mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, moments ago anothers serious allegation of sexual misconduct against judge kavanaugh was made public in a sworn affidavit. there are now multiple credible, serious and corroborated allegations against judge kavanaugh made under the penalty of perjury. the new affidavit by plaza swetnick -- by mrs. swetnick calls for a detailed investigation done by our f.b.i. professionals as do the allegations made by other women. but currently there is only a

mr. schumer: madam president, over the last -- over the past few days, new allegations have come to light about president trump's nominee to the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. these allegations ought to be treated with the utmost graffiti. the allegations are extremely credible. they were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test and had been discussed in the past, long before kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court with a family therapist. i believe her. many, many, many americans believe her. many, many women in america who have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. for too long women have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. it would be a disgrace if this body and our fellow republicans let that happen. chairman grassley must postpone the vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background

mr. schumer: madam president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: democratic leader, we are in a quorum call. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, moments ago anothers serious allegation of sexual misconduct against judge kavanaugh was made public in a sworn affidavit. there are now multiple credible, serious and corroborated allegations against judge kavanaugh made under the penalty of perjury. the new affidavit by plaza swetnick -- by mrs. swetnick calls for a detailed investigation done by our f.b.i. professionals as do the allegations made by other women. but currently there is only a single hearing tomorrow, with no witnesses other than dr. ford and judge kavanaugh before a scheduled committee vote and a potential final senate floor vote soon thereafter. that is not right. there is no need for such a rush. these women deserve to be heard in a fair way, and their claims must be properly investigated.

mr. schumer: first, my friend who did an outstanding job on the judiciary committee, for his graciousness and thoughtfulness and also my friend from new mexico as well. today the senate judiciary committee began hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. democrats on the committee have pointed out that over 40,000, 40,000 of judge kavanaugh's documents were handed over to the committee last night. it's the latest insult in what has been an insulting process for reviewing the nominee's record on the issues. not just insulting to democrats in the senate, insulting to the senate as a whole and insulting to the american people, like, you know we can jam this through and it doesn't matter what you think, what you need to know. more than 90% of the nominee's record has been shielded from public scrutiny. the chairman keeps claiming, well, there are several hundred thousand pages made available. that is not the point. if only 7% of the documents are made available, the question is what looms in the other 93%. it's the percentage that matters. because we want to know wha

mr. schumer: dr. ford has made an exceptionally specific allegation, one she made years ago, i think six years ago to a family therapist long before judge kavanaugh was nominated for the supreme court. she volunteered to take a lie detector test which she passed. judge kavanaugh meanwhile has, quote, categorically and unequivocally denied the entire story. there's no wiggle room in that denial. he didn't say i didn't remember. it is a whole and complete denial. someone is not telling the truth. someone is not telling the truth. now, here's what president trump said, quoted in bob woodward's book about sexual assault allegations. president trump said, quote, you've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women. if you admit to anything and any culpability, then you're dead. you've got to be strong. you've got to be aggressive. you've got to push back hard. you've got to deny anything that's said about you. never admit. so the question looms. is judge kavanaugh taking a page from president trump'

mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now yesterday the republican leader began his speech with a quote of mine. let me begin mine with a quote of his. quote -- we're going to plow right through it -- unquote. that's leader mcconnell, we're going to plow right through it. he was speaking to the values voters summit about serious allegations of sexual misconduct by supreme court nominee judge kavanaugh. we're going to plow right through it. does that sound like someone who is treating these allegations with respect and fairness and evenhandedness? does it sound like someone who wants to get at the real facts, no matter where they fall? certainly not to me. not to the american people. and then yesterday leader mcconnell brought the debate to a new low by calling the allegations against judge kavanaugh a democratic smear job. never mind that leader mcconnell has no evidence -- no evidence whatsoever -- that the recent allegations were contrived by democrats. they were not. never mind that leader mcconnell had no evidence --

mr. schumer: today, madam president -- i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, today the senate judiciary committee continues its hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. during yesterday's session, the american people got to see a nominee who refused to answer even the most basic fundamental questions about his jurisprudence. they got to see a cover-up of judge kavanaugh's records, by himself and the republican members of the committee. when judge kavanaugh was asked specific questions about important issues that might someday come before a court like women's reproductive freedom, he pleaded the need for independence and refused to answer. when democratic senators asked him hypothetical questions instead to avoid the possibility of a judge -- of the judge tipping his hand on a future case, then he said he wouldn't engage in hypotheticals. can't talk about specific cases. can't talk about general situations. he's ducking. he's hiding. judge kavanaugh was asked how he might vi

mr. schumer: first, my friend who did an outstanding job on the judiciary committee, for his graciousness and thoughtfulness and also my friend from new mexico as well. today the senate judiciary committee began hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. democrats on the committee have pointed out that over 40,000, 40,000 of judge kavanaugh's documents were handed over to the committee last night.

mr. schumer is making, professor ford said it was brett kavanaugh and his friend, mark judge, who were in the room. they were in the room. the democrats said he's a vital witness. he wrote a book his time in prep school where he said kavanaugh was passed out drunk. if you are on the kavanaugh side, you don't want judge. you get into the culture of these kids in high school. we will have this argument play out again with professor ford's reputation. she had the courage to come forward. judge kavanaugh's reputation. he insisted it never happened and polarized washington will fix this out. >> you are assuming that polarized washington will fix anything at all. this is incredibly broken. you can see why the democrats want judge. it opens up an avenue of questions and pointing back to kavanaugh's comments in e-mails and the bush administration and trouble reccollecting a certain party. i think the important thing is this is a dramatic development, but not the whole basket. you have questions about senator flake who does not agree with brett kavanaugh on executive power vz legislative power. ro

mr. schumer and the democrats are able to gum up the works pretty extensively. but as for us in the house, we have, mr. speaker, been successful in passing all 12 appropriations bills. we have been successful in passing the necessary appropriations bills without the help of the democrats in order to make sure that we are providing the funds that we need to keep the government open and functioning and i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to participate in the good faith manner particularly in the coming weeks as we deal with the defense appropriations bill on this floor and make sure that our men and women in uniform receive the funds that they deserve. i thank the gentleman from ohio and my colleague from kentucky for their important and hard work on these bills. we must continue to roll back the regulatory burdens that make doing business in our country so difficult. and we also have got to give our students the tools they need to maximize their opportunities for success and to understand the financial liabilities that they are undertaking w

mr. schumer: madam president, over the last -- over the past few days, new allegations have come to light about president trump's nominee to the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. these allegations ought to be treated with the utmost graffiti. the allegations are extremely credible. they were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test and had been discussed in the past, long before kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court with a family therapist. i believe her. many, many, many americans believe her. many, many women in america who have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. for too long women have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. it would be a disgrace if this body and our fellow republicans let that happen. chairman grassley must postpone the vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background

mr. schumer: thank you. yesterday was the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, an event which changed my city and our country forever. i spend the morning at the 9/11 memorial in lower manhattan, two deep scars in the earth remind us where mighty towers once stood. i'll never forget that day, nor the next -- the phones when they worked ringing endlessly, the smell of death, the lines of hundreds of people holding homemade signs -- i'll never forget that, mr. president. as i walked there, president bush sent a plane and we went to ground zero the day after. hundreds of people lined up, have you seen my father, joe? have you seen my daughter, marie? because the towers had crashed but no one knew how many people have survived. it was all of. 3,000 souls lost in one day, one of the bloodiest days on american soil since the civil war. and people i knew -- a guy i played basketball with in high school, a businessman who helped me on my way up, a firefighter who i went around the city with to ask people to donate

mr. schumer: first, my friend who did an outstanding job on the judiciary committee, for his graciousness and thoughtfulness and also my friend from new mexico as well. today the senate judiciary committee began hearings on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. democrats on the committee have pointed out that over 40,000, 40,000 of judge kavanaugh's documents were handed over to the committee last night. it's the latest insult in what has been an insulting process for reviewing the nominee's record on the issues. not just insulting to democrats in the senate, insulting to the senate as a whole and insulting to the american people, like, you know we can jam this through and it doesn't matter what you think, what you need to know. more than 90% of the nominee's record has been shielded from public scrutiny. the chairman keeps claiming, well, there are several hundred thousand pages made available. that is not the point. if only 7% of the documents are made available, the question is what looms in the other 93%. it's the percentage that matters. because we want to know wha

and donate and help me close the gap against the liberal atm machine of chuck schumer and joe manchin. [cheering and applause] mrmorrissey: look, this race will likely decide the balance of power in the senate. amen, brother. but remember, those radicals in washington, schumer, pelosi, maxine waters -- [booing] mr. morrissey: and joe manchin. they don't want to see our president succeed. they want to obstruct just like they did this week against judge kavanaugh. [booing] mr. morrissey: ladies and gentlemen, we must confirm judge kavanaugh. [cheering and applause] mr. morrissey: it is time to join our team today, because joe has got to go. [cheering and chanting] mr. morrissey: he has got to go. and it is my honor to stand with president trump to fight for you. we, unlike joe manchin, hillary clinton and the radical liberals, we will never abandon our american and west virginia values. the one thing you will know is that together this team, we are going to continue making america great again, and we will make west virginia great again. thank you very much, god bless you. [cheering and applause] pres. trump: thank

. >> i think we know is that there was a coordinated effort, chuck schumer orchestrated this, mr. blumenthal can say all he wants, if you talk about tainted, you talk about senators who said before president even nominated his nominee for this position, they would note vote t vote that is tainted. i am voting no because i am a democrat and i don't like this. he knows what -- they know who this is, they know he is a brilliant legal mind, they know they can do nothing about it but watch the process and pitch a fit, i commend mitch mcconnell, and chairman grassley for moving forward, not giving in to temper tantrum today. liz: let's get to next case, tech executives heading to capitol hill this week, starting tomorrow with senate intelligence committee chase book ceo, twitter, and google executive on hot see th seat bee lawmakers this week. those stocks today, facebook down more than 2%, and twitter and google ending lower, shares of snap, touching an all-time low. congressman, here is the thing, we know that the democrats need 23 seats to retake control of the house. the cook report

schumer and senator mcconnell. >> it is completely up to them. >> mr. chairman. >> he made himself very clear. >> no -- senator leahy. >> let's move. >> senator leahy. senator leahy. >> mr. chairman, i want to make sure because this is somewhat unprecedented. while i do agree with the senator from arizona that we should you have this further investigation, so my understanding is that during the week that that is taking place, there will be no action on the floor of the united states senate on this nomination. is that correct? >> that -- i cannot say that -- >> let me say again, i can't make that commitment for the leadership. i can only say that i would be only comfortable moving forward on the floor. i'll move it out of committee but i will only be comfortable moving on the floor until the fbi has done more investigation than they have already. it may not take them a week. i understand that some of these witnesses may not want to discuss anything further. but i think we owe them due diligence. >> mr. chairman. >> just a minute. all i have said to senat

mr. rosenstein. democrats like senator chuck schumer say that cannot happen. senator schumer says it would be corrupt. others say if it true it would press be appropriate for rosenstein to lose his job. but they are same right now they should really just wait and see. the "washington post" reports of president trump told several people on friday and saturday that he does not plan to fire the deputy attorney general. eric: thank you so much. arthel: this week nick city facing a security challenge of epic proportions as president trump and other world leaders arrive for the united nations general assembly. the state department diplomatic security service calls it their super bowl. a look at the preparations. jackie heinrich is live at the un. reporter: hi, arthel! security kicking up a notch as the president makes his way here. although there is no credible threat law enforcement is working to protect dignitaries and the public from dangers like poison, drones and even hacking. >> the diplomatic security service calls at their super bowl pair the largest effort

in the meantime, senator schumer is saying that mr. cavanaugh should withdraw altogether.es not belong in there. we have access now to the prepared remarks of judge kavanagh that he will deliver tomorrow, in which he admits there was some indiscretions, he did some things that he would not be proud of, and maybe drank to excess, but the allegations are totally wrong. he even calls them ridiculous. in the meantime, a third woman has come forward with allegations of sexual assault by judge cavanaugh, back in his high school days. we have basically growing pressure on both sides, both the democrats and the republicans with a number of women senators caught in theis crosshairs. we'll keep you updated on that as it develops, and we will have more on judge cavanaugh's hearings. 11 house democrats were reelected in districts that voted for president trump in 2016, but only one of those on by a 20 pointa landslide. --, and servess as the cochair of the democratic policy and communications committee. welcome, congresswoman, and good to have you here. >> that was a doubtful, all of

this will be up to senator schumer and senator mcconnell. >> mr.want to make sure because this is somewhat unprecedented. >> this country is being ripped apart here, and we've got to make sure that we do due diligence. >> because of the two-hour rule, we're adjourned. >> lawrence o'donnell as you see here, host of "the last word" and long time senate expert. and at the table "new york times" maria gaye, who i'm pleased tonight tonight is an msnbc contributor. welcome! >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for being here. we'll get to you, and you're also here later in the show, so that's a plug for later. lawrence, when you look at that drama, it seemed to be of the kind that senators struggled to understand. what were you thinking? >> well, when pat leahy who has been in the senate for decades says it's unprecedented, it's unpress dented. i was watching it at home live and live tweeting it. as soon as we got to 9:31, i knew there was a very serious problem because this was a scheduled vote in that committee by chuck grassley at 9:30. they were all ph

mr. bush revealed the decision in this letter to the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. senate minority leader chuck schumer reacted swiftly, declaring, we're witnessing a friday night document massacre. adding, it has all the makings of a cover up. but majority leader mitch mcconnell said the outrage is unfounded. >> so far i believe the only senators who have met with this nominee and didn't have negative things to say about him were democrats who had already announced beforehand they were going to oppose him. >> reporter: the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator chuck grassley released a statement supporting the decision to hold some recor d pvided numbers of how many kavanagh-related documents have been turned over. more than 400,000, the most of recent supreme couar lines. >> senor g very fair, more documents given than any person in the supreme court. >> it is not normal because we are not able to see 100,000 documents that the archivist because the administration said we can't see them. >> reporter: the white house is defending its decision saying the production of documents in this case is e

it doesn't matter what we say here, this will be up to senator schumer in senator mcconnell. >> senator leahy he? >> mr. chairman, i want to make sure because this is somewhat unprecedented. when i do agree with the senator from arizona that we should have this further investigation. so my understanding is that during the week that that is taking place, there will be no action on the floor of the united states senate on this nomination. is that correct? >> i cannot say that -- >> -- let me say again. i can't make that statement for the leadership. i can only say that i would be only comfortable moving forward on the floor, i will move it out of committee. but i will only be comfortable moving on the floor until the fbi has done more investigation than they have already. it may not take them a week. i understanding that some of these witnesses may not want to discuss anything further. but, i think we owe them due diligence. >> from chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> just a minute. all i have said to senator flake is that i would advocate for the position he took but i don't control that senator? >> mr. chair

schumer and mcconnell. >> it is completely up to them. >> mr. chairman. >> he has made himself a very clear. senator grassley: senator leahy. senator leahy: i want to make sure, because this is somewhat unprecedented, but i do agree with the senator from arizona that we should have the investigation. so my understanding is that during the week that that is taking place, there will be no action on the floor of the united states senate on this nomination, is that correct? senator grassley: i cannot say -- >> let me say again, i cannot make that choice for the leadership, i can only say i would be comfortable moving forward on the floor, i will only be comfortable moving on the floor until the fbi has done more investigation than they have already. it may not take them a week. i understand some of the witnesses may not want to discuss things further, but i think we owe them due diligence. >> mr. chairman. senator grassley: just a minute. all i is said to senator flake is i would advocate for the position he took, but i do not control that. senator? yes, senator? >> there are other senators as w

chuck schumer led a phone call and committee members are executing now. >> mr. chairman, there was a phone conference yesterday and at the time of the phone conference, many issues were raised. 100,000 documents related to judges kavanaugh have been characterized as committee confidential. >> laura: it was good of durban to confirm what we all knew. there is a 90 minute blow va shannon session at the top of the kavanaugh hearing was just clunky choreography meant to foster republicans and more importantly, it's all about the midterms. they are not going to defeat cavanaugh. they know it and we know it. but the truth is this is all the democrats have. they are now just a party of wacky protests, silly sideshows and groovy stunts. they have no governing agenda or a argument. they can't run against record unemployment or booming consumer confidence. so feigned outrage is all they are left with. one group left this actually donned handmade tales costumes as if it would turn women into slaves of the state. i looked closely and it looked more like a high school send-o

mr. bush revealed the decision in this letter to the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. senate minority leader chuck schumerftly declaring, we are witnessing a friday night document massacre. adding, it has all the makings of a cover-up. majority leader mitch mcconnell has said the outreach is unfounded. >> so far, i believe the only senators who have met with the nominee and did not have negative things to say about him were democrats who already announce beforehand they were going to oppose him. >> reporter: the chairman of the judiciary committee released a statement supporting the decision to hold some records and provided numbers of how many cavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh related documents have been handed over. or than any of the recent supreme court nominees. committee members are divided along party lines. 2 they have given more documents than any ever nominated. >> it is not normal because we are not able to see 100,000 documents that the archivist, because the administration has said we cannot see them. >> reporter: the white house is defending his decision saying the production of documents in this

schumer, more than nancy pelosi. these are the kinds of things that people want to know. thank you mr. rosendale, will going to the open discussion. , we would try to make this a little shorter since we went through this a little earlier. a chance for some of you to mention something. sen. tester: if you look at the ads on tv, how many are paid for by the dark money groups, you can see the vast majority of his ads are by folks who we don't know who they are. he is actually lobbied some of them to run ads in the state of montana, which by the way is illegal. he is tried to do everything to get around of our spirit of campaign laws. i, on the other hand have supported time and time again efforts in washington dc to try and make elections more transparent. i think it is important. i think the reason you know who my donors is and the reason we are going to have immediate notification of who donates to a campaign is because of a bill i dropped in 2008 that finally got to the president's desk last week. i will continue to fight for more transparency in elections. commissioner rosendale, all

a listen to the senate minority leader schumer discussing mark judge and whether he should testify on monday. >> it certainly makes sense for one witness to be mrjudge. how could we want to get the truth and not have mr. judge come to the hearing? and be asked questions. >> senator leahy said that to me a few minutes ago. what's the strategy here? i mean, judge said he said last week he has no memory of this. he said it again in a letter. clearly he's not providing a kr corroborative evidence for ford. >> i suppose part of it is if i'm a little bit cynical, asking questions about the high school drinking to answer truthfully to those and talk about the things they did in high school. >> so the culture? >> yeah. i think that would be the attempt. but for both kavanaugh and judge, when they -- if they -- if this is their story, all they can do is come and say i did not do this thing. and judge can say, i don't know him to act like this. i never saw him act like this and say it over and over again and that's about all that they can do. and i do think it is dangerous to go down a path where if the standard is you have to prove you weren't at a part

mr. chairman? >> senator booker, using the standard set by two members of your political party in the caucus, and then going to praise because it on the exact quotes in frenemy, but recently senator schumer said from the floor, decisions thatfl they made at lower courts. senator leahy said something similar to that when judge sotomayor was before us, that -- [shouting] >> we know how many, we know what you have done in the lower court. that's the best basis for knowing whether or not you want to be on the supreme court. so we 307 cases that this nominee has written decisions on, and the basis for that, and we've got 488,000 other pages and maybe senators have not read them but the staff is fully informed because last night before 11:00, of the 42,000 pages that if come to our attention, the staff on the republican side has gone through them. >> why don't you ask for the whitest council documents? if you are not germane why would you even ask for them? >> for the record that's 7000 70 pages per hour. that's superhuman. >> mr.>> chairman? if i may, i been through nine supreme court hearings -- >> is this your opening statement? >> it's part of it. >> why don't you make your opening stateme

mr. peters. so that is good. we haven't heard very much -- >> we need to see more of that. >> laura: where are the democrats? maxine waters, schumer, pelosi, where are they? we have a congressional candidate being attacked with a switchblade, yelling "f drum," and it is just another day. >> they need to be called on to call out this kind of violence, if this was going under the right, you know what would happen, laura. every mainstream media outlet would be reporting it, calling on each one of us, there have microphones in our faces. i would denounce it. i would announce anything that happened on either side but you don't see about enough from the left. they need to be challenged. where are these liberal talk show hosts that yell and scream and rant and rage, if their incitement is actually leading somebody to go and commit violence? that is not for this country is about. >> laura: it is by any means necessary. what i am watching tonight, you have to understand, were at not for a switchblade not offering, and mr. peters having the wherewithal on the physical strength to push this guy back, you might have had your throat slit. cong

. >> chairman, still on the road rosenstein issue, chuck schumer of all people agrees with you on not making a hasty mous with mr. but for different reasons. he made a statement last night that you must not be using this as a pretext for correct purpose of firing mr. rosenstein in order to allow the president to interfere he says, with special counsel investigation. in other words, this would be used as an excuse to do that. what did you think? >> a thing is very important to be careful not to improperly interfere with an investigation. the question here is, should mr. rosenstein and indirectly, the president of the united states, be tried in the news media? it is exactly what is going on here. and it is much better to get to the bottom by looking at documents created at the time that may well reflect on what activities were taking place in the fbi and the department of justice from the middle of 2016, well into 2017.>> chairman, you were chairman of the house, judiciary committee. your expertise, how to handle controversial issues that come before your committee would come in handy looking at what chuck grassle

mr. gomez, you are starting to politicize in bringing up me and some of the republicans. i notice chuck schumer and none of the other guys said anything about this. i just don't want want to politicize it. the girl's dead. the kid had a driver's license. out there killing people. somebody's got to verify these -- where they come from or it's just going to keep happening. >> welcome, everyone, to our nafta -- can i even pronounce it? naftapocolypse panel. looking at the latest developments under nafta, we have i hope a very interesting -- well, we have a very distinguished set of panelists and hopefully an extremely interesting discussion as well given that all of these issues as we go along. let me give you a brief antidote how this came about. a couple weeks ago i was walking out, going across the street to actually nearby to -- across the street from me -- but brookings to lunch and i ran into mary and another colleague of ours from the peterson institute where i am also affiliated and then chris walked by and the four of us got into a conversation of nafta, evidently, because the announcemen

schumer and mcconnell. >> it is completely up to them. >> he has made himself very clear. >> senator leahy? >> mr.man, this is somewhat unprecedented. i do agree with the senator from arizona that we should have this investigation. i understanding is that during the week that that is taking action one will be no the floor of the u.s. senate on this nomination. is that correct? >> i cannot say that. >> i can't make that commitment for the leadership. i would be only comfortable moving forward on the floor. i will only become double moving hashe floor until the fbi done more investigation than they have already. it may not take them a week. i understand some of these witnesses may not want to discuss anything further but i think we owed them due diligence. >> mr. chairman? >> just a minute. all i have said the senator flake is only advocate for the position he took, but i don't control that. >> mr. chairman? >> senator klobuchar? >> there are other senators as inl who may be interested this negotiation on the republican side. there is not really a set agreement. all of a sudden we were voting no. it

mr. rosenstein would be well advised to step aside, and the president and the attorney general would be well within their rights to terminate his employment. >> the top democrat in the senate, senator schumer says that this report in the new york times should not be used for in his words corrupt purpose of potentially firing rod rosenstein. eric? eric: ellison, thank you very much. arthel? arthel: eric, we are going to talk more about the deputy attorney general in a moment. let's get back to the latest developments on capitol hill concerning the kavanaugh confirmation process. and for more on this, we're going to bring in republican congressman andy biggs of arizona, a member of the house judiciary committee. congressman, i want to get your reaction to the goings-on in the other chamber, concerning the kavanaugh hearings and dr. ford's anticipated testimony. >> well i think we haven't really moved a ball forward. i think the fact that she has indicated a willingness to testify is where we were first part of last week when this was starting to break and get legs. without confirmation of date, time, method, it just looks to me like a stall tactic in many ways, and i understand why they want

and schumer and his buddies are all in there laughing, how they fooled you all. let's just stop them a big fat con. go ahead. >> mr. president, if i could follow up, you have daughters. can you understand why a victim of sexual assault would not report it at the time? don't you understand? >> by the way, i only say this -- 36 years. no charge. no nothing. >> but -- that happens often. >> people are going to have to make a decision. 36 years. there's no charge. all of a sudden, the hearings are over. and the rumors start coming out. and then you have this other con artist, avenatti, come out with another beauty today. i only say that you have to look at the facts to. the senators are very capable people. they're very good people. i know many of them. they're friends of mine. these are very talented, very good people. and they are going to vote. they're going oh have to believe what they believe. i can -- when i look at what's happened to the reputation of a great gentleman, a great intellect, a brilliant man, somebody that has a chance to be one of our great supreme court justices in history, intellectually, i thin

and schumer and his buddies are all in there laughing how they fooled you all. let's just stop him, a big fat con. go ahead. >> mr. president, if i could follow up, you have daughters. can you understand why a victim of sexual assault would not report it at the time? don't you understand -- >> by the way, i only say this. 36 years, no charge, no nothing. >> but that happens often. >> people are going to have to make a decision. 36 years, there's no charge. all of a sudden the hearings are over and the rumors start coming out. and then you have this other con artist, avenatti, come out with another beauty today. i only say that you have to look at the facts. the senators are very capable people, they're very good people. i know many of them, they're friends of mine. these are very talented, very good people. and they're going to vote. they're going to have to believe what they believe. when i look at what's happened to the reputation of a great gentleman, a great intellect, a brilliant man, somebody that has a chance to be one of our great supreme court justices in history intellectually, i think it's a shame. yes

schumer and his buddies are in there laughing. how they fooled you all. let's just stop him. a big fat con. >> mr. president, if i could follow up, you have daughters. could you understand why a victim of sexual assault would not report it at the time? don't you understand -- >> by the way, i only say this. 36 years, no charge, no nothing. everybody -- >> but that happens often. >> people are going to have to make a decision. 36 years there's no charge. all of a sudden the hearings are over and the rumors start coming out. and then you have this other con artist, avenatti come out with another beauty today. i only say that you have to look at the facts. the senators are very capable people, they're very good people. i know many of them. they're friends of mine. these are very talented, very good people and they're going to vote. they're going to have to believe what they have to believe. when i look at what's happen today the reputation of a great gentleman, a great intellect, a brilliant man, someone who has a chance to be one of our great supreme court justice in history intellectually, i think

mr. chairman? >> senator booker, used by a standard set by two members of your political party in the caucus, and i'll phrase because i don't have the exact quotes in front of me, but recently, senator schumer said from the floor, the best judge of whether or not somebody should be on the supreme court is decisions that they've made at lower courts. senator leahy said something similar to that, when senator sotomayor was before us. we know how many -- we know what you have done in a lower court. that's the best basis for knowing whether or not you ought to be on the supreme court. we have 307 cases that this nominee has written decisions on as a basis for that. we've had 488,000 other pages. maybe the senators haven't read them, but their staff is fully informed. last night, before 11:00, on the 42,000 pages that have come to our attention, the staff on the republican side has gone through them. >> sir, why did you ask for the white house counsel documents? they were not germane to this hearing. why would you ask for them? >> senator feinstein? >> for the record, that's a rate of 7,000 pages per hour. that's super human. >> yeah. >> they're amazing. they're amazing. >> mr. chairman, if i ma

mr. chairman? >> senator booker, used by a standard set by two members of your political party in the caucus, and i'll phrase because i don't have the exact quotes in front of me, but recently, senator schumerid from the floor, the best judge of whether or not somebody should be on the supreme court is decisions that they've made at lower courts. senator leahy said something similar to that, when senator sotomayor was before us. we know how

mr. chairman, regular order is called for. >> -- which turns this hearing into a charade and mockery of our norm. i move to adjourn this hearing. >> reporter: there was a weekend conference call led by chuck schumerhough democrats don't have the votes to block kavanaugh's nomination alone. many of the obstructing senators are possible presidential hopefuls for 2020. the deep partisan divisions though extend beyond documents. brett kavanaugh's documentation and the conservative tilt has unleashed anger that spilled into the hearing room. >> mr. chairman, i think we ought to have this loud box removed. we shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff. >> reporter: but republicans rallied behind kavanaugh calling democrats sore losers. >> i believe this fight is nothing more, nothing less than an attempt by our democratic colleagues to relitigate the 2016 election. >> reporter: in a play for bipartisanship, a former law clerk to judge ruth bader beginsbebegin ginsburg spoke. >> judge kavanaugh is the best choice that liberals could reasonably hope for in these circumstances. i am sure that some members of the senate knew that they would disagree with judge ginsburg's legal views when she was a no

schumer and senator mcconnell. >> it is completely up to them. >> i think they made themselves very clear. >> senator leahy? senator leahy. >> mr. sure because this is somewhat unprecedented. i do agree with the senator from arizona we should have this further investigation. so my understanding is that during the week that that is taking place, that there will be no action on the floor of the united states senate on this nomination. is that correct? >> i cannot say that -- >> let me say again, i can't make that commitment for the leadership. i can only say i would only be comfortable moving forward on the floor, i will move it out of committee, but i will only be comfortable moving on the floor until the fbi has done more investigation than they have already. it may not take them a week. i understand that some of these witnesses may not want to discuss anything further. but i think we owe them due diligence. >> mr. chairman? >> just a minute. all i have said to senator flake is that i would advocate for the position he took, but i don't control that. senator? >> mr. chairman? >> yes. senator klobuchar. >> mr. chairman, there are

mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record for rdtters from one december 18, 2018 to you from other democrats signed by chuck schumerand senator feinstein and all the democrats on the committee requested fbi investigation because you do say all we havee to do if you ask investigation it certainly hasn't happened. >> without objection >> senator tillis. thank you for being here and i apologize for what you're going through right now. i've got three campaign, but it pales in comparison to what you've had to deal with. if wea go back and how this process has worked, we've got a lot of work tot, do. we've had members taken on themselves to release committee confidential documents i instead of respectingre the process. we've had an allegation held for nearly seven weeks with plenty of time there is chronology on the website that says each and every time an allegation was made this staff followed up on it. sadly come in several different instances the democrats decline to participate. they listen and not one -- at least one interview. if they wanted to find other leads and everything is why not ask. if you're really tryin