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

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

elected government one to affirm black people then you get lots i think a damn mess and people like mr burke adamant that want to stand on the rooftops and want to shout it is unfair but unfortunately for them the partition of the republic of south africa makes provision for the empowerment and for positive discrimination in order to and that is the injustices of the past mr herman i mean in theory if you look at the whole russian are behind the share ownership land bridges tribune it basically says that if companies meets government quotas on black ownership if we can redistribute land to the poor that could boost the economy the same way it did for countries like japan and south africa and south and south korea back in the eighty's in the seventy's so why wouldn't we implement the same model for a country like south africa. we are quite positive about the idea of empowering workers we are also positive about the idea of empowering black workers into getting shay's within the company we just can't understand why in that same logic you must say that white workers must be excluded to empower

a a copy of that letter is available to you and also a copy of a six-page letter from mr. burke which was the pivotal point in the pressing us to move. as you know, executive privilege has never before been invoked to block the release of residential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination. in fact, when elena kagan was nominated, president obama announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of her white house records. when john roberts was nominated, president bush announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of his white house records. and when justice rehnquist was nominated, the committee refused to go forward with hearings until the white house produced records over which it initially indicated it might claim privilege. by contrast, the trump white house is withholding thousands of pages of brett kavanaugh is record from congress, and admits it is doing so without actually asserting a legal privilege. rather, taking to bench of the unprecedented process used by republicans to rush this nomination to the senate with just a fraction

elected government one to affirm black people then you get lots i think a damaged and people like mr burke adamant that want to stand on the rooftops and want to shout it is unfair but unfortunately for them the partition of the republic of south africa makes provision for the empowerment and for positive discrimination in order to and that is the injustices of the past mr herman i mean in theory if you look at the whole russia not behind the share ownership land bridges tribune it basically says that if companies meets government quotas on black ownership if we can redistribute land to the poor that could boost the economy the same way it did for countries like japan and south africa and south and south korea back in the eighty's in the seventy's so why wouldn't we implement the same model for a country like south africa. we are quite positive about the idea of empowering workers we are also positive about the idea of empowering black workers into shay's within the company we just can't understand why in that same logic you must say that white workers must be excluded to empower and inclu

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

we'll move on to item number 4, report from sound inspector, mr. burke. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for having me. this is inspector sean burke. wanted to start off with notice of violation at the top of your sheet there. vendors has been an ongoing complaint and we have issues of notice of violation for having their front door open. if that stays closed, we think the majority of the complaints will stop. down to citations. 3910 geary is a place that's been on our routes for the last couple of months. we've issued three citations for them for operating without a permit. r.s. 94109 is a place with an l.l.p. and we found that they were -- we had complaints about them and we found they were operating after 10:00 p.m. so we wrote them a citation. now we're in the process of trying to permit them for a one-time event to allow them to extend. and they will be applying for a p.o.e. as soon as we can get that going. paramount superstar, 939 clement is a place we got a complaint about. found them to be operating without a permit and are bringing the

send the -- mr. burke, if he gets called, he's supposed to go out. mr. montoya can give you further details about that. sound is not an issue. rowdiness, let's talk about what happened on may 27th. on may 27th, there was an incident involving a gun -- somebody firing a weapon. mr. montoya himself called 911. he called 911. i'm going to say it a third time. he called 911. and when the police came to investigate, mr. montoya had one of the security employees assist him in identifying the person. that's called being a good neighbor, doing what you're supposed to do, doing what they had to do, doing what they were required to do. they could not do any more than that. they can't chase the person, they can't arrest them, they called the police, mr. montoya personally called the police. he did what he was supposed to do. i'm almost finished. these documents and photographs that were sent to the commission and by officer matthias, they depict a discussion, an argument, just outside a store, a convenience store, across the street from this club. it had nothing to

mr. burke for the bush library to review the documents to see -- determine whether there is a basis for claim or privilege. i don't think you and i disagree on that. what i would point out is that in light of the knowledge of the committee that elena kagan, during her time as solicitor general would in all likelihood have legitimate claim to privilege by the clinton white house, they were not requested. they were not even requested. here we have a broad request for anything and everything including privileged documents. that is the reason we find ourselves in a different posture. sen. grassley: i have two people that want to make motions. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to say with regard to the committee's confidential documents, it is not that such documents exist, it is how we get to the point where these documents are designated as to midi confidential. that is the issue, that is the question, that is the disagreement that we have. i totally disagree that with the committee confiden

both sides are using the same computer platform to review the documents from mr. burke. the documents had to be loaded into this platform overnight and couldn't be concluded until 6:45 a.m. this morning. how is it possible that your staff concluded its review last night before the documents were even uploaded? that's this platform that both sides are using here. it's simply not possible, mr. chairman, that any senator has seen these new materials, much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by bill burke who is not the national archivist, and this situation when we say it's unprecedented is truly without parallel in our history and i'm going to quote from the national archivist, it's, quote, something that has never happened before, and the archivist continued, this effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the george w. bush presidential library, end quote. so, mr. chairman, i renew my motion to adjourn so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom

it doesn't include mr. burke. by what authority is this man holding back hundreds of thousands of documents from the american people? who is he? who is paying him? committee confidential is being determined by a man, a private attorney, and we don't know who he works for or who he is accountable to. mr. chairman, in the past, when we went to committee confide confidenti confidential, it was a discreet, specific area of concern, involving a handful of words or accusations made in a document. we were careful toll fuful to bipartisan basis. that's not been the case here. 157,000 pages designated by bill burke is out of the reach of the american people and the senate judiciary committee. that's another examine ople of this has gone out of the way. >> mr. chairman? >> who wants the floor? >> the new senator. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, can you tell me again how many documents have been produced? >> 488,000, minus -- i mean, other than 28,000 pages that justice kavanaugh has submitted, includi

it doesn't include mr. burke. why what authority is this man holding back hundreds of thousands of documents from the american people? who is he? who is paying him? so committee confidential is being determined by a man, a private attorney and we don't know who he works for or who he is accountable to. mr. chairman, in the past when we went into committee confidential it was in a discrete specific area of concern involving a handful of words or accusations that had been made in a document and we were very careful to do it on a bipartisan basis. that has not been the case here where 140 7000 pages have been designated by bill burke as outside the reach of the american people and the senate judiciary committee. that's a further example of why this whole process has gone astray. and i think your explanation ignores that. >> mr. chairman. the new senator. can you tell me again how many documents have been produced? other than 28,000 pages that just as kavanaugh -- just as kavanaugh -- justice kavanaugh has excluded. >

a copy of that will be sent to you, also a six page letter from mr. burke in pressing us to move. >> as you know executive privilege has never been invoked to block the release of presidential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination. in fact, when elena kagan was nominated president obama announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of her white house records. when john roberts was nominated president obama announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of his white house records and when justice rehnquist was nominated the committee refused to go forward with hearings until the white house produced records over which it initially indicated it might claim privilege. by contrast, the trump white house is withholding thousands of pages of brett kavanaugh's record from congress and admits it's doing so without actually asserting a legal privilege. >> you're listening there to senator dianne feinstein standing with her democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee of the issues they say they're having as they try to

that it is appropriate to have a lawyer in this case, bruce lindsey for the clinton administration, mr. burke for the bush library, to review the documents to determine whether there is a basis for a claim of privilege. so i wasn't, i don't think you and i disagree on that. what i would point out is that in light of the knowledge of the committee that elena kagan during her time as solicitor general would in all likelihood have legitimate claims of privilege by the clinton white house, they were not even requested. they were not even requested. here we have a broad request anything and everything including privileged documents and that's the reason why we find ourselves in a different posture. .. that is the issue, that is the question, that is the difference, disagreement that we have. i totally disagree with designation of documents committee confidential when it's done in a process that was not agreed upon in a bipartisan way. that is my understanding of how the documents were deemed confidential in the past and why we should have to adhere to a designation by one person, not even a bipart

mr. bill burke who was the former assistant to the nominee who has decided what will be withheld. it is not the presidential's record act, please. >> let me make clear here. we anticipated some of these so let me read. criticizing the committee process for obtaining judge kavanaugh's record. they have cut the archives out of the process. this is where i want to set the record straight. we have work with t-- we have worked with the archives and the documents received are the same as if the archives have done the initial review. the archives is not permitted by law to produce records to the committee without giving both president bush and the current president and opportunity review. the national archives was not cut out of the process. as the president informed the committee quote, from these letters. we have received and followed, views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting production of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if narrow has convictducted his re first and sought our views required by laws. the documents the committee receives

mr. bill burke who has some magic power to decide what the american people will see about your role in thete house. then the decision by those who put your nomination before us to take 35 months of your service as staff secretary to the president of the united states and to exclude the documents. then the unilateral classification of documents coming to this committee as committee classified in a manner no one has ever seen in the history of this committee. judge kavanaugh, that reflects on your reputation and your credibility. if you said at this moment i don't want to have a cloud over this nomination, i am prepared to suggest to the committee and ask the committee humbly, please, withhold further hear,s until you disclose everything. why won't you do that? >> senator, i do not believe that is consistent with what prior nominees have done who have been in this circumstance. it's a decision for the senate and the executive branch. justice scalia explained that very clearly, i thought, in his hearing. >> are you happy with that decision? >> i do not -- it's not for me to say, senator. this

it doesn't include mr. burke. by what authority is this man holding back hundreds of thousands of documents from the american people? who is he? who is paying him? so committee confidential is being determined by a man, a private attorney, and we don't know who he works for, or who he is accountable to. mr. chairman, in the past when we went into committee confidential, it was in a discrete, specific area of concern involving a handful of words or accusations that had been made in a document. and we were very careful to do it on a bipartisan basis. that has not been the case here, we're 147,000 pages have been designated by bill burke as outside the reach of the american people in the senate judiciary committee. that's a further example of why this whole process has gone astray and i think your explain ignores that. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. chairman? >> who wants the floor? >> the new senator. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you tell me how many documents have been produced? >> 488,000 minus or i mea

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

both sides are using the same computer platform to review the documents from mr. burke. the documents had to be loaded into this platform overnight. nd couldn't be concluded until 6:45 a.m. this morning. how is it possible that your staff concluded its review before the documents were even uploaded? that's the platform that both sides are using here. simply not possible, mr. chairman, that any senator has seen these new materials, much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by bill burke, who is not the national archivist, and this situation, when we say it's unprecedented, is truly without parallel in our history and i'm going to quote from the national archivist. quote, something that has never happened before. and the archivist continued, this effort by former president bush does not president the national archives or the george bush presidential library, end quote. so, mr. chairman, i renew my motion to adjourn so we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act, which is

presidentpr bush by choosing mr. burke is doing exactly what president clinton did in choosing bruce lindsey for that samek, purpose. >> i think my colleagues. mr. chairman, i too referred to a so-called committee confidential document team such by one bill burke and we all know who he is at this point. and had the nominee asked me for a copy of that so-called committee confidential document, it would've been happy to release it to him or give it to him. i would defy anyone reading this document to be able to conclude that they should be deemed confidential in any way, shape or form. thank you. >> i know you've mentioned a number of times i went through the process. i also was on numerous letters asking for obvious documents to be released in my colleagues have repeatedly asked. what happened on the first morning of f this hearing and tt isne that when they were 42,000 documents and there's absolutely no way and documents that they want to be made public. so the whole point of this because hearing was ramrodded through and

mr. bill burke, who was a former assistant to the nominee, who has decided what will be withheld, what is going to be committee confidential. so it isn't the presidential records act, please. >> well, still, let me make clear here, we anticipate some of this, so let me read. criticize the committee process for obtaining judge kavanaugh's records. they have accused us of cutting the national arkoochives out ofe process. so this is where i want to set the record straight. president bush acted consistently with federal law when he expedited the process and gave us unprecedented access in record time to judge kavanaugh's record, but we have worked hand in glove with the archives throughout this process and the documents this committee received are the same as if the archives had done the initial review. in fact, the archives is not permitted by law to produce records to the committee without giving both president bush and a current president an opportunity to review. the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush's representative informed the committee, quote, from hi

a copy of that letter is available to you and also a copy -- a six pagetter letter from mr. burkepivotal point in the pressing of us to move. as you know, executive privilege has never before been invoked to brock -- blocked the release of presidential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination. in fact, when elena kagan was nominated, president obama announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of her white house records. when john roberts was nominated president bush announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of his white house records. when justice rehnquist was nominated the committee refused to go forward with hearings until the white house produced records over which it initially indicated it might claim privilege. by contrast, the trump white house is withholding thousands of pages of brett kavanaugh's records from congress, and admits it's doing so without actually asserting a legal privilege. of the taking advantage unprecedented process used by republicans to rush this nomination through the senate with just a fraction of the no

it doesn't include mr. burke. by what dhort is this man holding back hundreds of thousands of documents from the american them? who is he? who's paying him. so committee confidential is being determined by a man, a private attorney, and we don't know who he works for or who he's accountable to. mr. chairman, in the past when we went into committee confident it was in discrete specific words or handfuls of accusations that were made in a document and we were care to feel do it on a bipartisan basis. that has not been the case when 147,000 pages have been designated by bill burke as outside the reach of the american people and the senate judiciary committee. that's a further example of why this whole process has gone astray. and i think your explanation ignores that. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> who? >> the new senator. >> go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, can you tell me how many documents have been produced? >> 488,000 minus -- or, i mean, other than 28,000 pages that justice kavanaugh has

it doesn't include mr. burke.y is this man holding back hundreds of thousands of documents from the american people? who is he? who is paying him? so committee confidential is being determined by a man, a private attorney, and we don't know who he works for, or who he is accountable to. mr. chairman, in the past when we went into committee confidential it was in a discrete, specific area of concern involving a handful of words or accusations that had been made in a document and we were very careful to do it on a bipartisan basis. that has not been the case here where 147,000 pages have been designated by bill burke as outside the reach of the american people in the senate judiciary committee. a further example of why this whole process has gone astray. your explanation ignores that. >> mr. chairman. >> who wants the floor. >> the new senator. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, can you tell me again how many documents have been produced? >> 488,000 minus -- i mean other than 28,000 pages that justice kavanaugh

mr. bill burke, who was a former assistant to the nominee, who has decided what will be withheld, what is going to be committee confidential. so it isn't the presidential records act, please. >> well, still, let me make clear here, we anticipate some of this, so let me read. criticize the committee process for obtaining judge kavanaugh's records. they have accused us of cutting the national arkoochives out ofe process. so this is where i want to set the record straight. president bush acted consistently with federal law when he expedited the process and gave us unprecedented access in record time to judge kavanaugh's record, but we have worked hand in glove with the ar the archives had done the initial review. the archives is not permitted by law to produce records to the committee without giving both president bush and a current president an opportunity to review. the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush has informed the committee quote from his letter because we have sought, received and followed. and use on any documents withheld personal documents. which

mr. bush's lawyer, william burke. however, the lawyer then says but they were okay with giving this information over. this administration isn't. make some sense of this for me. >> well, i think the thing to think about is this, i'm not sure at the end of the day how much difference it's going to make. partly this is a matter of arithmetic. the republicans simply have the votes. but secondly while this will be, and you can count on it, that the democrats will be following joe biden's advice, they'll be saying how can we vote on this guy until we know every possible thing about him. the crucial question will be how will he vote as a judge, what can we learn from his time on the court of appeals here in the district of columbia. i think that's where the bulk of the questions will be. what's going to be new and different about this confirmation hearing is questions about how far you can go in subpoenaing or possibly indicting or other legal process against a sitting president. that becomes important obviously because of w

mr. chairman. >> bill burke, the attorney overseeing the kavanaugh records tells "the washington post" the> is that true? are the documents already clear or are you violating the rules? i don't know. >> i violated the rules and i'm violating the rules. i'm continuing to release documents that they haven't approved yet. >> so in the wake of those performances from two senators just about everyone in washington thinks will run for president in 2020, consider this from politico. quote, it hardly mattered to their primary audience, that kamala harris offered firm no firm evidence to support one of her sharpest lines of questioning. one thing democrats are learning from president donald trump as confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh drawing to a close, floating an incendiary charge with little to no factual basis. it isn't the details that resonate with base voters, it's the show. fair? >> i was thinking ability that the last couple of days about what happened this past week. and from what i've gathered from folks that i've talked to in the base and people that i've ta

after a working dinner insults burke what we heard in the response that up for junk lord young at the european commission president was that it was interesting polite and mrsy was just doing her job hardly the greatest of praise for in the e.u. commission president we're also hearing that both the multis and the czech leaders suggesting they would really back a second referendum on breaks that in the united kingdom for mrs mace point of view though she said the european side need to be willing to well to move the points from which then they go she just has britain has evolved its negotiation standpoint . and i have put forward a serious and workable proposals we will of course not agree on every detail but i hope that you will respond in kind if we're going to chief a successful conclusion then just in the u.k. has devolved its position the you will need to evolve its position to. so everybody's talking insults blow but we still have well no sign of a deal when it comes to break that no sign of a deal when it comes to migration with viktor orban and hungry standing outside of the the main body of the european union on how to police the external frontiers a

mr. chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by bill burke who is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and i'm going to quotet from the national archivist, it is quote, "something that has never happened before." and the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the george w. bush presidential library, end quote. so mr. chairman, i renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. that freedom of information act will require some time some time i assume to conclude, and i renew my motion, mr. chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as i said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a nondeb

mr. chairman, with all due respect, following the presidential records act involves a national archives. the national archives is not involved in this process. it was bill burkeer assistant to the nominee >> so it isn't the presidential record act, please. >> let me make clear here, criticized the committee process for obtaining judge kavanaugh's record, they have accused us of cutting the national honor guard out of the process. so this is where we want to set the record straight. president bush acted consistently with federal law when he expedited the process and gave us unprecedented access in record time an end this is the same as if the archives had done the initial review. in fact the archives is not permitted by law to produce records to the committee without giving both president bush and a current president an opportunity to review. the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush is representative -- as president bush's representative confirmed from the letter. we have received views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting production of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if nara had co

mr. chairman -- >> bring the charges. events two people released statements saying those confidential documents have already been released thursday morning per senator booker's request. in a statement to fox news, bill burke saying, quote, we were surprised to learn about senator booker's histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. in fact, we have said yes to every request made by the senate democrats to make documents public. >> reporter: the hearing is expected to continue well into the evening almost hitting the 12-hour mark at this point. now, they are in round three of the questioning. after that, there is expected to be a closed-door executive session. but there's still a number of days or weeks ahead for brett kavanaugh. >> lauren blanchard, thank you. >>> on ktvu.com we have posted more on judge kavanaugh's emails that were released today. you can find all of that information in our politics section. >>> twitter is permanently banning alex jones. he can't create new accounts or take over any existing ones. the company says he posted a video yesterday that is in violation of their policy against abusive behavior. the video shows jones berating cnn

mr. chairman. >> so booker released documents touring the hearing related to racial profiling. however, the attorney overseeing the release of kavanaugh's records if his time in the bush white house, bill burket" yesterday, quote, we cleared the documents last night shortly after senator booker's staff asked us to. we were surprised to learn about senator booker's histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. when asked if booker knew that the documents were released this morning, a spokesperson for the senator told nbc news, quote, cory and senate democrats were able to shame the committee into agreeing to make last night's documents publicly available, and cory publicly released those documents as well as other documents today. >>> the confirmation hearing for president trump's nominee brett kavanaugh is set to resume later this morning and the judge is facing accusations of lying under oath. patrick leahy questioned kavanaugh for a second day in a row yesterday over his role in the so-called memo gate scandal. the senator presented newly-produced e-mails showing exchanges with an aide that stole and spread thousands of documents from the dem

mr. chairman, that any senator has seen these new materials, much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by bill burke, not the national archivist, and this situation. when we say it's unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history and i'm going to quote from the national archivist. quote, it's something that has never happened before. and the archivists continue this effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the george w. bush presidential library, end quote. so, mr. chairman, i renew my motion to adjourn so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act, which is now pending to the national archivist, to the department of justice, to other relevant agencies, can be considered and judged. that freedom of information act will require some time, i assume, to conclude. i renew my motion, mr. chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn. as i said earlier, rule four provides for, quote, the committee chairman shall -- shall, not may, shall entertain a nondebatable motion to

a copy of that letter is available to you and also a copy of a six-page letter from mr. burke, which was the pivotal point in pressing us to move. as you know, executive privilege has never before been invoked to block the release of presidential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination. in fact, when elena kagan was nominated president obama announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of her white house records. when john roberts was nominated, president bush announced he would not invoke executive privilege over any of his white house records. when justice rehnquist was nominated, the committee refused to go forward with hearings until the white house produced records over which it initially indicated it might claim privilege. by contrast, the trump white house is withholding thousands of pages of brett kavanaugh's record from congress and admits it's doing so without actually asserting a legal privilege, rather taking advantage of the unprecedented process used by republicans to rush this nomination through the senate with just a fraction of th