>> the senate is not broken but we didn't attack merrick garland brown wants to destroy him. we wanted to follow tradition which is if you have a party of it - - a senate of a different party than the president - - [indiscernible]. senator schumer said 18 months said if a vacancy occurred, they would fill it. so we followed tradition. we didn't attack a nominee. we didn't go on a search and destroy mission. i agree with senator schumer that this has been a low point in the senate. i have a disagreement with who caused the low point. democrats leaking doctor ford's name, against her desires. then try to lower the standard and say the presumption of innocence no longer applies in the united states of america. and then the mob descended on capitol hill and try to intimidate our members into opposing this good man's nomination. we stood up to the mob. we established the presumption of innocence is so important. i'm proud of my colleagues. it's an important day for the united states senate. >>chris: i have to pick up on something you send it maybe i have this wrong, but when you b

their base was so frustrated after the merrick garland situation and they wanted to say show us what you got this time parn it left them with no choice but to stall and delay and do everything they could. >> one strategic point about going hard and strong and who's side are you on. michael avenati who came in with a late-breaking addition to the store combreep lots of democrats -- story and lots of democrats are saying he took a case with ford and turned it into a circus losing the high ground. >> was interesting to see all the way along how they dealt with the allegations because at first they kept them at arm's length and the day julie swetnic had a restatement, i had one republican aide saying america should be devastated, michael avenati brought the heat and then democrats then retreat. the challenge for democrats was their line was you should believe women. they didn't have the option to pick and choose saying we believe these two women but don't necessarily believe this woman so they were stuck with an all-or nothing situation. >> i asked about the vote. >> i tried to talk abou

he broke the rules and made it look like the republicans had been so mean to merrick garland.t: thank you. guest: ma'am, i will respectfully disagree with your understanding of what the precedent is on these matters. over wheno precedent supreme court justices can be nominated and when they can be acted upon. we've had, in fact, justice kennedy himself confirmed in an election year. we've done it in the past. i think what you're referring to , back in 1996 senator biden, my old boss, made a statement on the floor in the summer a few months before a midterm election . there was some concern that one of the republican justices might step down at the last minute to permit republicans to fill it. senator biden said i hope republicans don't do that. that would be gaming the system. that has been interpreted by some on the republican side as some kind of binding precedent. i think that is quite a stretch to read it that way. this seat opened up not because of any easement ship -- any gamesmanship, but because justice kennedy died. under actual precedent, the court should have handle

garland and if you recall from the talking boob tube merrick garland was heaven sent he was a god on monk and he was a man among ants he was then and. he was completely different from kavanagh in ways other than how they voted as judges. cavanagh voted ninety three percent of the time with his colleague judge merrick garland when they both heard cases together on a federal appeals court in d.c. this was hardly brought up during kavanagh's hearings except it was mentioned was mentioned by none other then accuse zodiac killer ted. i think i did however ted cruz was saying it in the vein of look at how awesome and reasonable judge kavanaugh is but of course the real reason obama's pick and trump's pick are ninety three percent identical is because our presidency and our court system have been captured by the corporate state yet right. that is why how could it be you know they want to believe it's dark vs light evil vs good it's darth vader versus luke skywalker how can that be if they're voting together ninety three percent of the time all right it's not dark versus light it's dark vers

it's not just about merrick garland. it's about a set of ouomes that the democrats want in the supreme court, and they can only get it if they have a five-votea rity. >> what are those outcomes? >> oh, they want to control outcomes in areas like privacy, gun control, presidential power, growth of the administrative state, criminal procedure -- a lot of the sort flash points in american social, political, and cultural lif >> what do conservatives want? >> what conservatives want is a jurisprudence that's not constantly looking at outcomes but instead looking at method and basically understanding that the role of a court is to interpret the laws its written and to provide as much space as possible for political institutions to do what the constution empowers it to do which is to make most of the really big policy decions in american public life. >> one of the things that happened in this process was that brett kavanaugh had tori defend his int against an allegation that was ultimately unprovable, but in his defense of hims

merrick garland, who -- you mean like donald trump called merrick garland to say -- >> no, no, i mean democrats calling merrick garland. >> you mean like senators and people? >> oh, yeah, but all of them were predisposed against brett kavanaugh. you wouldn't called george bush calling these people. >> kavanaugh has deep ties to this bench. when he was in the white house he helped chief roberts get a nomination. elena kagan hired him to teach at harvard. he went to the same high school as gorsuch, and thomas has had a similar experience for his confirmation. you can expect he will be embraced by is there, and he hayes sent many clerks to work for them all. >>> we're waiting for a press conference from the he leadership. as we do, i want to circle back to the election 4 1/2 weeks away, which is kind of amazing. the republicans committee that's overseeing re-electing republicans in the house, i'm told by a source there that the small donations from people around the country is up over 1,000%, now compared to october of 2016, because they see -- this is just in the past week -- because of

do you think will be went more like merrick garland? or do you think that person is going be much more judicially conservative? >> jake: i think you're proving my point. i think it's clear that president trump could nominate another conservative for the seat. but you are seeing opposition to this nominee. not just some democrats, but never lisa murkowski, because of sexual assault allegations. because of his lack of candor. >> what evidence you have of the sexual assault allegations? what evidence is there that it's true? name one. what evidence is there that the allegations are true? give me evidence. >> jake: i think dr. ford's regulations are significant here. >> when she richly said it was mid 1980s and then she said early 1980s and that you give two different versions? >> jake: she narrowed it down to a particular set of months before mark judge was working at the supermarket. >> lisa: how does that verify anything? >> melissa: this is obviously as heated as it has been out there on the floor. passions are running high without ques

that this person be qualified for the court we did have somebody who was qualified for the court in merrick garland and last i checked it was the republican party not democrats who left him sitting on the bench without a hearing for a year now they're trying to show brett kavanaugh through in a month or less why did mitch mcconnell leave merrick garland who was a son nominally qualified justice why didn't leave him sitting there for a year. without even giving him the decency of a hearing i think what democrats are doing here is they're taking the obstructionism the i mean there again they've been jetted themselves into this process here i mean this latest allegation of the the serial rape gang might my goodness i watched that interview on n.b.c. i mean n.b.c. should be ashamed of itself that they even asked the woman the questions before they went on that tape it i mean not only that she looked like a fool n.b.c. looked like even a bigger fool because they're injecting themselves into this here brian please reflect on that. yeah if you think n.b.c. knows is bad you should try watching fox

but you refused to look at merrick garland. he said he wouldn't consider it.situation where democrats are so upset over this process that's produced judge kavanaugh, i worry that the court itself is going to, like so many american institutions, absolutely go down in the trust factor among americans. >> juan, since the bork hearings, those wars have escalated with the nuclear option by harry reid to pack the d.c. circuit court. unfortunately this has gotten worse and worse. i hope we have reached the end of that and we can return to us more dignified process, both to the nominee and that would reflect well on the senate. we have a lot of hardball played. i think we are reaping the whirlwind. >> juan: i think blocking, you know, merrick garland just sticks in so many people's crop. a twice elected president and you won't let him be considered. you might say kavanaugh was unfairly treated but you wouldn't even give merrick garland a chance, a fair hearing. >> this is the biden precedent. he said you don't confirm a supreme court justice during a presidential year

they're trying to shove brett kavanaugh through in a month or less why did mitch mcconnell leave merrick garland who was a phenomenally qualified justice why did he leave him sitting there for a year without even giving him the decency of a hearing but what democrats are doing here is they're taking the obstructionism and they're just shoving it right back in the face of republicans i think it's just par for the course in washington d.c. ok fair enough christopher but one could make the argument i certainly would make the argument that this is different in the sense that it's just not playing politics it's really it's destroying a process and it's destroying a tradition i mean sure fine you get your power but what's it worth when you don't have a process that is that everyone could agree to and i think this is that the the new territory we're in go. ahead christopher in washington. i think you're correct i think that the real loser here is the american citizen in terms of the faith in the process their faith in what's true what's not true i think the truth is the furthest thing from the

if not, merrick garland would have been on the supreme court of the united states. >> i want to moven, but with hindsight was it a mistake to use the nuclear option for lower court federal judges as harry reid and his fellow democrats pushed through? >> look, i think at the time we had on -- an unprecedented obstruction by the republicans and the courts were begging for justine district court nominees, and that's the reality that was faced and that's why they moved ahead. even in the face of the reality they could have gone for the whole thing. they didn't. they purposely preserved the 60-vote threshold for the supreme court. >> a lot of your fellow democrats have pointed out that he preserved that. it made it easier to move forward to approve "sportscentesupreme court nominees. i know you don't want to get into that. did judge kavanaugh say anything in the op-ed he published yesterday to convince you that he will be an impartial justice of the supreme court? >> no. no. i think that's a confirmation conversion. the reality is he showed me who he was when he was before the senate judi

he went into this rage about merrick garland. they cannot get past merrick garland.at the end of the day, i think women are going to decide, we have been deciding the vote since the 1960's. we decided against hillary clinton in 2016. we are going to decide again in 2018 and 2020 and women are smart enough to see what is going on. >> and over the line? you don't have to be amy kramer, judge kavanaugh for them to go over the line. wear a trump button, if you are in the halls, they are going to get you. that is how far it is. i know all of us have been subject to it. amy has had death threats. after i was on television and yellow on a conciliatory story sitting with my neighbor who was a hillary supporter and we sat on her front porch and said, we are still friends, we are going to talk about this, we are going to work it through, our dogs still play together, then what did i get on my house? i got graffiti that said "nazi c -word" on my house in seattle. i should not have to put up with that. the fbi took a cursory look at the death threats. we have to learn. that is t

for 293 days for merrick garland, respected judge in the d.c.e same court brett kavanaugh serves on. the quote is not from obama. it's from mitch mcconnell. who had 85 days into kavanaugh's process, with two sets of hearings, says too much obstruction. mcconnell trying to turn his team into the victim of obstruction. the last supreme court nominee from another party, garland, waited more than triple the amount of time that it took for mitch mcconnell to get to this point. this hypocrisy is quite blatant. >> let's let the american people decide. the senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be. >> this is a nomination that deserves to move forward, and that is precisely, mr. president, what is happening. >> i think it's safe to say there will not be hearings or voted. >> they're committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they've got. >> one of my proudest moments is when i looked barack obama in the eye an

but he started with the raw politics of no merrick garland. even though the president had almost a year on his -- left on his term. and so that has no question built in. >> there's no doubt that both sides are at fault. there's no doubt about that. i do think it started with the bork confirmation hearings. i think it's become more of a personal characterization. to get back to what you were saying earlier, dana, i think also susan collins did all republicans a huge favor today. there is no one else who would have had as much attention on his or her speech as she did in this dramatic moment and be able to walk through all of her reasons for supporting him and also being able to rebut the testimony of dr. ford is something only she could have done that other male senators could not have done as effectively as she did. so i think her remarks today were a big asset for all of her problems. >> and she knows one thing. that in the wings, had this nominee not been -- this nominee, it could have been andy coney barrett, somebody who at least on roe wa

merrick garland are the two words to keep in mind. everything may have done in this appointment process flies in the face of what they were preaching in the merrick garland process. >> how do you think the democrats performed? >> i think they always try to play within the rules and the standards of procedure. sometimes that doesn't work when you are fighting against people who do not care about that. like the old adage of bringing a knife to a gunfight. the republicans tend to play dirty, they tend to be extremely the critical -- hypocritical. deep.bris is 10 feet >> is melinda in seattle, washington. one of many thoughts we are collecting before the president starts to speak at 7:30. we will go live to you when that starts. 50-48 was the vote. collecting data when it comes to the senate. twitterfind them on our feed. this is according to the c-span archives. beginning when the debate spent 33the senate hours 47 minutes debating that cavanagh nomination. kavanaugh nomination. other facts, the number of senators who spoke on the nomina

i don't think republicans actually paid a political price for merrick garland.nd so there's no incentive in that case. if voters aren't holding you accountable, if you're not getting voted out of office for that, why change? and i think the donald trump era has brought about a lot of shredding of norms, things that began before donald trump came -- the elimination of the filibuster for judges happened under harry reid. it didn't start with donald trump. but what donald trump has been able to effectively say to republicans is, would a more conventional republican administration maybe have backed off the kavanaugh nomination? ooh, well, let's put somebody else. where the trump style of how you do things is keep going and don't apologize. and that just put someone on the court. >> any president has to get 60 votes for a justice or a judge. you're going to have a more moderate nominee. and so as long as that rule stays in place, no matter who -- who the president is, they're going to pick somebody that goes to either the left or to the right. you don't need to pick

hearing but thank god people didn't drag his name to the letter accused him of being a rapist. >> merrick garland, i would hate to see anyone have an allegation against them which is why i'm very glad and most reasonable people have been calling for this from day one that we have an fbi investigation that can hopefully build a factual record. >> once you get that dave says will be a know. what do you say? >> it should go for brett kavanaugh. >> the fbi investigation such as it is will be trashed. >> i have a feeling whoever the paper favors or doesn't favor there will be people that are unhappy with it. >> the fbi hates being in the middle. >> they are hard-working men and women. delivering on another campaign promise donald trump announcing today a renegotiated north american free trade agreement with a new name with mexico and canada. richardson takes a look at the new deal. >> donald from from to terminate the north american free trade agreement, he has, though mostly and name. in the rose garden the president announced an updated nafta. >> we successfully completed negotiations on a b

barack obama, hillary clinton, they basically forgot about merrick garland. they'll say he should have been confirmed but that is not a cause. >> the activism, once the nomination is made is there, but not when it comes to voting. >> and not when it comes to the base of the party. the base of the democratic party has never been motivate bid judicial nomination. things change. and certainly the kavanaugh experience has been motivating for a lot of people. but let's see how long it lasts and let's see if, in the democratic convention in 2020 judicial nominations and the supreme court comes up in a way that it didn't in 2016. >> one test will be whether they make good on jerry nadler, who had the house judiciary committee, that he pursue impeachment against justice kavanaugh, which could certainly backfire against democrats if they were to do that. >> i think he said an investigation. i don't think he promised impeachment. >> fair enough. >> and, you know, i did a piece for "the new yorker" about impeachment and jerry nadler and nancy pelosi and they are very aw

someone said under the merrick garland standards, he would not consider a supreme race nominee was the 2020 has begun. would you agree? senator mcconnell: let's talk about 2016. i'm glad you brought it up your you would have to go back to 1888, 1888, to find the last time a senate controlled by a different party than the president filled the vacancy created during a presidential election year. -- i knew full well based on what joe biden volunteered in 1992, and that chuck reed and -- that chuck schumer harry reid volunteered -- a vacancy that close to the election makes a big difference. there's no doubt in anybody's mind that if the shoe was on the other foot and 2016 and it had been a republican president taking a nomination to a democratic senate, it would not have been sealed build -- it would not have been filled. so we will see what happens in 2020, who is in charge of the senate. there was another vacancy, if ruth bader ginsburg were to relieve the court, would you are the president to put another conservative in that seat? senator mcconnell: of course. encourageyou tried to mor

. >> john: this all comes back to merrick garland. saying, you felt merrick garland for 12 full months and you are talking about is holding judge kavanaugh for maybe a week or a couple of weeks. is the democratic strategy not to hold the seat open for two years? >> if they could, they would, just like mitch mcconnell held the seat open in hopes that he would get a republican in the white house and his gamble paid off. it was bloodless, it didn't destroy someone's reputation but what he did, he did destroy a norm. nobody has ever been held up for that long. he flatly refused to give merrick garland a vote. for that, he became a hero. the values voters summit, you heard people like tony perkins saying, this is never been done before. mitch mcconnell did something that took a lot of courage. >> john: this really is payback. some of these allocations are beginning to come i think, fall apart, it saved to say, the julie swetnick allegation. let's get a quick clip from msnbc, an interview that kate is noted with her. >> i cannot specificall

merrick garland is a prodigious worker by reputation. judge kavanaugh saw that and did his best to follow in his footsteps in that regard. else a had a huge output in cases. i believe 312 written opinions over his 12 years on the bench, and in addition to that, outside the court, law review articles, speeches, and many presentations to groups. he also lectures at the harvard law school. and regarding his previous experience, it also includes, as we know, a previous experience in the executive branch, both as a lawyer and as an assistant to the president. and all of this -- in all of this, by the way, he was required to undergo six separate f.b.i. checks. his qualifications have been reviewed by the american bar association, which is just onent that i looks at judicial nominees and is generally deemed to be an organization that studies records, goes into deputy in interviewing people, and they concluded that he had the top rating -- well qualified -- to serve on the supreme court. he is, as some have described, a judge's judges a real sta

reviewers, the author and broadcaster natalie haynes and deputy political editor at the independent, rob merrick for that. good evening and welcome to bbc news. a man has been arrested in florida, in connection with a series of parcel bombs which have been sent to prominent democrats and critics of president trump. 56—year—old cesar sayoc is a registered republican with a number of criminal convictions. the director of the fbi said the authorities knew of 13 devices that had been received since monday, and that they were not hoaxes. 0ur correspondent nick bryant has the latest from washington. this has been a nationwide manhunt, but it appeared to end today amidst the palm trees of florida. federal authorities arresting a suspect in connection with the parcel bombs just north of miami. law enforcement officers surrounded a white van emblazoned with pro—trump stickers. the president and his vice president, mike pence, and more threateningly, crosshairs over the faces of hillary clinton and barack 0bama, two democrats targeted with crude bombs. the suspect is 56—year—old cesar sayoc, a registered

wheeler, who's the deputy political editor at the sunday times, and the political journalist, jane merrickit secretary dominic raab says the government is "closing in on workable solutions" in the search for an agreement for britain to withdraw from the eu. he told mps he was confident a deal could be reached this autumn. labour has urged ministers to change course, saying the government has no right to "plunge the country into chaos". theresa may is also facing calls from within her own party to change course — as our deputy political editorjohn pienaar reports. who is backing mrs may's plan for brexit? are you facing brexit mutually, mr gove? the cabinet behind her, at least in public, at least for now. will we get a brexit deal next week? but keeping tory discipline is a bit like herding cats. it is almost as if time is speeding up ahead of brexit day. these negotiations, mr speaker, were always bound to be tough in the final stretch. that is all the more reason why we should hold our nerve, stay resolute and focused and i remain confident that we will reach a deal this autumn. because

what i want to know is, did democrats call merrick garland, who was his boss, and did they talk to merrickgarland about his judicial temperament? would merrick garland know? >> brett kavanaugh's service on the d.c. circuit, he's really been a model of judicial temperament. anyone can see that. that's why the question after thursday was whether or not the past ten years have been a big fake act. and that's the guy he really is. the other question is whether or not this process that he views as so unfair, so, you know, the gutter politics that susan collins referred today, actually was going to warp him and shape him into a different kind of justice moving forward. >> everybody stick around. there is a lot more we need to discuss. we're following the breaking news. three undecided u.s. senators announced they will vote to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. so how will tomorrow's final vote impact the upcoming midterm elections only a few weeks away? will democratic voters be more energized, or will republican voters now be more energized? every household has its moments. sears makes it easy with

wheeler, who's the deputy political editor at the sunday times, and the political journalist, jane merrickages are already in. the daily mail reports that school pupils are to be given routine mental health checks. teachers will be trained to carry out the ‘wellbeing' assessments at primary and secondary schools the daily telegraph says the royal college of psychiatrists is to review its opposition to the legalisation of cannabis, despite its concerns over the risks the drug poses to users' mental health. the i says health chiefs are calling for an army of unpaid helpers to support ‘exhausted' medical staff and improve patient care. according to the metro, one of the spies accused of carrying out the salisbury poisonings had his identity exposed by his grandmother. the financial times says the bank of england has issued its starkest warning yet that up to £41 trillion of derivatives contracts maturing after brexit are at risk, unless european officials urgently address regulatory uncertainty. the guardian reports on comments from the former prime minister gordon brown, who says britain is

merrick garland was denied a vote, that was wrong. she have had a vote. he's not 180 degrees out of favor with judge kavanaugh. so all this talk about roe v. wade, that's not the way the court works. they don't say let's return to roe v. wade and overturn it. having a conservative on the court means that we do look at precedent. we don't upend the court. we look at past decisions. as kavanaugh said, roe v. wade is established law. i disagree with it, but i don't think he'll get in there as one justice and overturn roe v. wade. >> i won't even ask you a question. you have been shaking your head. just go. >> we come on every week and we have differences, but i have to push back strongly. the way that it will work when justice kavanaugh is confirmed, if they vote later today to do that there are bills in state houses right now ready to be passed. for example, in iowa, a heartbeat bill that essentially says as soon as you can hear the fetal heartbeat, that means you cannot have an abortion after the fact. many women don't know they are pregnant at that point.

caller: i just want to say that the republicans did not even give merrick garlic -- merrick garland a hearing. trump has a right to choose who he wants, but i do not like the way they do it because it seems to go against the law. i just want to say that i do not know how they get away with it. i have no idea. i do not like what they are saying about the democrats because they did what they could. anyway, but thank you. host: is fired up the republican base like no one has ever seen rights russell. thanks to the democrats for uniting the party three weeks before the midterms. on the independent line from madison berg, pennsylvania, steve is next. caller: mention has been made by members of congress where sexual harassment charges are being paid off by the taxpayers of this country. i would like to see that brought forward. because and the reason why it is not is because some of them might be false. clearly. the second point being, if hearsay is entered into our jurisprudence, we can throw the whole business out. we are in a world of hurt to allow gosse -- if we allow gossip to rule the

senate majority leader has said to delay merrick garlands nomination for more than 300 days he even refused to meet with him let alone have a hearing when nominated by president obama. and now to tell us we are responsible for delay is to i ignore history and to ignore the reality because of the courage of his members, three have stepped up to say we won't dismiss doctor ford's allegations we want an actual hearing inspired by republican members of the senate and we back them up. the fbi investigation? i asked judge kavanaugh directly during the course of the hearing what he wanted us to do. not the white house, not the senate judiciary committee, what did he want to do when it came to the fbi investigation? if doctor ford is willing to submit to the fbin' review? no credible witnesses or evidence otherwise why don't youat want a complete investigation with nonpartisan e professionals with the fbi? it wasn't until senator jeff flake made it clear he would not move forward on the vote without the fbito investigation joined by senators from delaware and others any delay ofhi one week is inspi

mitch mcconnell held up the merrick garland nomination. you may think that was fine, if you supported having conservative judges on the court, you may be upset if you were upset that a moderate or a progressive wasn't seated or even given a chance to have a hearing. but he changed that and held up a new standard. and today was asked, if in 2020, there is a vacant seat, after the presidential primaries start, would you move forward? and he said i don't know. right? once again, showing maybe an openness to changing rules that he himself set and standard that he himself set. it worries me if we keep doing this -- chris: your reaction to that? >> i think it is a little unfair to say that republicans are as much to blame for this situation as democrats. i know that we point to merrick garland as an example but there's never been a single democratic nominee to the supreme court who has ever been filibustered. all of this began in the early 2000s after the 2000 presidential election where george bush's nominee started getting held up. and on a fi

we didn't attack merrick garland's background and try to destroy him. we didn't go on a search and destroy mission, we simply follow the tradition in america which is if you have a party of a different senate come of a different party, then the president then you don't fill a vacancy created in the presidential year. is that when all the way back to 1888. schumer himself said 18 months before the end of the bush tenure that if a vacancy occurred, they would fill it. so what we did was follow tradition. but we didn't attack the nominee, we didn't go on a search and destroy mission. i agree with chuck schumer, this has been a low point in the senate. i have a different view about who caused the low point. senate judiciary democrats linking dr. ford's name against her desires, then trying to lower the standard and say that the presumption of innocence no longer applies in the united states of america and then the mob descended on capitol hill and try to intimidate our members into opposing this good man nomination. we stood up to the mob moby established t

my republican colleagues and we refused to even consider president obama's nomination of merrick garland for a seat on the supreme court, and they left that seat open for ten months until they got a republican president. if you could wait for ten months to fill that empty seat, i think you can wait a few weeks more for us to do a thorough investigation of the charges, the allegations against brett kavanaugh. we are dealing not only with brett kavanaugh's right-wing political philosophy, we are dealing not only with serious allegations of sexual assault which have to be thoroughly investigated but we are dealing with another important issue, the issue of veracity, whether or not brett kavanaugh was honest and truthful in terms of his responses to questions asked of him recently and years before, when he came before the judiciary committee. i have heard colleagues here say, i think rightfully, that regardless, if somebody lies to a u.s. senate committee, that person should not be seated. what we need right now, not in a few days period, we need a thorough investigation not only of the char

host: you are talking about mary garland -- merrick garland. caller: the president started way back -- precedent started back in the 1990's. and in harry reid decided they would eliminate the nuclear option. this whole thing has been political for so long and i hate the way the whole process has been politicized. if you don't like trump, you don't like bush, you obviously come down one way. there are a lot of people that don't like trump but they look at this appointee in a more nuanced fashion. i hate the way the whole process was politicized. i looked at -- i have watched a lot of these because of newly retired. i thought the democratic members of the judicial committee are pretty aggressive in pretty rude judge kavanaugh. have a chance to defend himself for 10 days. when he came out he came out as a man rather than a judge. i agree he was a little sharp. probably should have left the clinton comments out of his sharp rebukes, but it exposed him for being a man. rapes charged with gang and other outrages stuff without any evidence. there is s

democrats are causing delay coming from the same man who delayed the nomination of supreme court justice merrick garland for over 300 days without a shrug of his shoulders? give me ash break. the leader would delay for ten months when he saw he was -- he thought it was right to do and can't wait for a week to get an honest report out of the fbi? what a double standard. how galling. accusing democrats of needlessly delaying a supreme court nomination is galling, is hypocritical coming from a leader who delayed the nomination of a supreme court justice for over 300 days until his party had a chance to win the white house. so no one, no american should accept his admonishments about delay. he's the master of delay. and second, he blames democrats for these delays. well, as the leader well knows, democrats are not in charge. we can't set the calendar. these things have been delayed because people on his side of the aisle who had sincere concerns about having a fair process said they won't go forward unless the process is made fairer. even the initial hearing where dr. ford and judge kavanaugh testif

cnn learned his name is brian merrick, the former boyfriend. i spoke earlier with mclean who vehemently denies these allegations. she's now furious that her name is being tarnished. she said these allegations are completely false, what was submitted to the statement. this statement then caused senator grassley to really take interest, really try to dig into it. as we continue to mention on this very high profile case, when statements come into c conflict, it often comes down to who you believe. she's saying, no, she has no reason to say or do such things and she's really upset her name is tarnished. >> that's one thing. white house has not received background information yet but expect it soon. this is from kaitlin collins over at the white house. it's possible, i don't know if it's the white house or the hill should get the results or the findings from the fbi investigation as early as today. your read on that. >> this is very interesting. what is at issue here is whether the fbi review into judge kavanaugh's background is going. there have be

presidential election in 2016, republicans refused to hold hearings for president obama's nominee merrick garland. >> sunday, mcconnell argued that if the white house and senate are controlled by the same party, the nomination can proceed. >> we simply followed the tradition in america which is if you have a party of a different senate of a different party than the president, you don't fill the vacancy of a presidential year. that went back to 1888. the answer to your question is we will see if there is a vacancy in 2020. >> last week, senator lindsey graham says if a vacancy comes up in 2020, he says the garland standard applies. >>> former secretary of state colin powell says he does not believe trump can be a moral leader. powell pointed to the attacks on the press and ability to insult his opponents and groups that disagree with him. >> my favorite three words in our constitution is the first three words. we the people. we, the people. recently, it has become me, the president as opposed to we, the people. you see things that should not be happening. >> powell added the world is watch

the senate majority leader has set the record in delaying merrick garland's nomination for more than 300 days. when he even refused to meet with the man, let alone consider a hearing when judge garland was nominated by president obama. to have this majority leader now tell us that we are the ones responsible for delay really is too ignore history, and to ignore the reality of what has occurred here. because of the courage of his members, three of whom have stepped up and said we won't dismiss dr. ford's allegations with just a staff phone call. we want an actual hearing. that was inspired by three republican members of the senate. and we back them up. we thought their request was right. and this fbi investigation, i know a little bit about that because i asked judge kavanaugh directly during the course of this hearing, what he wanted us to do, not what the white house wanted us to do, not what the senate judiciary committee republican leadership wanted to to, what did judge kavanaugh what to do when it came to this fbi investigation. my point is dr. ford is willing to submit her alle