mr. mcgahn meant. i think by that comment, i think federalist society members are -- the lawyers in the administration are federalist society members. and so it should not be a surprise that -- because it's an organization -- >> leonard leo's role specifically from the federalist society? >> i don't know. i don't know the specifics. >> let's go from specifics to generals. and let me put up a graphic that shows some of the folks who fund the federalist society. it's a pretty significant group of people who tend to share very conservative and pro-corporate points of view. it reflects that at least 14 of the donors are actually anonymous, which is a very unfortunate part of our political world. actually, probably more than that because doan he is trust here is an organization whose sole purpose is to launder the identity off of big donors so that a recipient of funds can report that they got the money from donors trust rather than the true party in interest. so we don't know how much anonymous money flowe

mr. mcgahn meant.i think by that comment -- i think federalist society members are -- the lawyers in the administration are federalist society members, and so it should not be a surprise that -- because it's an organization. >> and leonard leo's role specifically, from the federalist society? >> >> i don't know. >> okay. >> i don't know the specifics. >> well, let's go from specifics to generals, and let me put up a graphic that shows some of the folks who fund the federalist society. it's a pretty significant group of people who tend to share very conservative and pro-corporate points of view. it reflects that at least 14 of the donors are actually anonymous, which is a very unfortunate part of our current political world. actually, probably more than that, because donors trust here is an organization whose sole purpose is to laund terrer the identity off of big donors so that a recipient of funds can report they got the money from donors trust rather than the true party of interest. so we don't know

mr. mcgahn meant by that comment. i think fad -- federalist society members, lawyers and administration are federal society members, it should not be a surprise that -- it is an organization -- >> leonard leo's role from the federalist society? >> i don't know. >> okay. >> i don't know the specifics. >> let's go from specifics to generals and let me put up a graphic that shows some of the folks who fund the federalist society. it's a pretty significant group of people who tend to share very conservative and pro-corporate points of view. it reflects that at least 14 of the donors are actually anonymous, which is a very unfortunate part of our current political world, actually probably more than that because donors trust here as an organization who purpose is to -- so that recipient of funds can report they got money from donor trust, rather than the true party at interest. we don't know how many anonymous money flowed through them. but i would contend that this is a pretty strong group of right-wing conservative pro-co

mr. mcgahn meant by that comment. i think the federalist society members are -- lawyers in the administration are federalist society members. and so it should not be a surprise that -- because it's an organization. >> leonard leo's role specifically from the federalist society? >> i don't know. >> okay. >> i don't know the specifics. >> let's go from specifics to generals and let me put up a graphic that shows some of the folks who fund the federalist society. it's a pretty significant group of people who tend to share conservative and pro corporate points of view. it reflects at least 14 of the donors are actually anonymous, which is a very unfortunate part of our current political world. actually probably proobl more than that. a recipient of funds can report that they got the money from donor's trust rather than the true party in interest. so we don't know how much anonymous money flowed through them. but i would contend that this is a pretty strong group of right wing conservative procorporate funders. and presumi

mr. mcgahn meant. i think by that comment -- i think federalist society members are -- the lawyers in the administration are federalist society members, and so it should not be a surprise that -- because it's an organization. >> and leonard leo's role specifically, from the federalist society? >> >> i don't know. >> okay. >> i don't know the specifics. >> well, let's go from specifics to generals, and let me put up a graphic that shows some of the folks who fund the federalist society. it's a pretty significant group of people who tend to share very conservative and pro-corporate points of view. it reflects that at least 14 of the donors are actually anonymous, which is a very unfortunate part of our current political world. actually, probably more than that, because donors trust here is an organization whose sole purpose is to laund terrer the identity off of big donors so that a recipient of funds can report they got the money from donors trust rather than the true party of interest. so we don't know

mr. mcgahn, did you write the op ed? >> do you know who did? >> reporter: top officials publicly pl ging allegiance saying they are not the source behind "the new york times" blistering op ed. one that would write an anonymous editorial smearing this president tha provided extraordinary leadership for this country should not be working for this administration. ep >>ter: the insider's identity, now washington's biggest mystery after "the times" with held a senior administration es official whoibes a quiet resistance to secretly stop the president from destruct decisions. now a loyalty list as one by one, 24 top officials including 21 tabinet members promisay it's not them. >> i'll answer your other question directly because someone will say gosh, you didn't answer the question. it's not mine. >> reporter: during watergate before president nixon resigned, everyone deep throat denied he was the urce with president trump on the hunt for his betrayer. multiple sources describe his mood as volcanic erupting not just over ed but at "the times" for pub

mr. mcgahn, did you write that op ed? >> no. >> nicely done. nicely done. >> no, no, no.

mr. mcgahn discussed president trump's to list of potential supreme court nominees. one, he said, was filled with mainstream candidates. the other list included candidates that are kind of too hot for prime time, the kind that really would be really hot in the senate. probably people of britain a lot we really get a sense of the views, the kind of people that make people nervous. that's a quote. now, what i'm saying, this is the backdrop into which we come into this situation. so yes, there is frustration on the side. we know what happened with the prior nominee, the last one president obama presented to us. he never even got an meeting. he never got a hearing. he never got a vote. and now the rush to judgment and the inability to really have a civil and positive process in up being the result i really regret this, i think you have to understand the frustration on the site of the aisle. everyone on this sidee of the aisle wants to do a good job. they want time to be able to consider what the findings ared and there are tens of thousands of pages of e-mails and other

mr. mcgahn. mr. priebus, the former chief of staff to the president of the united states and steve bannon, a man whom i couldn't characterize in a few words. he is his personal attorney. in this situation, he is now the litmus test, he is the filter to see what the american people will see about this nominee. that's why we bring this issue before you. left you think we are carping on a trifle here, we are talking about whether the american people have the right to know. we now know that less than 10% of the documents reflecting the public career of mr. kavanaugh have been made available to this committee. i just want to say to my colleagues, particularly my colleague from new jersey, i completely agree with you. i concur with what you are doing. let's jump into this pit together. i hope my other colleagues will join me. if there's going to be some retribution against the senator from new jersey, count me in. i want to be part of this process. i want to understand how bill burke, this private attorney

mr. mcgahn, mr. priebus, the former chief of staff to the president of the united states and staeve bannon, a man whom i couldn't characterize in few words. in this situation, he is now the filter to decide what the american people will see about this nominee. and that's why we bring this issue before you. lest you think we are -- we are talking about whether the american people have the right to know. and we now know that less than 10% of the documents reflecting the public career of mr. kavanaugh have been made available to this committee. and i just want to say to my colleagues, particularly my colleague from new jersey, i completely agree with you. i concur with what you are doing. and let's just into this together. i hope my other colleagues will join me. so if there is going to be some retribution against the senator from new jersey, count me in. i want to be part of this process. i want to understand how bill burke, this private attorney, has the right to say as one of my colleagues mentioned

mr. mcgahn was white house counsel. those are just facts, and then what else happened, i -- >> it's a mystery. >> no, it's not a mystery. i'm just debating whether i want to say -- but a lot of judges and lawyers that i know will come back -- >> i want to talk about your dissent. >> could i answer the question? i had an answer to your question. you said what else happened, and i haven't answered it. >> go ahead. >> a lot of judges and lawyers i know made clear to i think various people that they thought i should at least be considered based on my record for the last 12 years, and colleagues of mine thought i should be considered, and i think that, i appreciate that. >> and maybe more than a few of them cited your dissent in garza. >> i think it had happened long before that, actually. they -- >> let's talk about the dissent though, in that dissent, three times you used the term "abortion on demand." abortion on demand, as you know, is a code word in the anti-choice community. in fact, it's used by justices scalia and th

mr. mcgahn was white house counsel. those are just facts, and then what else happened, i -- >> it's a mystery. >> no, it's not a mystery. i'm just debating whether i want to say -- but a lot of judges and lawyers that i know will come back -- >> i want to talk about your dissent. >> could i answer the question? i had an answer to your question. you said what else happened, and i haven't answered it. >> go ahead. >> a lot of judges and lawyers i know made clear to i think various people that they thought i should at least be considered based on my record for the last 12 years, and colleagues of mine thought i should be considered, and i think that, i appreciate that. >> and maybe more than a few of them cited your dissent in garza. >> i think it had happened long before that, actually. they -- >> let's talk about the dissent though, in that dissent, three times you used the term "abortion on demand." abortion on demand, as you know, is a code word in the anti-choice community. in fact, it's used by justices scalia and th

mr. mcgahn never said the president exceeded his legal authority.doesn't matter the amount of hours he was there, what matters is what was said. remember, the presidential loud him to -- allowed him to go in and he didn't assert liability. there is not one detail about what he said. >> i want to show that it said there was a false alarm about this. a false alarm when it comes to that. interesting that you have the president reportedly trying to force him to fire robert mueller last year, but mcgahn, in essence, refused to and threatened to quit. but the person in the white house who kept the president from firing mueller is leaving. where does that leave the special counsel? >> first of all, i don't think anybody working for the president has much job security, and i think anybody working for the president probably should have a headhunter on retainer. other than that, i don't think it tells you anything. the white house counsel is an important job. it represents the presidency, not the president. >> i have to ask you before we go, being a former wa

mr. mcgahn discussed president trump's two lists of potential supreme court nominees. one, he said, was filled with mainstream candidates. the other list included candidates that are kind of too hot for primetime. the kind that really would be really hot in the senate. probably people who have written a lot, we really get a sense of their views. the kind of people that make people nervous. that's a quote. now, what i'm saying, this is the backdrop into which we come into this situation. so, yes, there is frustration on this side. we know what happened with the prior nominee, the last one president obama presented to us. he never even got a meeting. he never got a hearing. he never got a vote. now, the rush to judgment and the inability to really have a civil and positive process ends up being the result. i really regret this. i think you have to understand the frustration on this side of the aisle. everyone on this side of the aisle wants to do a good job. they want time to be able to consider what the findings are. there are tens of thousands of pages of e-mails and o

mr. mcgahn discussed president trump's two lists of potential supreme court nominees, one he said was filled with mainstreamed candidates, the other list included candidates that are kind of too hot for primetime, the kind that really would be really hot in the senate, probably people who have written a lot, we really get a sense of their views, the kind of people that make people nervous. that's a quote. now what i'm saying, this is the backdrop into which we come in to this situation. so, yes, there is frustration on this side. we know what happened with the prior nominee, the last one president obama presented to us. he never even got a meeting. he never got a hearing. he never got a vote and now the rush to judgment and the inability to really have a civil and positive process ends up being the result. i really regret this, but i think you have to understand the frustration on this side of the aisle. every one on this side of the aisle wants to do a good job. they want time to be able to consider what the findings are and there are tens of thousands of pages of emails and other items whi

mr. mcgahn, did you write that op ed? >> no. >> nicely done. nicely done. >> no, no, no. >> the committee will come to order. senator whitehouse. >> welcome back, judge kavanaugh. let me know when you're good. >> i'm ready. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> judge kavanaugh, journalists go to jail to protect sources unless and until the source releases the journalist from their obligation of confidentiality. will you now release from that obligation any journalists that you spoke with during and about the starr investigation? >> i'm not sure i'm understanding the question. >> there were journalists you spoke with during and about the starr investigation. they are not disclosing what you spoke with them about because you were an undisclosed source. if you say, don't worry, that's over, say whatever happened happened, then they are freed of that obligation and we can find out about what you said to the journalists during and about the starr investigation. will you do that? >> senator, i spoke to reporters at that time at the direction and authorizati

mr. mcgahn, mr. priebus, the former chief of staff to the president of the united states, and steve bannon, a man whom i couldn't characterize in a few words. but he is his personal attorney. and in the situation he is now the litmus test. he is the filter to decide what the american people will see about this nominee. and that's why we bring this issue before you. lest you think we're -- talk but whether the american people have the right to know. and we now know that less than 10% of the documents reflecting the public career of mr. kavanaugh has been made available to this committee. and i just want to say to my colleagues, particularly my colleague from new jersey, i completely agree with you. i concur with what you were doing and let's jump into this pit together. i hope my other colleagues will join me. so if there's going to be some retribution against the senator from new jersey, count me in here i want to be part of this process. i want to understand how bill burke, this private attorney, ha

mr. mcgahn, reince priebus and steve bannon. he is not a litmus test, the filter to decide what the american people will see about this nominee and that is why we bring this issue before you. lest you think we're harping on a trifle here, we talk about what the american people have the right to know. we now know that less than 10% of the documents reflect and the public career of mr. kavanaugh has been made available to this committee. i just want to say to my colleagues, particularly my colleagues from new jersey i completely agree with you. i concur with what you are doing and let's jump into this fit together. i hope my other colleagues will join me so if there's going to be some restoration against the senator from new jersey, copy them. i want to be part of this process. i want to understand how bill burke, this private attorney has the right to say as one of my colleagues mentioned come and they should be considered a classified document, a top-secret document. document the relates to the national security of the united st

mr. mcgahn discussed president trump's two lists of potential supreme court nominees, one he said was filled with mainstream candidates, the other list included candidates that are kind of too hot for prime time, the kind that really would be really hot in the senate, probably people who have written a lot, we really get a sense of their views, the kind of people that make people nervous. that's a quote. now, what i'm saying, this is the backdrop into which we come into this situation. so, yes, there is frustration on this side. we know what happened with the prior nominee, the last one president obama presented to us. he never even got a meeting. he never got a hearing. he never got a vote. and now the rush to judgment and the inability to really have a civil and positive process ends up being the result. i really regret this, but i think you have to understand the frustration on this side of the aisle. everyone on this side of the aisle wants to do a good job. they want time to be able to consider what the findings are and there are tens of thousands of pages of e-mails and other items whi

journal is reporting tonight that president trump is considering attorney emmitt flood to replace don mcgahn. mrprivately told associates he wants tough minded lawyers who are attentive to his interests. emmitt flood is already a member of the white house counsel's team where he's responsible to the answers to the special prosecutor's investigation of the trump administration. the problem of president trump in promoting emmitt flood to be the head of the council office is emmitt flood would have to spend a significant amount of time on other matters other than the investigation. and the investigation was the reason he was hired in the white house council in the first place. he was on the legal defense team for president bill clinton during the clinton impeachment process. bob woodward's new book reveals president trump's complete lack of comprehension of the president's relationship to the white house counsel's office. the president former lawyer john dowd represented ty cobb in charge of the mueller investigation. the book reveals ty cobb was in favor of president trump submitting to an intervi

mr. mcgahn discussed president's trumps two lists of potential supreme court nominees, one he said was filledcandidates. the other list included candidates that are too hot for prime time. the kind that really would be really hot in the senate. probably people who have written a lot. we really get a sense of their views. the kind of people that make people nervous. that's a quote. now, what i'm saying, this is the back drop into which we come into this situation. so yes, there is frustration on this side. we know what happened with the prior nominee, the last one president obama presented to us. he never even got a meeting. he never got a hearing. he never got a vote. and now the rush to judgment and the inability to really have a civil and positive process ends up being the result. i really regret this, but i think you have to understand the frustration on this side of the aisle. everyone on this side of the aisle wants to do a good job. they want time to be able to consider what the findings are and there are tens of thousands of pages of emails and other items which could constitute findin

wondered if he was compromised and should step down and called don mcgahn to talk about his future. some fox news commentators who mr. trump listens to urged against firing. >> i have a message for the president tonight, under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody. >> reporter: after today's meeting, white house chief of staff john kelly took the unusual step of walking rosenstein outside and shaking hands in view of the cameras. it's an unsettled time here. rosenstein's future is in doubt and there are growing signs that attorney general jeff sessions will step down after the november elections. pete williams, nbc news at the justice department. >> let's bring in our chief white house correspondent hallie jackson. you have rosenstein to the white house and kavanaugh on the hill and i used the term split screen earlier another one. >> a big day on thursday with t. can be a motivating factor. play but our credible, that could hurt. on rod rosenstein, there is no up side to getting rid of him. it is basically all risk. that is why you're seeing even some of the president's closest allies saying hey, hol

mcgahn or any of this. why don't you just ask the president, mrs. -- dr. ford can't to this. we clearly haven't been able to do this, but just ask the president to re-open the fbi investigation. >> i think the committee is -- you're doing the investigation. i'm here to answer your questions and i should say one thing, senator klobuchar, which is i appreciate our meeting together and i appreciate how you handled the prior hearing and i have a lot of respect for you. >> well, thank you. all of that aside, here's the thing, you could actually just get this open so that we can talk to these witnesses and the fbi can do it instead of us. you've come before us but we have people like mark judge who dr. ford says was a witness to this. we have this polygraph expert that my colleagues are raising issues about the polygraph. we would like to have that person come before us. and i just think if we could open this up -- >> i don't mean to -- i don't mean to interrupt -- i guess i am. mark judge has provided sworn statements saying this didn't happen and that i never did or would do -- >