it's also worth noting that it was supreme court justice elena kagan who hired judge kavanaugh to teach at harvard when she was the harvard law school dean. justice kagan clearly thought highly of the judge's reputation and credentials. so highly, in fact, that she hired him to help shape the minds of harvard law school students. in his writing, judge kavanaugh reminds us that federalism and the separation of powers, quote, are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberties, unquote. judge kavanaugh has also exhibited a willingness to rein in administrative agencies when they exceed their authority under the law. he has consistently held that international laws do not govern national security matters if congress has not adopted them as domestic law. domestic law. as domestic law. after carefully reviewing the record, i am confident that will be thankful to the constitution and preserve the authority of the supreme court. judge kavanaugh is more than a highly prospective jurors. in a mine that's well-suited for the supreme court is als

but elena kagan had been dean of the law school. that request everybody agrees was way beyond the scope of our committee's usual practice. but i agreed with the republicans that the records could potentially be of public interest, and so i joined with senator sessions and we sought them because they thought they should be subject to public scrutiny. transparency weighed in favor of disclosure. but then transparency almost always does. and then for justice sotomayor, when i was chair, i joined then-ranking member jeff sessions when we requested decades' old records from justice sotomayor's time working with a civil rights organization during the 1980's. i remember she was a sitting court of appeals judge, and we had that record, which is what some of the republicans are saying is all we should look at with judge kavanaugh. but they wanted the time she worked with the civil rights organization decades before. we did have 3,000 opinions that she had written over 17 years as an appellate and district court federal judge. every republica

when elena kagan produced $170,000 documents, 99 part -- 99% of everything that happened when she was at the white house, she did not assert executive pre-lit -- privilege. shea sotomayor -- they say just came up with her judicial opinions. they asked her to produce minutes of the meeting of the puerto rican legal defense fund, and they produce them. we have been open and past.arent in the why are republicans refusing to do the same? that is the question the american people i think clearly understand. of --ressing the question heavy-handed prosecutors, piling on charges. saying, you face decades of jail. sing like a bird. what on earth does that have to do with the -- it hasn't think specifically to do with the nomination. what all of us hope is that the system of justice will find the truth. whatever the motive of the person testifying, we want them under oath to tell the truth, period. if they are being encouraged to do it by lessening a sentence, that is understandable, but the question is the final product that they present to the court, is it truthful? that is the bottom line. i

you know elena kagan, the republican sat with her.int where no republicans sat with him. you know, the stalling that's going on that nan is talking about is really critical because this is not a winner for the democrats leading up to the midterm. >> you assume this will be a party boat and i'm not sure that was the case. there are some democrats considering voting for kavanaugh and there are also republicans who under circumstances if evidence is brought out against kavanaugh that show him to be unsuitable they would consider not voting for him as well. >> harris: the republicans like susan collins who have spoken up, they are looking things like roe vs. wade. that was not a litmus question that the president asked. >> if that's true. with all due respect, donald trump said that when he was running for president, his lips would only include people who would overturn roe v. wade. >> harris: we are out of time, we will be right back. since my stroke, he hasn't left my side. with the right steps, 80% of recurrent ischemic strokes could b

elena kagan had a long record in washington. and there was no issue in terms of receiving all the documentation, all the records from her time working in the administration. what is the justification for treating elena kagan differently? >> there is no principal explanation for it. only that the republicans obviously want to rush through this nomination. they have not only limited the scope of the documents that they will allow access to but they've also, even to the limits number of documents they're willing to make available, they have delegated, or outsourced the prescreening, cherry picking process to a republican lawyer, bill burke, who just coincidentally happened to work as a subordinate for judge kavanaugh when they were both working in the bush white house. bill burke is now bush's lawyer. he is also dan mcgahn's lawyer. >> isn't bill burke also recommending reince priebus in the russia investigation? >> exactly. >> that's the person? >> in effect sanitizing all these documents. without any explanation, any log or any r

think about this, during the confirmation of elena kagan, they turned over -- by contrast the senate judiciary committee has received 440,000 pages for judge kavanaugh, more than any other supreme court nominee in american history. mind -- democrat minority say it is still not enough. the truth of the matter is, we are going to do all that we can to support this nominee, we will provide the senate the opportunity and resources to review the record in detail. when you look at his record and his character, you know judge brett kavanaugh deserves the support of every member of the united states senate. we're going to fight to take his case to confirmation. we need your help. we need your continued engagement. not just those of you who came to lunch but the 6000 members, leaders in your community, to get out and spread the word. .pread the word in every state get the word to every senator for every state about what judge kavanaugh brings. i hope you leave today and understand that i hold the view that the most powerful media in news,a is not television the internet, social media, i've al

what's the justification for treating elena kagan completely opposite from how they're treating judge cab anyhow? >> there is absolutely no principled explanation for it. and the only reason is that the republicans obviously want to rush through this nomination. they have not only limited the scope of the documents that they will allow access to, but they've also even as to those limited number of documents they're willing to make available, they have delegated or outsourced the prescreening cherry picking process to a republican lawyer, bill burck, who just coincidentally happened to work as a subordinate for judge cab anyhow when they were both working in the bush white house. bill burck is now bush's lawyer. he is also don mcgahn's lawyer. don mcgahn was involved in picking judge kavanaugh. there is a kind of. >> isn't bill burck also representing is reince priebus and steve bannon in the russia investigation. >> exactly. >> that's the person they're having produce all the records. >> sanitizing all these documents, cherry picking the ones he's going to allow us to see without any

it's also worth noting that it was supreme court justice elena kagan who hired judge kavanaugh to teach at harvard when she was the harvard law school dean. justice kagan clearly thought highly of the judge's reputation and credentials. so highly, in fact, that she hired him to help shape the minds of harvard law school students. in his writing, judge kavanaugh reminds us that federalism and the separation of powers, quote, are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberties, unquote. judge kavanaugh has also exhibited a willingness to rein in administrative agencies when they exceed their authority under the law. he has consistently held that international laws do not govern national security matters if congress has not adopted them as domestic law. after carefully reviewing judge kavanaugh's record, i'm confident he will be faithful to the constitution and preserve the integrity of the supreme court. but i have to say, judge kavanaugh is more than just a highly respected jurist. he's more than an eminently qualified legal scholar and

republicans demanded all of elena kagan posts documents and democrats agreed to request them. again we have this hair-splitting argument by the chairman of the judiciary committee. he says we're giving more documents before -- it's the percentage of documents that matter. are you seeing the whole record or only part of the record? some people have bigger records than others. kagan, we democrats in the majority, when our republican friends, including the senator from iowa, asked, gave them the whole record. that's what we should be getting as well. in fact, republicans, including the distinguished majority leader, demanded all of judge sotomayor's records, including documents from her time as district attorney and even her records as a board member of the puerto rican legal defense fund. we agreed, but now they've totally changed the rules. and i understand, the chairman of the judiciary committee is a decent man, and when he has to do things like this, he doesn't like it. but he ought to rise to the occasion. what they're doing is flat-out wrong. the american people deserve a

what we now have about the same number of pages for brett kavanaugh as we have for atlantic -- elena kagan. that will be changed as you pointed out. but right now, that number represents 99% of the record in the white house, but represents only 2% of kavanaugh's white house record. my staff has been pouring over these nearly completed its review. of the documents are useful in assessing judge kavanaugh's to the for a lifetime supreme court. but it further confirms the need to obtain the full record to adequately assess the nominee and have these document publicly avail before the hearing. as committee confidential. the irony is, there is no rule that defines what this means. but as of now, you have said only committee members and staff currently have access to these documents. my question for you mr. chairman tocan we use these documents question mr. cavanaugh at the hearing? decision confirmation is to seek -- secret documents not available to the public or senate, is extremely troubling. i anticipated 10 supreme court nominations. i would like to take the opportunity to ask the chairman

notably, what we now have is about the same number of pages for brett kavanaugh as we have for elena kagan. 170,000. that will be changed as you pointed out. but right now, that number record in 99% of her the white house, but represents only 2% of kavanaugh's white house record. my staff has been poring over these records, nearly completed its review. some of the documents are useful in assessing judge kavanaugh's fitness for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. but it further confirms the need to obtain the full record to adequately assess the nominee and have these documents publicly available before the hearing. i regret the decision to designate the vast majority of relevant documents as committee confidential. the irony is, there is no rule that defines what this means. but as of now, you have said only committee members and staff currently have access to these documents. my question for you, mr. chairman, is can we use these documents to question mr. kavanaugh at the hearing? to make a confirmation decision on a nominee based on secret documents not available to the public o

i contrast this with 99% of elena kagan's record was available at the time of her hearing. >> senatorirmation hearing light any round. >> what do you think setting up these hearings. >> you have a lot of democrats and people on the left complaining the democrats aren't being tough enough on judge kavanaugh. there is a reason for that because judge kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. and there is not a lot of people want to waste political capital on a losing battle. the fact is there are a bunch of senate democrats who are running for re-election in states that donald trump won by dints and they don't want to have to vote against judge kavanaugh. they want this over asson as possible no. republican defections rand paul said he is voting for him. susan collins had a good meeting. unless somebody defects and those democrats put in decision of having to be the deciding vote when they don't want to do this is going to be confirmed. >> bret: mollie. >> democrats are having a tough time fighting this because this is a very difficult nomination to fight. judge kavanaugh has extensive record.

if you look back, elena kagan confirmed, there were 60 votes, in favor of her. go back to ruth bader ginsburg, 97 yes votes in the senate and now expecting that all democrats would vote against him. he has told people that roe vs. wade has settled law and the focus of conservatism hasn't changed. >> the problem with the argument that adrian is making is when you drill in these red states like donnelly, and heitkamp, the majority of the states want them confirmed. i guarantee you that joe manchin carries more about what they care about versus a bunch of progressive packs. so the point is, these arguments that they are making has taken a toll on brett kavanaugh nationally speaking, but what is more important is what the red states care about, they care more about what trump supporters and people in their state voted for that a bunch of crazy progressives. >> these crazy progressives that you speak of are actually representing the views of a lot of america. >> i -- but i will -- if there are a lot of democrats in the states. >> i'm talking about voters, the senator

. >> harris: elena kagan. in susan collins, by the way, i met her. we will be right back.n to detail, and customer service are critical to business success. like the ones we teach here, every day. >> harris: great to have you along on this outnumbered overtime on a fine friday, hope you are enjoying your summer. thanks for checking in on all the breaking news at 1:00 p.m. eastern. i'm harris, here is dana. >> dana: fox news alert on day two of jury deliberations underway on day two of the paul manafort trial. trump's former campaign chair faces 18 counts of bank fraud. hello, everyone, i'm dana perino and this is the daily briefing. the manafort trial is the first big test of special counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. peter doocy has been following the trial for us and outside the courtroom in alexandria, peter, how is the defense team spending their day? >> they are just hanging out, essentially waiting like the rest of everybody else. they have been spending time off

. >> they did not give all of elena kagan's documents. paul: all of them. >> all of them.ce lindsey who use today work in clinton white house designated to go through work when obama in the white house, did not get all of the documents. paul: clinton white house you mean. he was a former league of her in white house. >> exactly. paul: democrats are complaining that the person vetting -- >> william burke. paul: colleague of kavanaugh's in bush white house is unfair. >> and burke has been designated by former president george w. bush as overseer of his presidential documents and now he is the one that's been tasked with going through kavanaugh's documents when he was secretary to bush. paul: your point is they are similar circumstances, they are the same, nothing untoward with what the republicans are doing? >> yeah, exactly. senator shuim certify making a false claim to sort of suggest that they did everything right, now the republicans are doing everything wrong. i mean, they are trying to make a mountain out of kavanaugh nomination. >> not just in terms of following the d

staff secretary but i remember when kagan was come nateed, we insist on getting documents from elena kagansaid, no, why because that's too important to executive deliberation in the executive branch over, you can't have insight into that have kind of discussion because you'll never be able to have open discussion again. they didn't turn over documents, something similar here for republicans in. >> there's something similar, that sounds like the high road what's going on is definitely the low road. let's try to be clear about what's going on, this is about basically two members of the u.s. senate, senator susan collins of maine and senator lisa murkowski of alaska. the democrats are looking somehow in those documents millions and millions of documents for a smoking gun to hit brett kavanaugh with. they have not come up with a gun so far and i don't think susan collins or his a murkowski are going on a wild goose chase on behalf of nothing and if nothing is produced the republicans and should fight back against producing that many documents, you know, having forced mitch mcconnell to blow up

by the way, elena kagan was a qualified jurist. agree with her but that didn't take away the fact she was a qualified jurist, must line cavanaugh is. >> hillary clinton's back in the game, getting involved in the midterms. is she the right person to help democrats retake control of the house and senate? (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a

. >> for context, $70,000 were produced for john roberts' confirmation. 173,004 elena kagan.nd 182,000 for neil gorsuch. judiciary chairman chuck grassley has requested some 900,000 documents for kavanaugh, which is why it will be a time-consuming process. there is some criticism that democrats don't want to review the documents. they have already made up their minds. >> we will not rest until brett kavanaugh is defeated! >> experts say kavanaugh's lengthy paper trail helps reassure conservatives he's reliable, but provides a challenge with democrats. >> it does allow the senators on the judiciary committee to have a lot of fodder for questions for him. he goes in with a burden to show that he will respect president. >> others addressed the democrats' request is excessive and installed tactic. >> senate democrats are in a fishing expedition. they are seeking the documents that are least likely to provide any inkling of his thinking on legal issues. >> the white house as many of the democrats who say they will now meet with kavanaugh have already public opposed him. officials

now when elena kagan currently on the supreme court was nominated by barack obama and the republicanswhen she worked in the obama white house, the obama white house surrounded them. >> melissa: but she was a legal counsel and i thought he was staff secretary. >> judge napolitano: there's not any difference. the point is that he was still giving advice to the president of the united states on issues that he may have to rule on now. i think it is fair game. can you imagine rand paul's reaction, already come out in favor of judge kavanaugh if he sees memos that george w. bush in favor of torture? >> melissa: he was organizing paper from other executive branch is, he wasn't giving legal advice in that capacity. >> kennedy: is a you say is not fair game. >> judge napolitano: we don't know that until we see the documents and if they keep the documents from our view, we want no. >> kennedy: if you like they're hiding something. >> jessica: there are always little clues in this, we saw a report they are looking at judge kavanaugh's wife's emails. i'm saying that's where we are in this convers

we got 99% of elena kagan's white house records. we have 4% of kavanaugh's white house records. these records are important because you look at e-mails and you see where 12 years ago, when he was before the committee for an appellate court position, he said one thing, in the white house he said another, and then he may have said a third different thing. so you at least know that this man is not consistent on all fronts. so i think this is a very big hearing, our biggest. he will control, most likely, the majority of the court on key issues. certainly issues of presidential supremacy in which he's a very strong believer. he doesn't even believe that the president should be investigated. he believes that there are certain commissions like the fec and others that the president can just remove the head of at will and replace. and so it is a very strong, arbitrary position for presidential supremacy. and here we have a man that a good friend has said he violated the law, committed a felony, gave him instructions to carry out certain orders, and that of course is mr. cohen. >> finally

elena kagan and a senator dick durbin both took issue with the ruling the same way that judge kavanaughre saying is, a lot of smoke and mirrors from the democrats. they are trying to create a lot of noise and what it ultimately comes down to is, one come republicans will be behind them. also i think you will see some of these democrats in these red states -- we are looking at states, west virginia which president trump 1542 points. senator manchin will care about what those voters think than those crazy progressive groups that are out there crying and making a lot of noise. >> molly: thank you so much for joining us, we can't go on any further but we will get to talk about this all next week. thank you both. we will be right back. which is b just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired mozzarella and parmesan for pizzahyeah! kraft. family greatly. yno, i'm paying inmy brother backs? before we get going. he scored me a billy big mouth bass. the singing wall fish? for the man cave. i love those things! [take me to the river...] [drop me in the water ...] secure mobile banking

elena kagan, 171,000. these are documents before they became judges.rett kavanaugh has been on the bench for 12 years, you don't need this stuff. democrats are saying, no, this is part of his life, too, we want to see what's in there. >> they say the paper trail may be bigger, but it's because he's had a longer time in office. there are other things that we're learning about his view points. we reported today about his extensive praise that he had towards justice antonin scalia. of course, the late conservative justice, the icon on the bench. speaking very glowingly about his past rulings, past praises, things he's done. one thing he's singled out in his speeches is his dissent on abortion, gay marriage. we'll see what he says about that. >> two big meetings with democrats this week as they start to meet. we'll continue to track. thanks for joining us on "inside politics" today. >>> hello, everyone. i'm jim sciutto in for wolf. thanks for joining us. the fbi fires the agent who sent anti-trump text messages and was once part of the mueller investigatio

many jurists including justice elena kagan says that justice scalia was right on point on this. so that decision -- >> but you had a majority decision that went against what you're arguing right now. >> no, not on point because we had several other arguments that were not addressed in morrison and that dealt with a different issue of whether the three-judge court can be the appointing power. so it is a very weak precedent at best, and the supreme court has the last word on this. we think -- >> is there any case that has ever ruled the way you want to see it? >> well, this is a precedent-setting case. by definition -- >> no. >> -- there isn't. but we have a lot of arguments that we make to show that we do have a good case. >> right. >> the judge recognized it -- >> if you lose, will he testify? >> he'll have to testify if we lose, of course. >> so he will not hold out because he's libertarian. maybe he would just hold out on principle. >> no, no, no. he's been cooperating with the special prosecutor -- special counsel in this case. so he's not going to be a recalcitrant witness.

elena kagan also served as a senior aide in a white house. she worked for president clinton. had a senior position there. a substantive position, actually in domestic policy. she also of course was the solicitor general of the united states and yet, 430,000 versus 170,000. so i just hope people keep that in mind when they hear about the documents. what is really relevant to me would be what he's done as a job. he has spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court which is viewed by most as being the second highest court in the land. and he's got a lot of documents that are related to that. he has authored more than 300 published opinions. clearly these opinions are relevant. by the way, more than a dozen of his opinions on the circuit court have been endorsed by the supreme court which is an unusually high number and i think it's a testament to his outstanding judicial record. in addition to the more than 10,000 pains of published -- pages of published opinions he authored or joined out of the 430,000 pains i mentioned, the judiciary committee tells me they released more than 176,0

none other than elena kagan in fact hired him to teach at harvard. i'd like to take some time today to focus on a subject on which judge kavanaugh has really made his remark as a jurist. i want to talk about substance and i want to talk about what judge kavanaugh has written in his opinions and how he's been a true intellectual leader on the court. and i hope my colleagues on both sides listen to this because we haven't had a nominee like this in a long time. so much of the discussion about judge kavanaugh so far has been substance free. democrats have hurled accusation after accusation divorced from reality. they say those who support judge kavanaugh are complicit and evil. they say his nomination threatens the destruction of the constitution. they say people will die if he is confirmed. lost in all of this is any actual discussion of judge kavanaugh's written opinions of the way he approaches cases. when judge kavanaugh met with me last month he said he hoped my colleagues would read his opinions. that's how they can learn what kind of a judge he i

about 170,000 pages on elena kagan.f you go to the washington post, a little bit more about emails during his time in the bush white house saying in one series of emails, kavanaugh is grappling with the issue of presidential war powers seeking sehe best common law treati --on the subject." -- creating a tribunal for september 11 suspects rather than putting them through the court system. kavanaugh advised womack to say the administration was not discussing legal options adding "even talking about this issue compose -- can pose problems down the road." other emails show kavanaugh being called on for ethics related advice about gifts and presidential travel. at one point, kavanaugh polled -- explaining he had been asked to gather information "for possible press purposes." if you want to see some of the details of that document dump on brett kavanaugh that came out. let's go to duane in new york, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. not that i believe her or don't believe her. it does not matter if she brings thi

he was nominated by elena kagan, a member of the united states supreme court. but he's the real deal in a lot of ways. i want to share why i am going to vote for him. i want somebody on the supreme court who understands me, an average american. somebody with a family, two kids, works for a living, loves their country. we do the right thing and won't do it for any other reason than to do the right thing. my motto in life has always been mark twain's quote. when confronted with a difficult decision, do what's right. you'll surprise a few, but you will amaze the rest. doing the right thing is the right thing to do every time, but it's the hardest thing to do almost any time. in fact, as my father used to say, son, do what you want to do when nobody is looking and do the same thing when nobody is looking that you do when they are looking. you want to always do the right thing regardless of the question and regardless of what answer you have to give. the supreme court has a tremendous responsibility in our governance. it's one-third of our government. we have a th