passionate about records that we actually created the -- he signed the legislation that created the national archivesthe charters that carla is referring to had been in the custody of the state department and then at the library of congress. when the archives building was built, a beautiful tabernacle was created for the declaration of independence. doors opened in 1935, but the librarian of congress refused to release the declaration. [laughter] >> and i've held that against you ever since. [laughter] >> i wasn't born yet but i knew this was going to happen. >> it wasn't until harry truman came into office that he kind of laid down the law with the new librarian of congress that they really needed to deliver that document where it belongs. so as carla describes it, it was a really military ceremony with tanks and military people lining the steps of the -- and she claims -- she always describes it as a grab for the declaration. [laughter] >> literally -- >> it was a transfer of the document to its rightful place. >> and we have photographs, photographs of the people -- the tanks with the -- what are

the national archives was not cut out of the process.president bush's representative informed the committee, quote, from his letter, because we have sought, received and follow ed archivists' views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting production of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if nara had conducted its review first. and then sought our views in the current administration views as required by law. in other words, the documents this committee received are the same as if the archives had done the national review. we're just able to get the documents faster by doing it this way. which gave the senate and the american people unprecedented access in record time to a supreme court nominee record. continue. >> mr. chairman, the national archives have stated publicly that the way we're hand ling the records for this nomination are unprecedented and they've had nothing to do with it. they've asked until the end of october to produce records. and they have been told we don't need you. we're going t

another way to get more involved in the national archives is to become a member of the national archives foundation at the foundation supports all of her education in our project dvds and there is an application on their website, archives foundation.org where you can join. 1960 was the year of turmoil that last decompression on those impression on those who lived through it. newspaper in the nightly news were crowded with stories of unrest of civil rights assassinations and looming over all that the war in vietnam. upstairs in the o'brien gallery for an exhibit examining the war from its world war ii origins to the fall of saigon. in the section that covers the events of 1968 to find a page from lyndon to march 31st televised speech that nation. in concluding his speech he made the surprising amount meant that he would not run for president in the coming election. lbj reflected back in 1968 i sometimes felt i was living in a continuous nightmare. it was so and returned to kyl longley now to hear how lbj meant them. i'm very happy to introduce kyl who happens to be onest sff meme national

the statement from the national archives? without objection. >> now i am going to throw a pitch which you've seen coming for 12 years. let me talk to you about 2006 testimony which you gave before this committee. it was a different time and we were very concerned about the issue of torture, detention and interrogation. yesterday i asked you to show the american people that you have nothing to hide by coming clean with this issue. i'd like to refer specifically to some of the questions that were raised because of that 2006 testimony. we have here a statement. my question as well as your response, and i'm sure you've seen this because it's been reported in the paper that you've been waiting for this question for a long time. when i was back in the day, a trial attorney preparing a witness for interrogation, testimony, deposition and getting testimony and a trial. i said two things. tell the truth and don't answer more than you are asked. don't volunteer information. judge kavanaugh, you failed on the second count. the question

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 are the same as if the archives have done the initial review. >> mr. chairman, the national archive stated publicly the way we are handling the records for this nomination are unprecedented and it had nothing to do with it. they have asked until the end of october to produce records. they have been told that we don't need you. we'll finish this hearing long before then. i would like to ask to be placed in the record of the statement from the national archive related to the records related to judge kavanaugh. >> yes, without objection. >> now, i am going to throw you a pitch which you have seen coming for twelve years. i want to talk to you

and bill burke is not a professional at the national archives. the archives has said this is not their process. equally importantly, because some will now make dire predictions about the appropriateness of the release of any of these documents, bill burke himself in his letter to us of august 31st said, and i quote, that presidential records act exemption one which protects against the disclosure of classified information did not apply to any documents our team reviewed. i agree with senator booker. this confirmation is too important for us to conceal documents that may reveal the nominee's views and i think we shouldn't be proceeding under these grounds. >> mr. chairman? >> hold on. >> may i be recognized? >> i hope you don't say the same thing. >> sir, i will not. i will say something they haven't said which is i appreciate the patience of jobe that you're showing. i also want to say the reputations from senator kennedy and senator lee were right on point. they stood strong last night, challenged me. they looked to find a fairway to deal with t

it was also essential for the credibility of the national archives. and i would argue, it was a very important thing for public history throughout the country, that this be possible in a federal space. the question was, what's the dna going to be? i can't tell you how much respect i have for the way in which the foundation finally turned because it was quite bitter and mean to scholars like annette gordon reed beforehand. so, i decided we would do an oral history program where i would let people of the nixon era speak to the local community. the national community had heard these people speaking on pbs many times over. but local community hadn't. i'm talking about chuck holson, i'm talking about john dean, i'm talking about george schultz and leonard garment and have those choic voices tell about the crimes, abuse of power, let them, not some carpet bagger -- i was fearful of being the carpet bagger from the north. the tapes themselves would be the dna. i wish i had a good story to tell you. i have a very good story to tell you about the national effe

the national archives hasn't had a chance to get this all we want even though you said on your website the national archives wouldo act as a check against political interference, but -- [shouting] >> a check after the hearing over is no check. i think we're up at least have national archives finished it, and to have for the first time certainly in my years here, to have somebody say there is a claim executive privilege in the president hasn't made such a claim just puts everything under doubt here what are we trying to hide? why are we rushing? >> i can answer all the questions that have been raised, if i into this question its going to fit into the effort of the minority to continue to obstruct, and ie don't think that's fair to our judgment it's not fair to our constitutional process -- [shouting] >> but let me respond to those now and then maybe we can proceed. [shouting] >> my colleagues on the other side are choosing to administration -- -- haida document from the committee. i want toin say why they are wrong. unlike president obama's assertion of executive privilege during fast a

an identical request to the national archives and before we proceed with the questioning, mr. chairman, i simply would like to have a settled heart about why you chose to communicate directly to the archives not to respond to the ranking member's request. members of this committee have raised issues about an unprecedented committee process by which documents were blocked, by which they were considered classified. and by which we have been blocked from being able to share them with the american people or ask questions based on them. this is unprecedented. that's why as you put it, this side seeks to raise issues to establish ground rules before we proceed. >> i asked an appropriate question. i have an answer. i don't know whether it will satisfy you or not. those documents are the least useful in understanding his legal views in the most sensitive to the executive branch. and let me, let me emphasize the most sensitive to the executive branch. the staff secretary serves as an inbox, outbox to the oval office. and if you're going to have the opportunity to ask the nominee himself

the buses leave to go to the national archives at 1:45. they leave at 1:45, not board at 1:45. so we have a shorter lunch period today and we have an exciting program at the national archives. enjoy lunch. >>> tuesday, at 9:30 a.m. eastern, watch c-span's live coverage of the senate judiciary committee's hearing on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. day one includes opening statements by the committee chairman, senator chuck grassley, and all the committee members. then, introductions of judge kavanaugh from former secretary of state condoleeza rice, ohio senator rob portman, and attorney lisa blat. following the introduction, judge kavanaugh make his opening statement. watch day one of the senate confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh, live, tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> out with a new survey looking at americans' attitudes when it comes to the supreme court. it's available on our website at c-span.org, and joining us to walk through the findings of that survey is adam rosenblatt, a senior

the buses leave to go to the national archives at

the national archives has 13 archivists who handle george w. bush's presidential records. they can only review about 1,000 pages per week. and we could not have gotten these documents for 37 weeks. if we didn't get president bush's team to expedite the review process for the benefit of all members of the committee. we received all the documents we would have received from the archivists just as a faster time. we'll take 15 minutes and resume at 12:22. >> welcome inside politics. i'm john king. you see the chairman chuck grassley taking a 15-minute break after a contentious, dramatic morning hearing in the confirmation of brett kavanaugh to be the next supreme court justice. major questions raised by democrats today including a threat by one of them. he actually did break the senate rules and says if i get expelled, so be it. corey booker. that senator making the case that the republicans are helping to hide e-mails he insists show insights on brett kavanaugh's real issues on abortion rights in the e-mails. dramatic confrontations this morning. a break in the proceedings no

at the national archives has 13 archivists who handled it george w. bush's presidential records. they can only review about 1,000 pages per week, and we could not have gotten these documents for 37 weeks. if we didn't get president bush's team to expedite to the review process for the benefits of members of the committee. we received all of the document such we would have received from the archivists just as at a far time. we will now take 15 minutes and resume at 12: 22. >> and to the fox news alert now, as we come back from the supreme court hearing of judge brett kavanaugh. as you heard, they are going to come back in. exactly 15 minutes. this has been amazing. you are now watching the coverage via "outnumbered." this is harris faulkner. let me bring you up to speed just a little bit. shannon bream is standing by too. senator cory booker of new jersey it because this works when he said that he was revealing congressional confidential information or documents for this hearing. at documents that had come from an email with judge kavanaugh that seem to show that the documents tha

bill burke is not a professional at the national archives. the archives has said this is not their process. equally importantly, because some will now make dire predictions about the appropriateness of the release of any of these documents, bill burke himself in his letter to us of august 31 said, and i quote, presidential records act exemption one, which protects against the disclosure of classified information, did not apply to any documents our team reviewed. i agree with senator booker. this confirmation is too important for us to conceal documents that may reveal the nominee's views. i think we shouldn't be proceeding under these grounds. >> mr. chairman -- >> hold on. >> may i be recognized? >> i lop yhope you don't say the thing. >> i will say something which i haven't said which i appreciate the patience of job you are saying here. the representations from senator kennedy and lee were right on point, on correct. they stood strong last night, challenged me. they not only were collegial, but they looked to find a fair way to deal with t

the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush's representative informed the committee, quote, from his letter, because we have sought, received, and followed archivist views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting production of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if nara had conducted its review first, and then sought our views and the current administration views as required by law. in other words, the documents this committee received are the same as if the archives had done the initial review. we're just able to get the documents faster by doing it this way, which gave the senate and the american people unprecedented access in record time to a supreme court nominee record. continue. >> chairman of the national archives have stated publicly to the way that we are handling the records for this nomination are unprecedented and they've had nothing to do with it. they have asked until the end of october to produce records. and they have been told, we don't need you, we're g

we crossed paths at the national archives. i am in there going hey, i know you. we started talking about why we were there, and then we were collaborators and shipw reckers in shipwreck research. my friend and i got together, and we discussed coming down your with my boat. it is a long way to go with my boat, a long way to drive. but he had a magnetometer. our shipwreck hunting was getting difficult. a magnetometer is like a giant hunter for votes. -- for boats. and it found shipwrecks for us. i came to hatteras because shipwrecks are abundant down here and the waters are clear. these are the known shipwrecks that i dv now with my dive operation. we do not take diapers because they are too early, too small. i do not have the half dozen or more that i have on the diamond shoals, but these are the ones that we dive at diebold doubts. -- divable depts. when i came down here with him, target was this winter in the u-boat 701. it is located northeast of diamond shoals about 17 miles. in 1942, we located it in use of thehe magnetometer. we drove 10 miles one micah lint

the national archives. the archives has said that this is not their process. equally importantly, because some will now make dire predictions about the appropriateness of the release of any of these documents. bill burck himself in his letter to us of august 31 said and i quote that presidential records act exemption 1 which protects against the disclosure of classified information did not apply. to any documents our team rev w reviewed. i agree with senator booker. this confirmation is too important for us to conceal documents that may reveal the nominee's views and i think we shouldn't be proceeding under these grounds. >> mr. chairman? may i be recognized, sir? >> i hope you don't say the same thing again? >> sir, i will not. i will say something that i haven't said, which i appreciate the patience of jobe that you're showing here. and i just want to also say that the representations from senator kennedy and senator lee were right on point. right on correct, they stood strong last night, challenged me, b

first, their 6% figure counts the estimated page count by career archivists at the national archives based upon their historical practice. before the on process emails and attachments are actually reviewed. when judge kavanaugh's white house emails that we received, the actual number of pages ended up being significantly less than the number the national archives estimated before the actual review. one reason is because we were able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate emails. instead of having to read 13 times an email that judge kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the email once. second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of irrelevant steps, secondary documents we never, ever requested or needed. more importantly, we received 100% of the documents we requested from judge kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. and while we may have received 99% of justice kagen's white house records, we received 0 records from our most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocat

ranking member feinstein tried to work with you to send an identical request to the national archives and before we proceed with the questioning, mr. chairman, i would like to have a settled heart and why you chose to communicate directly to the archives not to respond to the ranking member's request. members of this committee have raised issues about an unprecedented committee process by which documents were blocked, by which they were considered classified and by which we have been blocked from being able to share them with the american people or ask questions based on them. this is unprecedented. that's why, as you put it, this side seeks to raise issues to establish ground rules before we proceed. >> you asked an appropriate question. i have an answer. i don't know whether it will satisfy you or not. those documents are the least useful in understanding his legal views and the most sensitive to the executive branch. and let me emphasize the most sensitive the to the executive branch. the staff secretary serves as an inbox and outbox to the oval office and if you -- you're going to

but i think you said or someone fed up with take 37 weeks for the national archives to go through judge kavanaugh's record. i would like to enter intoe the record a letter from august 2nd, 2018 from gary stern, general counsel of the national archives, which concludes the following statement by the end of the cover, 2018, we would if completed the remaining pages that we should be considering and00 unfortunately cannot. pi ask unanimous consent to enr that letter into the official record. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. >> when i got my results from a bar exam i thought to myself i would be the last time he ever. have two sit down and take an exam. this day, this may be your last formal exam in terms of your legal career. i'm sure there's a sense of exit patient, hopefulness in relief of matt. i want to thank your wife or be here and for bringing thiso beautifulif daughters. i hope someday they will understand what happened to their father a few days. thank you so much for being part of this hearing. judge, when is started this i said this is not about filling a key vacanc

site the national archives would act as a check against any political interference. but i check aft but a check after the hearing is over is no check. i think we at least ought to have the national archive finish it and to have for the first time certainly in my 44 years here to have somebody say there is a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn't made such a claim puts everything under doubt. what are we trying to hide? why are we rushing? >> i can answer all the questions that have been raised but i think if i answer those questions it's going to fit into the effort of the minority to continue to obstruct and i don't think that that's fair to our judge. it's not fair to our constitutional process but let me respond to those now and maybe we can proceed. my colleagues on the other side are accusing the administration of using executive privilege to hide documents from the committee. i want to say why they're wrong. unlike president obama's assertion of executive privilege during fast and furious as one example. this assertion is not legitimate. judge k

in fact, we know from the national archives that the senate judiciary committee majority has bypassed traditional process for the release of national archive materials involving brett kavanaugh scheme mails. we know the person screening those emails has been chosen by the former bush white house and worked closely with brett kavanaugh. we know numerous materials involve these matters were not provided to the committee until just last week. that is just a sliver of the documents at the national archives reports are available or would be available under proper procedural review later this fall that would reveal more information about this matter. so i think it is imperative that this investigation proceed to look into not just the issue of the confirmation of brett kavanaugh, but what he knew, when he knew it, and the full record about his medication with many maranda and others about cret democratic files, materials, talking points, and the light. it is a very serious matter to live. amy: lisa graves, we have to leave it there. in slate "i wrote some of the still a memos that brett kav

break i want to bring up some information because i was wondering how long it would take the national archives to get the material that we needed because you have heard several times that the archives, that is their responsibility. the national archives has 13 archivists who handled george w. bush's presidential record. they can only review about 1000 pages per week. we could not have got these documents for 37 weeks if we didn't get president bush's team to expedite the review process for the benefit of all members of the committee. we received all the documents we would have received for the archivists just as a faster time. we will now take 15 minutes and resume at 12:22. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tell me when you're ready, judge. >> i'm ready. they make senator durbin. thanu,

the national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed narrow, and that moons the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. s senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, judge kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. the ish ssue of documents and document production. the standard historically that we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. i would suggest that we certain ly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the d.c. circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be ca

the national archives was not cut out of the process. as president bush's representative informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed nara, that means the archivists views on any documents withheld as personal documents, the resulting productions of documents to the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted its review first and then sought our views and the current administration views as required by law, end of quote. senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, judge kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today, the issue of documents and document production. the standard historically that we use to -- to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. i would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years you have served on the circuit court, on the d.c. circuit court, that considers when you look at the docket items that more than any other circuit court tha

the senate requested this of the national archives. not only did it admit all 1 million records from your three years of staff, mr. secretary, did not even request a privileged law. that means the committee is in the dark on what specific documents are being withheld and why. we don't even know what is being hidden. such a move is simply incompatible with transparency. and third, the archives could not produce this partial records request until the end of october. that's the nonpartisan archives. surely -- mr. chairman, i do not continue -- i do not intend at any point to continue what i have to say with such interruptions. i don't care whose side they are on. now, the archives have said they could not produce the partial records request until the end of october. surely, i would think the united states senate could wait until then, even if it means the supreme court with eight justices for a short time. after all, senate republicans established a tradition of having just eight judges, eight justices, they did that with their treatment

the national archives hasn't had a chance to get off all that we it said onthough their website the national archives would act against a check against any political interference. >> [inaudible] we ought toi think at least have the national forives finish and to have the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there is a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn't made such a claim just puts everything under doubt. what are we trying to hide? while refreshing -- why are we rushing? sen. grassley: i can answer all the questions that have been raised, but i think if i answer those westerns -- those questions it is going to fit into the effort of the minority to continue to obstruct, and i don't think that that's fair to our judge. it's not fair to our constitutional process. >> [inaudible] sen. grassley: but let me respond to those now, and then maybe we can proceed. my colleagues on the other side are accusing the administration of using executive privilege to hide documents from the committee. i want to say why they are wrong. unlike president obama's asser

the national archives not cut out of the process. as president bush's representative informed the committee because we have thought archivist views on any documents withheld personal the resulting production of the community they as if they had cowardly as required by law. the documents this committee we are this is the archive had to initial review. we were just able to get a beer tonight in record time to a supreme court knees record continues to archives has stated the past the october produce records and were told you we will will be placed national records related to make a statement. >> now i will throw you a pitch about 22006 fatty and detention and interrogation. yesterday i asked showed people think i by coming clean with the issue and refer specifically to question raised from thousands testimony. we have a statement of my question your response. it has been reported waiting for the question. back in a as a trial attorney preparing a witness for interrogation testimony deposition for trial i said to the. tell the truth don'

the national archive system is not as expeditious as historians would like. how was that for polite? getting documents available and we are just feeling comfortable with the record system that we have for the jade -- george hw system and that was because we invested at texas a&m invested a great deal of money and effort and essentially filling out the forms that were necessary to get the cup -- document. we now have every single phone conversation that president bush senior had with a foreign leader during his time in office. it is quite remarkable. i encourage you to read them online and they are quite remarkable. it is amazing to see a president who was able to see with -- speak with an african and asian leader without aids giving him advice in between. we have the popular perception, i think our job as historians is to try to move things along so the new information can essentially help round out the public perception because one other thing of having just written a book, people would constantly ask, what did you discover that was new in shopping -- shocki

first, their 6% figure counts the estimated page count by career archivists at the national archivesre the on-process e-mails and attachments are actually reviewed. when judge kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we've received, the actual number of pages ended up being significantly less than the number the national archives estimated before the actual review. one reason is because we were able to use technology to cull out the exact duplicate e-mails. instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of irrelevant staff secretary documents that we never, ever requested or needed. more importantly, we received 100% of the documents we requested from judge kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. and while we may have received 99% of justice kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general. the federal government's top supreme court advocate. we received much less tha

the old film stock is fairly fragile, and has to be treated in a special laboratory that the national archives works with in maryland, the color lab, so they have to go through the process of getting it ready for transfer, and we transferred it in both what they call 4k video files and high-definition video files so that the footage will be available to researchers and filmmakers in the future. >> is the collection previously unknown? paul: well, the entirety of the collection was unknown. some of the footage has not been seen before. some of it has been rarely seen. some film archivists who worked for ken burns, for example, may have seen it, but some of it has never been seen. >> these are all pre-world war ii films? paul: yes, from the period of 1932 to 1938. after that, it sort of drops off. i imagine the life in the white house got too busy. what is wonderful about it is it shows you the sort of behind-the-scenes footage. there are some scenes where there are other reporters around and there are scenes where you can see other newsreel crews, but a lot of it, the roosevelts are letting the

our national archives system is not as frankly, is -- let's say, not as expeditious as historians would like. how is that for polite? and getting documents available. we're just now feeling comfortable with the record system we have for the george h.b. bush system. and that is only because we invested at texas a&m when i was there, invested a great deal of money and effort in essentially filling out the forms that were necessary to get the document that's we have. as an example, we now have every single phone conversation that president bush sr. had with a foreign leader during his time in office. which is quite remarkable, i have to say. by the way, i encourage you to go read them. they're online. they're quite remarkable. i it's an amazing to see a president speak with a african leader and asian leader and then no notes in between. it is astounding. so when we have the popular perception, i think our job as historians is to try to move things along so that the new information can essentially help round out the public perception. i got to tell you, one other thing, having just written

move for the committee to authorize the issuance of a subpoena for the national archives for records from judge kavanaugh's service as a staff secretary in the white house from 2003-2006. mr. chairman, it is my understanding that only a subset of judge kavanaugh's white house counsel records as i have pointed out, none of his staff secretary records have been available. that is why the committee has just 7% of the records. some have tried to blame democrats for their failure to obtain a judge kavanaugh's full secords and claim our request for documents was too broad. they also say they were unwilling to use search terms to expedite that request. that is not true. a letter3, i sent offering to work with the chairman's office to come up with search terms to prioritize the staff secretary's requests. that offer was refused. after that, all of the democratic members of the committee sent a letter to the archives requesting judge kavanaugh's full record. our request mirror the bipartisan request for elena kagan's records, no more or less. does that request was not supported by you, mr. ch

bill burke is not a professional of the national archives. chives of head that this is not their property. equally importantly, because some will now make dire predictions about the appropriateness of the release of any of these documents, bill burke himself in his letter to us on august 31st said, and i quote, "the presidential records act exemption one, which protects against the disclosure of classified information, did not apply to any documents for review." i agree with senator booker, this confirmation is too important for us to conceal documents that may reveal the nominee's views, and i believe we should be proceeding under these grounds. >> mr. chairman? maybe recognize, sir? >> i hope you don't say the same thing again. >> sir, i will not. first of all, i will say something i haven't set, which is that i the patience of g.o.p. that you're showing here. representation of senator lee were right on quickly, challenging me. they not only were collegial, but they look to find a fair way to do with this process. i want to express my apprec

i move the committee authorize the issue and to subpoena the national archives for the full record of the nominees service in a way that might bear on the subject of whether a president can be subject to an investigation or fiery special counsel at will. sen. grassley: call the role. [voting] sen. grassley: the motion lost. would it be possible for us to vote and we will stay for the opening statement at the end? >> i would like to make one brief comment and put my opening statement in the in the record. >> go ahead. , and i think he was not concerned at all. said, senator,u if i may, if i understand it, we did not get the documents from the library and that is the problem. a lawyer was sent in to select the documents and i see that as a problem. documents coming from anybody's archives seems to me, for a purpose like this, should not be selected by a president's lawyer. it ought to be selected by the archives. if i could ask the senator to invoke my name, -- may i respond my friend senator feinstein. it has been the same practice used by previous presidents because the archives has n

ranking member feinstein tried to work with you to send an identical request to the national archives. and before we proceed with the questioning, i simply would like to have a settled heart about why you chose to communicate directly to the archives not to respond to the ranking member's request. havers of this committee raised issues about an unprecedented committee process by which documents were blocked, pray which they were persecuted -- by which they were considered classified and we have been blocked from being able to share orm with the american people ask questions based on that. this is unprecedented. that's why this side seeks to raise issues to establish ground rules before we proceed. >> you asked an appropriate question. i have an answer. i don't know whether it will satisfy you or not. those documents are the least useful in understanding his legal views and the most sensitive to the executive ranch. and let me emphasize the most the-- sensitive to executive branch. the staff secretary serves as an inbox and outbox to the oval office. you're going to have opportunities

ranking member feinstein tried to work with you to send an identical request to the national archives. before we proceed with the questioning, mr. chairman, i simply would like to have a settled heart about why you chose to communicate directly to the archives not to respond to the ranking member's request. members of this committee have raised issues about an unprecedented committee process, by which documents were blocked, by which they were considered classified, and by which we have been blocked from being able to share them with the american people or ask questions based on them. this is unprecedented. that's why, as you put it, this side seeks to raise issues to establish ground rules before we proceed. >> you asked an appropriate question. i have an answer. i don't know whether it'll satisfy you or not. those documents are the least useful in understanding his legal views and the most sensitive to the executive branch. let me emphasize the most sensitive to the executive branch. the staff secretary serves as an in box and out box to the oval office. if you're going -- and you'l

these vouchers, i went to the national archives and i was searching through the secret service files and army pay records, they have vouchers for everything. for other scouts and spies in other departments. i did not find a single one from dodge. you go to the state historical society in iowa and you look in his secret service files, there they are. with him.arted the army close the books about ever seeing a single voucher where the money went, which is pretty unusual for the army. grant bakhtin, dodge knew what he was doing. in, dodge newd what he was doing. when he was low on funds he would use the proceeds from the sale of caught and to pay for his secret stash from cotton -- from cotton. it funded the union secret service dodgewould later say that was a more important man that i division in the field. that is true. for grantconstructed the largest and most proficient military and higher -- military intelligence in the western theater. they faced robert e. lee. he did not take dodge with him areas do not worry. as luck would have it, grant network inlargest the west for the larges

there a collection also at the national archives. it has been declassified and is available. host: how long has it been declassified and available? when did the verona project shutdown? caller: in 19 -- guest: in 1980. they were working a very old, archaic system. technology had advanced. they were like jewelry workers. 1980,t was rolled off in some of the women retired. then, it was declassified in 1995. host: laura calling from troy, michigan. go ahead. caller: hi. i just love c-span. there's so many different things we can learn about. we here inondering, this country about the spies that are spying in our country, i'm wondering if we have counterparts in other countries that do the same thing. spying, have code breaking, etc. world?y throughout the i imagine small countries have their own little significant part of something they might cooperate with. guest: sure. it is a constant spy versus spy around the world. other countries have codebreakers, we have our national security agency, everyone is trying to listen to everyone else. to your point about smaller countries, so

the national archives was not cut out of the process is bush informed the committee because we have saw it coming and followed him in the archivist views on any document how this personal documents to the committee is essentially the same and that the archivist had conducted his review first and then solder views in the current by law in thered pool. senator flake. thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, judge kavanaugh and congratulations to your family as well. let me just say a few things about the issue that's been discussed here a lot today. the issue of documents and document production. the standard historically that wewe use to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. i would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years he served on the circuit court and the d.c. circuit court that considers when you look at the docket, items that are more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would be perhaps called to rule on. senators on this panel had argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge the best we can look at us to look at judicial re