters of support from lawyers who appeared in his courtroom and practiced in his district. it became an apparent some of these lawyers had cases pending before him. when they wrote the letters judge pickering requested. did you know that judge pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? if not, when did you become aware that judge pickering had solicited these letters of support? >> the answer to the first question, senator, is no. this was not one of the judicial nominees that i was primarily handling. >> brett kavanaugh telling it the senator under oath that this nomination of charles pickering was not one that i was primarily handling. his characterization of that work on the nomination of that judge has now b

bush presidential library, end quote. so mr. chairman, i renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. that freedom of information act will require some time some time i assume to conclude, and i renew my motion, mr. chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as i said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, mr. chairman. i have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. i would add this final point. all of these documents will come out. they will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. by law, these

bush white house. what ended up potentially being the most potent twist in the kavanaugh hearings is the evidence presented by democrats that showed that kavanaugh may have lied to the senate pretty extensively in order the obtain currency that he already has on a federal appeals court. the good news is that his supreme court hearings are now over and he may very well end up becoming a supreme court justice. the bad news for kavanaugh is that whether or not they decide to elevate him to the high court, he may find himself one day being impeached thanks to what democrats proved about his statements under oath that were not true during not just this proceeding but the one more than ten years ago that got him the judgeship that he has right now. so we have more on that coming up tonight. and today turned out to be the day that president barack obama decided to come out to play ahead of the mid-term elections which are now less than two months away. >> we are americans. we're supposed the stand up to bulli

bush from 2003-2006.enate minority leader chuck schumer tweeted last week -- "senator grassley now admitting the senate will only receive half the documents that he requested, before the hearing starts. that means senators will have seen only 6% of kavanaugh's records, & the public will have seen 3%." he continued in a second tweet -- "further, these documents aren't the official national archives' curation of white house docs, but the ones that have been pre-screened by kavanaugh's former deputy and george bush's private lawyer. the senate will likely have zero records from the archives" in time for the hearing. and "the new york times" reported in fact mitch mcconnell said when the possibility of another supreme court pick on the part of trump, do not go with brett kavanaugh because of his long paper trail. know, let me just take a moment to talk about his record on affirmative action. there are two incredibly important pieces that are moving through the courts right now. challenge to affirmative action

have your views changed into her in the bush white house? >> senator i said it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court in respect to principlesse of stare decisis. to keep in mind about roe v wade is it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know. most prominently and most importantly reaffirmed in plannedd parenthood in versus casey in 1982 and as you recall senator, when i case came up the supreme court did not just reaffirm it in passing the court specifically went through all the factors of stare decisis to consider whether to overrule it and in a joint opinion of justice kennedy, o'connor and souter at great length went to those factors that was the question. >> can i interrupt you? i sat on nine of these hearings and when the subject comes up the person says i will follow stare decisis and then they are confirmed of course they don't. i think knowing going into that how you make a judgment on these issues is important to our vote whether to support you or not because i don't want to go back to those death

that changed after working in the bush white house. he started to believe that presidents face so much day to day, that they shouldn't have to fear, you know, scrutiny on legal matters. and another thing to keep in mind here is that the math is narrowly in the republicans' favor. so you are probably going to need a bombshell to shake up this confirmation process. if you are looking for a bombshell, where better to look from the papers than his time in the bush white house? but we won't be seeing many of them. >> very quickly, i want to ask all three of you the same questions. lindsey graham said 55 he thinks is the number here to get kavanaugh through. do you think it's 55, and which democrats very quickly? >> no idea. i don't really want to put any predictions on this. lower than 50, but definitely passes. >> tiffany, something like dean heller out of nevada who is in a very tight race? >> i am not sure if it's dean heller. i don't want to fall into the same trap of charlie brown kicking the football where everybody feels like susan c