rule four of the committee reads as follows. to bring a objection boat without a further debate, a rollcall shall be taken and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with 11 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority. you are calling for us to end debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh. basedrassley: braced -- on the president set by chairman hatch. >> unity vote of -- you need the 11 votes and one member from the minority. sen. grassley: the answer to your question is no we don't and we have checked with the senate parliamentarian. >> mr. chairman. sen. grassley: are you ready to call the roll? call the roll. [voting] sen. grassley: senator. >> i would like to ask if it is within the rules that we hold over all that we hold of the nominees on the calendar today. i should say the nominees except for. sen. grassley: we have a quorum so they will be hold over, yes. >> senator whitehouse and i have a motion that we want to bring up. we want

he asked the committee to designate certain documents as committee confidential. as the chairman knows, on specific request, i think senator klobuchar being the most prominent, the committee reviewed those documents when it was able to work through that claim of committee confidentiality and allow those documents to be made public. that is of course, the right way to handle that. because our colleagues across the aisle, some of them have decided to disregard those claims of committee confidentiality and not follow the appropriate process and intentionally violated committee confidentiality. that virtually guarantees that in future nominations, we will get less voluntary cooperation from the custodian of those records. i think that defeats the goal that our friends across the aisle claim to be advocating in favor of, more production and not less. violating those confidentiality rules result in less documents being produced. the reason we don't operate by subpoena, like the senator from rhode island and others are advocating, and others across the aisle is because i

as committee confidential. so that both democrats and republicans could begin reviewing judge kavanaugh's materials much earlier. i don't know why my democratic colleagues object to receiving documents faster. but not all of these presidential records remain confidential. in fact, nearly two-thirds already became public. these records are posted on the committee's public website and available to the american people. as a result, we provide an unprecedented public access to a record number of presidential records and did it in record time. the most sensitive presidential records remain committee confidential. under federal law. just as they were during the nominations of kagan or gorsuch. but we have expanded access to these documents also instead of just providing access to committee members, we've provided access to all 100 senators. instead of just providing access to a very few committee aides, we've provided access to all committee aides. and instead of just providing access to physical binders of paper. we

as committee confidential. i have any member of the committee for a number of years. committee confidential does -- documents have been limited to extraordinary circumstances. if somebody is accused of taking drugs during an investigation, i am not making a suggestion that that is the case here, but it was done in a confidential setting in fairness to the nominee. same thing on dui's. circumstancesare where we would meet after the committee hearing and eight -- it was usually related to a handful of documents. what we have found out is we have hundreds of thousands of documents characterize as committee confidential unilaterally, not on a bipartisan basis, it is done by the chairman. so one of the said just as was -- one of the suggestions was whether the committee will hear the nominee for a lifetime appointment without access to basic information about his public record. his public record as a secretary to the president of the united states, staff secretary. 35 months of public service. we have been told cann

chairman, senator thurmond, members of the committee committee. as excruciatingly difficult as the last two weeks have been, i welcome the opportunity to clear my name today. no one, other than my wife and senator danforth, to whom i read the statement at 6:30 a.m., has seen or heard the statement. no handlers, no advisers. but first i -- the first i learned of the allegations by professor anita hill was on september 25, 1991, when the fbi came to my home to investigate her allegations. when informed by the fbi agent of the nature of the allegations and the person making them, i was shocked, surprised hurt, and enormously saddened. i have not been the same since that day. for almost a decade my responsibilities included enforcing the rights of victims of sexual harrassment. as a boss, as a friend and as a human being, i was proud that i had never had such an allegation leveled against me even as i sought to promote women and minorities into nontraditional jobs. in addition, several of my friends who are women have confided in me about the horror o

ford and her brilliant lawyer say to the judiciary committee, republicans on the judiciary committee, you might have learned nothing in the last 26 years, but we have. >> yeah. >> and they are in control. thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. >> well, we begin with breaking news tonight about the reopening of brett kavanagh's confirmation hearing for united states supreme court in the senate judiciary committee. in the 27 years since anita hill was victimized by the republicans on the committee when she came forward with sexual harassment charges against republican supreme court nominee clarence thomas, the republicans on that committee have obviously learned absolutely nothing. but professor christine blasey ford has learned a great deal about how not to be victimized by those same republicans on that side committee. and so tonight dr. ford is making demands on that committee that had been demanding her testimony in what would be a rushed hearing next monday. attorneys for professor christine blasey ford have told chuck grassley, the senate judiciary committee, a written response t

of the committee. chairman leahy accepted documents on a committee confidential basis during justice kagan's nomination. there's no indication that the ranking member agreed to that at that particular time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. two quick points, if i could. the question has been raised whose documents are these. these are the american people's documents. the presidential records act gives us a right to obtain them for a supreme court nomination after the review of the professionals at the national archives. bill burke is not a professional at the national archives. the archives has said this is not their process. equally importantly, because some will now make dire predictions about the appropriateness of the release of any of these documents, bill burke himself in his letter to us of august 31 said, and i quote, presidential records act exemption one, which protects against the disclosure of classified information, did not apply to any documents our team reviewed. i agree with senator booker. t

the clerk will call the role on committee.ll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> mr. chairman, votes 21 yeas and no nays. >> by that overwhelming vote, eric is reported to the floor, the clerk will call the role on rachel cobner. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> 21 yeas and no nays. >> by that in a minute, -- unan, rachel cobner is reported to the floor. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> mr. chairman, the votes are 17 yeas and 4 nays. >> by vote of 17 to 4, lieman is reported to the floor. the clerk will call the roll on senatra. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> mr. chairman, the votes 16 yeas, 5 nays. >> by vote of 16 to 5 john senatra is reported to the floor. the clerk will call the role on mary, southern district new york. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> mr. chairman, the votes are 21 yeas, and no yeas. >> by this overwhelming vote mary, southern district new york is reported, the clerk will call the roll on joshua, eastern district of pennsylvania. [roll call v

in his committee. and i'm no longer sure that chuck grassly even knows that. i'm no longer sure chuck grassly remembers any word he said, and on that committee chuck congressly was reasonable if cantankerous, but i never doubted chuck grassly's integrity and his work on the finance committee at that time. but i am sorry to say chuck grassly has stayed in the senate way too long. listen. listen to this. listen to the very first words that chuck grassly, the chairman of the judiciary committee spoke today when he was asked why he opposed an fbi investigation this time. >> just so you guys and gals all understand -- maybe i better say men and women. >> yes, senator grassly, it's 2018. we call them women now. joining our discussion now is christine, the executive vice president of the leadership conference. and lisa graves, a former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee on the democratic side. she was deputy assistant attorney general in the department of ju

no senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents committee confidential. so i have no idea how that stamp committee confidential got on these documents. i sent a letter on august 10th, 2018, objecting to the blanket designation of documents as committee confidential. i offered to work with the chair. he refused. judiciary democrats sent the chairman a letter on august 28th restating the objection to the chair's designation of the documents as committee confidential and requesting public release. as i've looked at the documents that are committee confidential, they do not affect any of the usual standards that would deny committee confidentiality and mr. chairman, i think that's a problem. i think we're entitled to all records and i think the public is entitled to all records that are appropriate and do not put forward personal information or information that otherwise should not be disclosed. so i do think we have a problem and i think for the future we ought to settle that problem with some kind of a written agreement between the two sides.

sir, this committee is a violation of the values that we as a committee have striven for. we are rushing through this process in a way that is unnecessary and i appeal for the motion to at least be voted on. >> mr. chairman -- >> at least let's have a vote. when we wrote you a letter on august 24th asking to have a meeting on this issue you denied us even the right to meet. here we are having a meeting. let's at least debate this issue. let's call this for a vote. i appeal to your sense of fairness and decency, your commitments that you've made to transparency. this violates what you have even said and called for, sir. you have called for documents, you yourself, limited documents. we thought there should be more. we have not received the documents that you have even called for. so, sir, based upon your own principles, your own values, i call for at least to have a debate or a vote on these issues and not for us to rush through this process. >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman -- i've heard calls -- >> i'd like to respond to senator booker. senator booker, i think that i respe

as committee confidential. i have been a member of the committee for a number of years. committee confidential documents have been really limited to extraordinary circumstances. as an example, if someone is accused of taking drugs during the course of an investigati investigation -- i'm not making any suggestion that is even the case or close to it here -- it was done in a confidential setting, and fairness to the nominee. same on duis and the like. we use an extremely rare circumstances, where we'd meet after this committee hearing and sit down, and it usually related to a handful of pages or handful of document references. instead, what we found now is we are seeing hundreds of thousands of documents characterized as committee confidential unilaterally. it is not done on a bipartisan basis. it is done by the chairman. one of the discussions yesterday was this whole question of whether this committee is going to hear a nominee for lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land without access to basic in

the committee, as the senate rules require, has already voted in this committee on whether or not judge thomas should be on the court. each of us has already said whether we think judge thomas should or should not be a supreme court justice, for reasons related to or unrelated to charges we will listen to today. and in this setting, it will be easy and perhaps understandable for the witnesses to fear unfair treatment, but it is my job as chairman to ensure as best as i possibly can fair treatment, and that is what i intend to do. so let me make three ground rules clear for all of my colleagues. first, while legal counsel sitting behind me has advised that the rules of evidence do not apply here, counsel has also advised the chair that the chair does have the power to rule out of order questions that are not relevant to our proceedings. certain subjects are simply irrelevant to the issue of harassment, namely, the private conduct, out-of-the-workplace relationships, and the intimate lives and practices of judge thomas, professor hill, and any other witness that comes before us. thus, as

instead of just providing access to a very few committee aides, we provided access to all committee aides and instead of just providing access to physical binders of paper, we provided 24/7 digital and searchable access. this is unprecedented access to committee confidential material. i'd also like to add that my staff set up workstations and have been available 24/7 to help senators who are not on committee access confidential materials but not once -- but not one senator showed up. i guess senators complaining about lack of access to confidential documents weren't really interested in seeing them in the first place, but i want to emphasize more documents are widely available than in any prior supreme court nomination and then to the issue about hiding committee confidential documents. some colleagues, and you've heard it this morning, accused of hiding documents. they're suggesting that some of the committee confidential documents contain information that would be of great interest to the public. well, just as i did last year during justice gorsuch's confirmation, you put a process in p

the -- committee was ask to do several things. one, document standards and resources for voting technologies. two, examine challenges arising out of the 2016 election. three, evaluate advances in technology currently and soon to be available that can improve voting. and, four, other -- offer recommendations that provide a vision of voting that is easier, accessible, reliable and verifiable. our committee was composed of a diverse and talented group of professionals, some expert in scientific and technical disciplines, others in law and others in election administration. it has been gratifying to work with dr. mcrobbie and with the dedicated members of this study committee. over the course of our study, the committee reviewed extensive background materials and held five public meetings where it invited experts who spoke to the committee about a range of topics. ese topics included voter registration, voting accessibility, voting technologies and market impediments to technological innovation, cybersecurity, post-election audits and

. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. i will say unfortunately the conduct of our democratic colleagues, it's been clear that this has been all about politics. all about delaying this confirmation until after the election. hoping that they win the senate in the election and then keeping this supreme court seat vacant until 2021. every member before the committee started said they opposed judge kavanaugh before a single thing started. not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had it in writing on july 30th. if that had been reported, this committee has a process to investigate. it is confidential and the fbi could have participated back on july 30th. that we could have had a hearing that is closed, that is not drags either of these individuals through the mud. that's the way the process should have worked. the testimony yesterday from dr. ford is that the only people who had copies of the letter were herself, her lawyers,

chairman, as a former chairman of this committee and chairman of two other committees in my time in the senate, i want you to know, i think you have done a terrific job. you have been fair. you have been very decent in your approach. you have treated everybody with respect. you have especially treated our democratic colleagues with respect, which they deserve. frankly, you are a great chairman. i think we all ought to acknowledge that and start treating our chairman with a little more respect and dignity. we all respect him and know what a good man he is. i also think the ranking member has been good through this process as well. i like her very much. she's very sincere. she's on the other side of this from me, but she believes in what she is doing and i have to stand-up and say she has a right to do that. i want her to know that i appreciate her and her leadership on this committee but it's time to vote and quit making political -- you can make political statements, but in lieu of the vote and make a final determination where this nominee is going to go. for one, senator lee -- >> i'm

committee. >> just everybody understands, the reason i wanted to come with that some people because of the weather situation in the southeast that wanted us to get some things done before we come so that's what i wanted to take the motion that i did on kavanaugh. >> with all due respect, mr. chairman, my motion -- >> that motion is taken. so then -- >> mr. chairman, if i may be hurt. i raised this motion -- >> we need regular order. the chairman has the floor. only the children can recognize members to speak, as i under -- >> now i'm ready -- i have the floor. i did what any one member of this committee can do, hold over the nomination of kavanaugh. i've done that. i'm ready to recognize blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i made this motion properly at the hearing pickup leaf i was entitled to a vote then on the motion to adjourn. we have an even more urgent and pressing duty to get those documents and have witnesses after we do the documents that would enable us to evaluate the serious con

no senate committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority that designate documents committee confidential. i had no idea how that stand on these documents. object being to the blanket designation of documents this committee confidential. i offered to work with share. he refused. judiciary democrats and the chairman a letter on august august 28th cover restating the objection to the chair's designation of the document as committee l confidential and requesting public release. as i look at the documents that are committee confidential, they do not affect any of the usual standard that would deny confidentiality. mr. chairman, i think that's a problem. i think we're entitled to all records and i think the public is entitled to all records that are appropriate and do not put forward personal information or information that should otherwise not be disclosed. so i do think we have a problem and a thing for the future we ought to settle the problem with some kind of a written agreement between the two sides. whether that's an agreement between the two sides of the entire committee o

. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. and i will say unfortunately, the conduct of our democratic colleagues, it's been clear that this has been all about politics, all about delaying this confirmation until after the election hoping that they win the senate in the election and then keeping the supreme court seat vacant until 2021. every democratic member of this committee before the confirmation hearing started said they opposed judge kavanaugh, before a single thing started. and not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had it in writing on july 30th. if on july 30th that had been reported to the committee chairman, this committee has a process to investigate it, a process to investigate it that is confidential, that the fbi could've participated in investigating starting back on july 30th. that we could've had a hearing lead is closed, that is not dragging either of these individuals through the mud. that's the way thi

we're doing the committee work. judge kavanaugh, i also have to say, i believe you're the first major target of a new strategy that's developed here, and i think you're right, i think it's just basically attack, attack, attack. it's not advise and consent, it's search and destroy. and maybe one of the best evidence of this is, one of the websites, one of the groups that are out there attacking you and trying to create fodder and all of these red herrings has already acquired a url for the next judge that they're going to attack. url is right here. they've already purchased it. this is the playbook. this is the way we're going to run this committee from this point forward? take a look at it. i'll make sure we get it out on our website. we've already got a stop another judge who hasn't been nominated, url, from the same people who are trying to mobilize people to attack you. there are some people here who may sincerely have concerns. i would tell you to pound the table with your ranking member and the leadership on y

, the judiciary committee. and they could have gone ahead and scheduled, but not drop this after the hearings were completed and they were about to vote on judge kavanaugh. i just think -- >> so -- >> caller: -- it's just horrible. i don't doubt that she went through a trauma, but also i find it difficult to believe that you wait 36 years and all of a sudden, you have an epiphany moment and it all comes back? i don't buy it. >> odi, thank you for the call. let's go next to laura in hope, rhode island. democrats line. >> caller: hi. my name is laura. i'm actually calling about the supreme court, itself, rather than the hearing. >> okay. >> caller: that we're having. and i just want to point out that justice thomas after his hearing was appointed to the court in 1991 1 hearing was appointed to the court in 1991 1991. since that time, there have been very more significant court decisions on which the conser conservative majority or minority had a voice. none of those decisions or d dissents were written by justice

the committee here has gathered evidence.to the white house, if i understand it, and the white house then transfers it to the senate, is that correct? that is my understanding. and as you indicated, it has been said many times you today, the fbi does not make judgements, it gives the senate committee information. at that point in time, if i understand the process correctly, the united states senate judiciary committee has legal authorities if it receives information in an fbi report and it wa nts to information in an fbi report and it wants to further investigate, the senate has legal authority to conduct further investigations, is that correct? that is my understanding. and that is what has been referenced here many times of how some of these witnesses that we re how some of these witnesses that were identified late in the information that we received, they we re information that we received, they were under penalty of felony. that isa were under penalty of felony. that is a felony for lying to the senate judiciary committee

to this committee combined. so what's all the fuss over the documents that are not turned over? most of those concern judge kavanaugh's three years as the staff secretary for president george w. bush. now, many people don't know what a staff secretary does. but that's the position in charge of all of the paper that comes into and out of the oval office. critically, the staff secretary is not the author of the paper coming into and out of the oval office. that painer is typically written by the attorney general, by the secretary of state, by other cabinet members, by other senior white house officials. the staff secretary is simply the funnel for collecting their views and then for transferring the paper back and forth. in other words, those documents, written by other people, say nothing, zero about judge kavanaugh's views and they say nothing, zero, about what kind of justice judge kavanaugh would make. but they are, by necessity, the most sensitive and confidential documents in the white house. they are the do

three committees are allowed to look into these things, us, our great committee, senate finance committee, at the joint committee on taxation. there is credible evidence that the presidents business engaged in money laundering to profit from real estate transactions, unlawful institutions would not loan him -- when unlawful institutions would not load in money. we know we has a history of lonnie mondrian -- money-laundering. he has a history of tax avoidance, has been complicit in money-laundering schemes. you can't make this up. yet my colleagues think checking out his tax returns would be an overreach work just like the 50 tax returns you look into six years ago. that's not what i'm here to talk about. we need to know how the president has personally benefited or will personally benefit under tax policies that he himself has pushed and signed into law. i think that's a reasonable look and oversight. that's our responsibility to this is what checks and balances me. i'm sorry if it causes pain, whether democrat or republican. that's a responsibility, in writing. this should be an egregiou

course the committee votes in about halfan hourand course the committee votes in about half an hournd it will go to the full senate at the weekend, probably early next week. we are looking at two keira public and is, susan collins from maine and lisa murkowski from alaska and it is a question of which way they go. if they flip, he is finished. he will lose the vote. everyone is looking to them for some sort of decision because they hold, they hold his future in their hands. and motion by richard blumenthal to subpoena mark judge, this man who was a friend of brett kava naugh who judge, this man who was a friend of brett kavanaugh who was indicated in these parties and i think with other women as well, was voted down. the fbi investigation, could that be resurrected and if so by who? fbi investigation, could that be resurrected and if so by wh07m could resurrected and if so by who?m could be ordered by the white house, the president could direct the fbi to ta ke the president could direct the fbi to take a look at this, potentially even the republican majority on the committee could

we are doing the committee work. judge kavanaugh, i also have to say, i believe that you are a part -- you are the first major target of a new strategy that has developed here. and i think you are right. i think it is just basically attack, attack, attack. it is not advise and consent, it is search and destroy. maybe the best evidence of this is one of the websites, one of the groups out there attacking you and trying to create fodder and all these red herrings has already acquired a url for the next judge they're going to attack. it is right here. they've already purchased it. they're ready to go. this is the playbook. this is the way we are going to ruin this committee from this point forward. take a look at a. i will make it sure we get it out on our website. we have already got a stop another judge you have not been nominated url from the same people trying to mobilize people to attack you. there are some people here who may sincerely have concerns. i would tell you to pound the table with the ranking member and

. committee.that the chair man read out. that the chair man read out. a man that the democrats are calling for the to. for the to. reiterating that he does not want to testify. testify. he does not want to be in the public spotlight. the public spotlight. he does not want to appear on television. want to appear on television. republicans are not supporting an fbi investigation. fbi investigation. private, close interview that would not take place on capitol hill. not take place on capitol hill. could testify as to whether and not this event transpired. this event transpired. sending a letter through their lawyers. lawyers. are saying that we should not go to markjudge. markjudge. credible witness yesterday, then that explains it, doesn't it? that explains it, doesn't it? have any recollection and he did not assault anybody for that matter? assault anybody for that matter? testimony that christine blasey ford or any other witnesses offered. or any other witnesses offered. would simply strengthen th

we've told the committee that i do want to comment-- when i told the committee that i do not want to comment about these events publicly as a recovering alcoholic and a cancer survivor, i have struggled with depression and anxiety, as a result i avoid public speaking. brett kavanaugh and i were friends in high school, but we have not spoken directly in several years. i do not recall the events described by dr. ford in her testimony before the u.s. senate judiciary committee today. i never saw brett act in a manner dr. ford describes. i'm knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony. mark judge, witnessed by barbara van gelder. and he has signed it. >> mr. chairman. >> call the-- >> mr. chairman, if i may respond. >> on the motion? >> on the motion. if i may respond, that's not substitute for a fbi interview. >> the answer is no. >> and it's no for this committee. >> mr. cruz. >> no. >> mr. sass. >> mr. tillis. [roll call] >> the votes ten yea, 11 nay. the motion is defeated. now i move as i said i was going to do to set the vote out to report judge kavanaugh's nomination

chairman, as a former chairman of this committee and a chairman of two other committees in my time in the senate, i want you to know that i think you have done a terrific job. you have been fair. you have been very decent in your approach. you have treated everybody with respect. you have especially treated our democratic colleagues with respect, which they deserve. and frankly, you're a great chairman. and i think we ought to all acknowledge that. and start treating our chairman with a little more respect and dignity. we all respect him. we all know what a good man he is. i also think the ranking member has bun good through this process as well. i like her very much. she's very sincere. she's on the other side of this from me, but she believes in what she's doing, and i have to stand up and say she has a right to do that. i just want her to know that i appreciate her and her leadership on this committee. it's time to vote. it's time to quit making the political -- you can make your political statements, but they ought to be made in lieu of the vote and we ought to vote this and make

we can bring you live pictures of that committee room, committee room 226.of seats which are vacant. that is because democrats, once again, walked out of the broom. it leaves many questions begging. does that mean they will abstain from this vote? what does that mean for the legitimacy of that vote? to discuss that, i'm joined by our north american reporter. it is quite a stark image. to see no democrats there. they have all walked out. exactly, they did this during some of the confirmation hearings during donald trump's nominations. to slow the probe treatment process down. seems like a similar thing. several of them did not bother to vote on the agreement to have a vote at 1:30pm. theyjust the agreement to have a vote at 1:30pm. they just stayed the agreement to have a vote at 1:30pm. theyjust stayed silent and then they got up and walked out of then they got up and walked out of the broom. they have a procedural objection to this. they want to be able to call witnesses. they want an fbi investigation. they are objecting to the rest of the vote. the republ

has the authority to do it and this committee does it and this committee has done it. now, there may be more demand for more interviews and more investigation but when you, judge kavanaugh, have referenced the testimony that has come from those who were supposed -- who were identified as being at this event, the testimony that has been received from them is information that has been received pursuant to a senate committee investigation. and i just think it should be made clear, i think there's been a lot of back and forth here about, oh, we're not getting information. we're not looking at this. you don't want to look into the investigation. you don't want to see what happened. the reality is this committee immediately and thoroughly investigated every witness identified to us and we have statements under penalty of felony from them. so, i just want to conclude with that. i have 45 seconds left so i'll ask one quick question on timing. you had a meeting with senator feinstein august 20th. >> my understanding -- i had a meeting. that's my understanging of the date. >> wh

she is a member of the senate judiciary committee.tor klobuchar, it's nice to have you with us tonight. thanks very much for being here. >> thank you, rachel. >> so i have a couple of things i want to ask you about. i want to talk to you about the now seemingly foundering -- potentially foundering nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. before i talk to you about that, though, i also want to talk to you about the sort of national fire drill we had this morning when it appeared for an hour or so that the president was about to fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. it was sort of a wild ride in the news this morning. but i wanted to get your impressions about what happened there and your reaction to that. >> this was truly everyone's worst fear. we have this ongoing important investigation based on our national security concerns with a man, rod rosenstein, who has been a u.s. attorney under both republican and democratic presidents, number two in the justice department, only recently announced indictments coming out o

we told the committee that i do want to comment -- when i told the committee i do not want to comment about these events publicly, as a recovering alcoholic and cancer survivor. i have struggled with depression and anxiety. as a result i avoid public speaking. brett tave nau and i were friends in high school but we have not spoken directly in several years. i do not recall the events described by dr. ford in her testimony before the u.s. senate judiciary committee today. i never saw brett act in a manner dr. ford describes. i am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony. mark judge, witnessed by barbara van gelleder. and he has signed it. >> mr. chairman. senator grassley: on the motion? mr. blumen that'll: that letter is no substitute for an f.b.i. interview. and it is no substitute for testimony before this committee. the clerk: [calling roll] he votes are 10 yays, 11 nays. senator grassley: the motion is defeated. now i move as i said i was going to do that we set the vote to vote out judge kavanaugh's nomination at 1:30 p.m. today. >> mr. chairman, point of order. r

. >> this committee has given dr. ford and judge kavanaugh full and fair opportunity to lay out their views. i will say unfortunately, the conduct of the democratic colleagues, et has been clear that this is all about politics, and all about delaying this confirmation until after the election, hoping that they win the senate in the election and keeping this supreme court seat vacant until 2021. every democratic member of the committee said they opposed judge kavanaugh before a single thing started and not only that, this allegation, the ranking member of this committee had nit writing on july 309, and if that had been reported to the committee chairman, this committee has a process to investigate it and a process to investigate that is confidential and the fbi could have participated investigating starting back on july 30th that we could have had a hearing that is closed, and that is not dragging either of these individuals through the mud. that is the way this process should have worked. the testimony yesterday from

unfortunately, it took the committee ten days to get to this hearing. in those ten long days, as was predictable, and as i predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. the ten-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the supreme court, into the country. when this allegation first arose, i i welcomed any kind of investigation, senate, fbi or otherwise. the committee now has conducted a thorough investigation and i have cooperated fully. i know that in kind of investigation, senate, fbi, montgomery county police, whatever, will clear me. listen to the people i know. listen to people who have known me my whole life. listen to the people i have grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with an dated and taught and gone to games with and had peers with, and listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. listen to ms. keyser. she does not know me. i was not at the party described by dr. ford. this confirmation process has become a nat

in a recent briefing, the committee learned t.s.a. is using direct reassignments to improve the t.s.a. workforce, if that is indeed the case. t.s.a. needs to reconsider. the last time t.s.a. used directed reassignment, it became a tool to retaliate. and that is one of the reasons we're having the hearing today. to ensure mistakes of the past are not repeated. throughout our investigation, the committee faced obstruction, obstruction which prolonged this investigation. and i'm gonna stop and repeat what i said earlier on. i recognize t.s.a. as under new leadership, and most of what i am describing if not all of what i'm describing did not take place under the admiral's watch. nonetheless it was t.s.a. then too for our normal investigative practice, the committee requested documents from t.s.a., and t.s.a. refused to produce many of these documents. the committee then issued a subpoena to compel production of the documents. under direction of the department office of general council, t.s.a. refused to produce these couples. in january o

standing committee on the judiciary, and the standing committee did not join this letter. senator cornyn. senator cornyn: thank you, mr. chairman. i have said before that i believe that in considering dr. ford's testimony, we should treat her the same way i would want my wife, my daughters, or my mother treated. -- or my mother treated, if they were in similar circumstances. conversely, i want to make sure we treat judge kavanaugh the same way we would treat my father, my brother, or a son. we owe that to both judge kavanaugh and to dr. ford. it is simply false to say that somehow we have, in drawing attention to the fact that this has been an orchestrated effort to delay the vote on this nomination, that we have somehow been disrespectful of dr. ford. i'm proud of the way this committee treated dr. ford yesterday. i thought it was appropriate. -- i thought it was appropriate, dignified, and apparently our friends across the aisle are somehow upset that we got a trained lawyer who handles claims like this on a daily basis to handle it in a thoughtful, appropriate way, to e

the ways and means committee and appropriations committee, but people get on other committees and they really burrow in and get totally knowledgeable and have a real effect, so you never want to say one -- there's only a couple of important committees. all committees are important. such a difference between the authorization and the appropriation. people like nita worked on authorization, and an expert on it, and so you always -- people come very close to their committees, you know? and of course if you stay on a committee, it has a lot to do with your seniority. >> did you feel like the leadership at the time was looking to promote women and put them on committees, and was that something that you had a special eye looking out for? >> well, i think the women's caucus did at that time because that -- why did we make the appointment with tip? why were we talking among ourselves? i mean, we weren't truly represented in places that we had real interest in. >> tip's name has come up quite a few times. >> what? >> tip o' neil. how would you describe your relationship with him? >> good. he lo

some people say why would she demand certain requisites from the senate committee when the senate committee is running the investigation and questioning. >> i think this issue, the allegations have become so polarized it will be a response based on partisanship and polarization. republicans and people who went to see brett cavanagh become justice cavanagh will believe him and many women and many democrats will believe her. the ultimate judge will come and the judgment will come in november during the midterms. if women are angry enough about the way this issue is resolved about the way she is treated, if they feel she is not given due process, they will turn out in large numbers and that could cause a wave the president says doesn't exist. >> diane feinstein had the letter for six weeks. according to her doctor for did not want to be named publicly. why didn't democrats demand a closed door hearing before this was leaked out and became public? keith ellison is accused of domestic abuse and although he denies at the wall street journal says the allegations of sexual abuse can be a politicize

of the committee.rules and practices. practices in cases like this it needs to be sent back to the fbi to be examined. chairman grassly has repeatedly violated the rules and norms of this committee. racing forward with no constitutional requirement he raised forward and trying to rig this system. i have to say i'm so humbled by the courage of dr. ford in being willing to come forward in this sort of rigged process that senator grassly and his republican men on that committee and their staff are trying to put forward because she wants the truth told. and as you point out she's the one asking for a full investigation and a full hearing. brett kavanaugh ask that today in his letter and he was there all week and apparently didn't ask it either. >> and i don't believe she's going to be able to negotiate her way to a fair hearing. i believe she's going to be able to negotiate her way to a more fair hearing, but it's going to be marginal. a senior democratic aide said that reopening fbi background checks is r

the senate judiciary committee voted 11-10 to move the supreme court nomination out of committee. senator jeff flake only cast the deciding vote after negotiations with democrats to delay the floor vote on this nomination for up to a week, giving the fbi time to investigate the sexual assault allegations against judge kavanaugh. here is how the hearing played out on friday. >> i have the floor and before i make my opening statement, i'd like to start off, start out today where we left off on september 13. if you remember then we were -- ng a lot of motions from can we have quiet from the audience? senator grassley: is there somebody that can signal to me that the chairs are filled and peace and have some quiet. i'd like to start out today where we left off on september 13, although this is a new meeting. ut i was anticipating a lot of motions from the minority and we did have some motions for the minority. but if you remember i said that i'll give the minority a chance to make their motions and then i was going to make a motion that we have a time certain to vote. and so i want to

the committee stands in recess. committee stands in recess. >>> if the committee will come back to order, when we recess, we had included debate. despite this chairman, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. mister chairman, this week legendary journalist bob woodward released a book with disturbing details about what is going on in the white house. white house chief of staff general kelly reportedly said, president trump has gone off the rails, we are in crazy town, i don't even know why any of us are here. general kelly denied some of the comments attributed to him, and woodward is standing by his reporting. either way, the question this raises is a good one. why are any of us here? why are any of us up here on this dais. are we taking our duty to our constituents seriously? are we living up to article 1 of the constitution? this is the people's house. we are the american people -- the american people check on power on the administration. there oversight of the white house. are we going to take that job seriou

this committee has the authority to do it, and disk committee has done it.ere may be more demands for more interviews and more investigation but when you will, judge kavanaugh, i have reference to the testimony from those who were identified as being at this event, the testimony that has been received from them is information that has been received pursuant to a senate committee investigation. i think it should be made clear. i think there's been a lot of back-and-forth here about, not getting information, you don't want to look into the investigation and you don't want to see what happened, but this committee thoroughly investigated every witness that was identified to us and we have statements under penalty of felony from them. i have 45 seconds left so i will ask you one quick question on timing. you had a meeting with senator feinstein on august 20th? >> i had a meeting and that's my understanding of the date. >> what was established with testimony earlier today was that the ranking member staff helped dr. ford to retain the caps law firm on -- sometime