and then this afternoon, you listen to sheldon whitehouse, the senator from rhode island. he's talking about dark money. again, dark money being behind the federalist society and other organizations that have been putting conservative judges on the court. in both cases, i get the sense that they think they're not stopping the nomination, but they are raising questions both about the integrity of the nominee and whether or not there's a shadow or dark money hand behind him pushing him on president trump even and secondly about the court again being influenced by money in terms of which cases come before it and whether the court is being pushed in a direction that is not in keeping with the true interests of the american people. >> all right, judge. favorite federalist paper. >> i'll take madison. we have a government because men are not angels. look, there's three audiences here. one is senator paul, senator collins and senator mccall. the second is the general public. i'm with chris wallace. i have tooth picks keeping my eyes open during senator whitehouse who i thought wa

as senator whitehouse and senator blumenthal, and senator booker later today. if this morning as an indication of how well he will hold up and continue, martha, to portray that, what in my view is a genuine view of neutrality, he will do well. we will see the fireworks, we will watch them and maybe even enjoy them but i think he will survive them. >> dana, one of the things that we look at was really how those answers are developed. this is, as ab mentioned, emoting about people who have come before his court, making sure that they know that he knows that they are people that have a right to be heard. and ever since that work hearing, the answers have been a lot different from judicial nominees. >> yes, and that has been true republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals. and that is something that

. >> thank you chairman bradley, senator whitehouse. it's a great pleasure and honor to return to the senate judiciary committee where i served as staff some two decades ago. >> .. >> .. >> immediately stood out. unlike most of the rest of us whose legal experience consisted of a single appellate clerkship, brett came to his supreme court clerkship with two clerkships under his belt already on the ninth and third circuits, and he a had also served in the office of the solicitor general where he spent a year following the court closely and working on briefs and options and other supreme court filings. as a result, while the rest of us were feeling our way rather blindly through the process of sorting through our first sets of briefs, brett was already fully versed in the court's certiorari criteria and stood ready to handicap the likely quality of upcoming oral arguments by members of the supreme court bar. brett quickly became seen as a resource on matters of high constitutional doctrine. what really stood out about brett was not just h

certainly the most aggressive questioning he's gotten so far is from sheldon whitehouse, the senator from rhode island, who was after him on the subject of dark money, of campaign contributions, who was talking about, you know, money that was spent on behalf of his confirmation, outside groups putting forth money. kavanaugh said, you know, essentially it was all news to me. i don't think it's the kind of questioning that's going to change a lot of votes, but it is an important question about american politics. you know, why we don't know the sources of the money that's being spent on political issues. but, you know, the republicans have been serving up softballs. there was kind of an endearing nerd fest between mike lee of utah, someone who knows a lot of constitutional law, and judge kavanaugh about what their favorite federalist paper was, which i think is actually ratings magic for cnn. >> we all want to talk about that. >> senator lee actually compared choosing among the federalist papers to choosing between your children. >> he did, he did. >> i got to give him a nod for that. >

. >> also senator whitehouse from wild -- >> sheldon whitehouse. >> sheldon whitehouse, a democrat, whenohn mccain came -- when russ feingold, democrat from wisconsin came to the senate he had never met john mccain, john mccain reached out to him and said, let's do reforms together. and they did and then feingold was defeated and mccain turned to whitehouse. >>> i am resurrection and i am life. says the lord. whoever has faith in me shall have life and though he die. and everyone who has life and has committed himself to me in faith shall not die for ever. as for me, i know that my redeemer lives and that at the last he will stand upon the earth. after my awaking, he will raise me up and in my body i shall see god. i myself shall see and be bold him who is my friend and not a stranger. for none of us has life in himself and none becomes his own master when he dies. for if we have life, we are alive in the lord, and if we die, we die in the lord. so, then whether we live or die, we are the lord's possession. happy from now on are those who die in the lord. so it is, says the spirit, for t

grassley: senator whitehouse. whitehouse: the reason we are making this motion is because of the importance of an assertion of executive privilege in the separation of power balance between the executive branch any legislative branch. the process that i understand from previous assertions of executive privilege is that first of all, there has to be an assertion. anybody in this committee can name a person who has asserted executive privilege as to these documents. it is a free-floating, anonymous, appearance of the privilege. primarily in the form of saying constitutional privilege across documents that are redacted until they are blank. of requiring an executive branch official to exert a privilege has not been met. that is the significant thing. it is customary throughout the law that if a privilege is out there, someone has to asserted. someone who has the legal capacity to assert it needs to assert it. that has not been done. once that is done, the second thing that ordinarily happens is that a privilege law i

senator sheldon whitehouse joins me next. and we hear from actress alyssa milano. >>> should anonymous go public? resigning in protest over donald trump's policies. >>> and also on our special show tonight, the co-author of the art of the deal, tony schwartz talking about trump's mind-set and why "crazy town" comes up so much. and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ grandma, why were you not ready for thei was.re? you look like you're frowning. no, i'm not. see my jheri curl? ancestry now has over 300,000 yearbooks from all across the country. start searching for your family, free, at ancestry.com. >>> democrats going hard at trump's supreme court nominee today, and senator sheldon whitehouse is about to jo

senator kennedy, senator whitehouse and senator -- >> mr.lso be recognized. >> this is the last day. here is something you have to think. we will be here until midnight if you want to be here. i've been told the senate minority leader or somebody in the democratic party invoked the two-hour rule. if the two-hour rule is invoked, nobody on this committee, republican or democrat, is going to have an opportunity to do what they want to do today, because this is the last day he is going to be here. so i hope you don't invoke the two-hour rule. if you want to talk now before i start to ask my questions, i will do it. senator whitehouse was the next and then senator kennedy. >> i would also like to be recognized because i'm in a similar situation -- >> senator whitehouse. >> i think he asked before you did. >> mr. chairman, you recognized me for 30 seconds. i will take 30 seconds. left silence imply consent, speaking for myself, i want to make it absolutely clear that i do not accept the process of this committee con tfidential routine we went thr

whitehouse suggesteding is we've not heard before from democrats about how they are going to -- when if they recapture the house or senate they will investigate who professor ford is saying. take a listen. >> as soon as democrats get gavels we'll want to get to the bottom of this. >> if the democrats win back the house and/or the senate, democrats will investigate what happened, the charges that professor ford is laying out, even if that means investigating a supreme court justice at the time. >> i am confident of that. >> and he said he's going -- democrats are going to investigate why in his view the fbi stood down on investigating what allegedly happened. are you surprised by that? >> not surprised. what you hear senator whitehouse saying if and when the democrats retake the house and maybe even the senate they will exercise the oversight that the republican counterparts have not. >> take it to the bank, jake, it will happen and that's why a lot of republicans on the judiciary committee think it's just -- it's -- this is a partisan effort here. they don't really want to hear profe

[laughter] >> he's looking at you, senator whitehouse. [laughter] >> so anyway, i do appreciate the cooperation that we've had the last, the last 31 and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, yes. my first question is to professor henzarling and to professor shane. this isn't a question i had my staff prepare, but both of you spoke very highly of the fear of presidential power and what he thinks about that. so i'm asking you more of a process question than a substance question. is it because you fear having a voice like that on the supreme court under any conditions, or is it because you think that his being on the supreme court may make a majority, understanding the present eight members of the committee that that would make a majority and make it more dangerous than just having one voice. >> [inaudible] >> microphone. >> i've been worried about presidential power for decades. and across administrations. and so it isn't just the present moment, although the present moment does make me more fearful of presidential power. it is s

talking to -- is that durbin or whitehouse. durbin. okay. whitehouse left his seat, it seems. coons reporting to others it seems what conversation he's had with jeff flake. >> we haven't seen jeff flake. >> we haven't. garrett, does anybody know where jeff flake is at the moment? garrett haake? all right. garrett may be getting information for us right now. so this is -- you're right, stephanie. five minutes beyond the vote and not having debates of senators of what's going on and there's leahy and graham and hatch and durbin who i see. >> remember, yesterday was extraordinarily emotionally charged and draining for everyone. you saw how upset graham was, flake was, dr. ford was. i mean, it was massive. and brett kavanaugh also performing for a party of one. lindsey graham got up, pushed hard defending brett kavanaugh and then kellyanne conway supporting graham. that's code for the president liking it. the president thought dr. ford did a very good job and he felt grim about that. and then he loved the fact that brett kavanaugh was punching down and punching hard. time has pass

senator whitehouse to the right thing. you need to run these things down. number four, the allegation is that an anonymous person wrote a letter to cory gardner -- >> shannon: we have a letter, we can put up and see how this report came in. senator cory gardner, a republican head of colorado, no return address, -- >> we know because of it becauf nbc. we distrust you because of things like this. you would never print an anonymous letter accusing a liberal nominee of wrongdoing. there is no journalistic integrity left when it comes to trump and nominees. the idea of an a report on an anonymous accusation and giving it credibility says all you need to know about where media is when it comes to kavanaugh and trump. >> shannon: you are a prosecutor for many years. how do you traverse this? already go through it? a situation where we will hear from dr. ford what i think is every good good for everybody to assess her credibility, to assess the allegations. we are at a point where anonymous letters and tips are called a ventricle again with no names attached? how d

and then we also have senator whitehouse. but i want to go and let him comment. >> senator grassley, may be recognized after senator whitehouse. >> yeah. thank you, mr. chairman. i was disappointed to see last night that some of her colleagues are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves inl this hearing with regular order in accordance of the rule of the committee and the rule of the senate. know last night some of her colleagues even tried to cross examine the nominee about documents or refuse to let him even read them. members of the senate and members of congress generally are privy to sensitiveme information including classified information on occasion and works at it to protect that information for all of the obvious reasons. and it's inappropriate to raise fees and in open session before the committee. and i think our colleagues understand that, but nevertheless decided to go ahead anyway. so i just think it is important that we remind one another there a clear rules about the discussion of confidential material and t

mimi, you and i were noting senator sheldon whitehouse chose to bore in. chose to talk about how cases get argued in this country, concentration of power, dark money funding and the like. >> right. it's interesting that he spent really most of his time on that topic. and it's different than asking the nominee how he would rule on a certain case. so in some ways it allowed kavanaugh to actually answer, not that he couldn't answer the other questions but chose not to, to answer the questions a little more substantively, but this is an area that people are very interested in because kavanaugh has shown in his past opinions a real reluctance about campaign finance controls and that is something particularly with the trump administration and the influence of what we're seeing about the influence of foreign money, this is something that i think people wanting to know that he's going to look at objectively. i'm not sure that that came through in his answers. i don't think that we actually got that. i think it made the point very well just by asking the questions.

, may i be recognized after senator whitehouse? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i was disappointed to see last night that some of our colleagues are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves in this hearing, with regular order and in accordance with the rules of the committee and the rules of the senate. i know last night some of our colleagues even tried to cross-examine the nominee about documents, but refused to let him even read them. members of the senate and members of congress generally are privy to sensitive information, including classified information on occasion. and were expected to protect that information for all of the obvious reasons. and it's inappropriate to raise these in an open session before the committee. and i think our colleagues understand that. but nevertheless, decided to go ahead, anyway. so i just think it's important that we remind one another that there are clear rules about the discussion of confidential material. and that there can be consequences to the violations of those rules. and this idea that so

the manjust in the middle, you can see on the left—hand side, the man with the glasses, sheldon whitehousehim, he walked out, he was so cross about the fact that markjudge, one of the men implicated with brett kavanaugh had not been called to give evidence before thisjudiciary committee. that was voted down 11—8 because several democrat senators walked out. this committee has 21 people on it, there is a republican majority. chuck grassley is the chairman sitting in the front of the camera now alongside him, diane feinstein who is a democrat also thatis feinstein who is a democrat also that is sheldon whitehouse, the man who left. but it is thought this particular vote will go through which will then kick it ahead to next week where there will be a full senate vote. worth remembering the senate vote. worth remembering the senate has a republican majority, 51-49. senate has a republican majority, 51—119. potential couple of republican waverers there so it might not be a figure compleat but the white house is putting everything behind this nomination, donald trump saying on twitter after yest

. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. i'll be fairly brief. because i announced my intention to vote against kavanaugh already. judge kavanaugh has an unpleasant record, both of associations with and rulings for a powerful array of activist republican special interests. to whom he gives a 90% win rate. the supreme court has an equally unpleasant record of 5-4 partisan rulings for those same big interests. not three or four times. not even one or two dozen times. but under chief justice roberts, 70 times. all 5-4 partisan decisions. the court is flying all the warning flags of a captured agency. dancing to special interest tunes, and rampaging through precedent and principle to get there. this will be a disaster for the court, and i believe cavanaugh will contribute to that disaster. his partisan screed yesterday was telling. as to yesterday, let me be frank. i believe dr. ford. i may be wrong, but i believed her. and i believe kavanaugh dodged and dissembled, ranted and raved, filibustered and prevarica prevaricated. i did not find him credibl

. >> thank you mister chairman, mister whitehouse, and members of the committee. i'm honored to add my voice in support of judge kavanaugh today. i worked with him at the solicitor general's office and i appeared before him on the dc circuit and it's hard for me to think of anyone who is more qualified. i'd like to make two points, first, i want to share my view that judge kavanaugh has much in common with my former colleague, chief justice roberts boom of the senate voted to confirm by a wide margin. second, i want to explain why judge kavanaugh's extraordinary record of mentoring female lawyers is so important to my profession. in 2005 i testified before this committee in support of chief justice roberts commission and i'm struck by the many similarities between him and judge kavanaugh. some are obvious, both entrepreneurial lawyers, both worked in the white house counsel's office and the solicitor general's office and both are better judges on the dc circuit. they also share a stability and even handedness on the bench that reflects their genuine effort to cons

. >> let's bring in democratic senator sheldon whitehouse.arer at the memorial for senator john mccain. senator, good morning, great to have you with us. i want to talk to you about that moving day on saturday, but first, you're on the judiciary committee, your reaction to the president's tweet, the latest reminder that he views the justice department as an institution there as something to protect him. >> you have to remember that this campaign began with mob chants of "lock her up." so they got off to a really bad start with respect to how the justice system is supposed to work. and this is just another, i get, ominous whiff of the general justice this guy seems to like. in which the justice system is not blind, does not go forward based on evidence, that goes forward based on politics and the welfare and wishes of the president of the united states. to any former prosecutor, it is just disgusting. >> do you see, senator, in that tweet an obstruction of justice? >> you may move to a proceeding that was being obstructed. i certainly think th

senator sheldon whitehouse raised the question this week asking outright if kavanaugh, "ever sought treatment for gambling addition?" >> i got a pair of 9s. >> i got three jacks. >> what do you got, brett kavanaugh? >> i can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question? >> it's not hypothetical. what have you got? >> it's not a question i have written about, it's a question, therefore, that's a hypothetical question that-- >> just disclose your cards. >> i don't really have a specific recollection for any of this. >> we've been playing for five minutes! okay, if you won't show us your cards, just tell us. >> i'm not remembering. >> you don't have to remember. just look at them and tell us. >> hey! you can't just selectively release some cards and not show the other ones! that's not fair. >> you understand how the game is played, right? why don't you just show them. >> if you won't tell us what you're holding, at least tell us this, are you going to overturn "roe v wade?" >> absolutely. >> i knew it. >> it's "the late show with stephen colbert." tonight, trump's eye of the storm. plus st

quite frankly, a skeptical of them perhaps walk out of the hearing as sheldon whitehouse was pressed on this morning just frankly doesn't play well in a place like missouri. it does stand in contrast to the base of the party that's very angry about how marerrick garla was tweeted. for 2020 hopefuls, cory booker, camilla harris, their interests are different. they want to be shown as i think it was steve schmidt who said democrats are bringing a butter knife to a gunfight in a lot of these arguments and the base of party is much eager to see their elected representatives using bigger weapons against republicans. because they feel like republicans have been willing to use tactics the democrats have steered clear of. there is a lot of interest. this is the front of the hearing room. you've got these hands maid tale protesters, that is the television show that's about women's reproductive rights. abortion is going to be front and center here. tons of security. this line goes all the way down the hallway to get a chance to come in here and see the day's events. always so much intense inte

these questions are from senator sheldon whitehouse.ptick in his fanses, particularly one bank account that increased significantly in value between 2008 and 2009 with no explanation in his finances of why that happened, where did that money come from. and he cad kavanaugh about a long standing debt kavanaugh has racked up, $200,000 debt he had for years that suddenly disappeared around the same time that president trump nominated him to the supreme court in 2018. where did that longstanding debt go after all long-standing debt go after all those years and why? those questions about the rather mysterious ebb and flow of judge kavanaugh's financials ended up being for senator whitehouse a line to this line of questioning to his gambling. quote, for vow ever received a form w 2 g for reporting gambling earnings. and from there his questions started to seem like a heat sinking missile. quote, have you ever gambled or accrued gambling debt in new jersey? why pig on new jersey? question 23e, have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addi

grassley, may i be recognized after senator whitehouse? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i was disappointed to see last night that some of our colleagues are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves in this hearing with regular order and in accordance with the rules of the committee and the rules of the senate. i know last night some of our colleagues even tried to cross examine the nominee about documents, but refused to let him even read them. members of the senate and members of congress generally are privy to sensitive information, including classified information on occasion, and we're expected to protect that information for all of the obvious reasons, and it's inappropriate to raise these in an open session before the committee. and i think our colleagues understand that, but nevertheless, decided to go ahead anyway. so, i just think it's important that we remind one another that there are clear rules about the discussion of confidential material and that there can be consequences to the violations of those rules. and this idea

whitehouse it is an honor to testify before you today i'm an associate professor at boston university school of by previously i served in the state department as a legal adviser where work with colleagues at the department of justice and defense with the intelligence community and the white house with matters involving international law. my testimony today will focus on judge cavanaugh's jurisprudence in these areas he has clearly had had exceptional career with many obvious strengths but there are some concerns that should be addressed final consideration of his nomination. in particular judge cavanaugh's opinions reveal he is exceedingly reluctant to impose checks on the presidents power and national security. this is not an area where judge kavanaugh has merely followed precedent with handshi tied but you take one prominent example in a case involving the presidents available of detainees in he wrote an 87 page separate opinion to argue that the court should not inform the presidents war powers contrary to over two centuries of precedent. all three branches of government have long

democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island is on that committee. he responded to that from chuck grassley, quote, really? when? who will locate and interview witnesses? has the judiciary committee hired independent investigators that we don't know about? when will the witness statements be taken? when will they be shared? will the minority get to call the witnesses or will that just be the republicans who get to call witnesses? senator grassley has also run into a problem in the form of his top staffer on the committee, the person who he has apparently tasked with investigating this attempted rape allegation. the investigator is named mike davis. he says that he is the chief counsel for nominations working for chairman chuck grassley on the judiciary committee. last night mr. davis decided for some reason to get on twitter and let it all hang out in terms of how the supposed investigation is going. he said online, quote, i personally questioned judge kavanaugh under penalty of felony and five years of imprisonment if he lies. i'm still waiting to h

. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. judge kavanaugh, i want to get back to a couple questions that my colleague, senator whitehouse was asking a minute ago. just to be clear, did anyone from the federalist society contact you about the vacancy after justice kennedy made his announcement that he would be stepping down from the court? >> no. and during the campaign of president trump, as i recall, he came out with two different lists, two different lists of possible supreme court nominees. the first list had 11 names on it, the second list had 21 names on it, included the previous 11. there were reports at the time that some outside groups had had involvement in that, were you involved in the first list? were you included in the first list? >> i was not. >> were you interesteded in the second list? >> i was not. >> okay, so you were -- you became under consideration ome after president trump took office; correct? >> that is my understanding, that is when i became identified. >> and after he was staffed up, after he had hi

senator whitehouse. >> mr. chairman, i think the parliamentary question was whether senator blumenthal's motion to adjourn from the hearing duly made and seconded at the hearing should become the first order of business at this executive session by virtue of having previous made it seconded. i understand that in effect there's been a ruling from the chair that that is not the proper procedure, and that's where we stand right now. the question whether to debate or overrule that ruling of the chair is before us, but i think that's the question. did senator blumenthal probably made and seconded motion at the hearing, which is only not granted at the time, not considered at the time because we were not in executive session, does that not paying into this executive session so they would be first order of business before anything else could be taken up? the parliamentary question that i think -- one where the other but i think that is the question. >> syndicate. >> mr. chairman, is it not the case of one member of th

whitehouse: thank you. thank you, senator portman. mr. portman: i thank my colleague and the work we have done against the opioid epidemic that has hit our states. every single member is affected by it and our country is affected by it in very significant ways. because of the dangerous hurricanes that are approaching our coast, it looks like the vote we had expected tomorrow and the debate we expected tomorrow on the opioid package may be postponed based on what i just heard from the majority leader. but the next several days, the senate is expected to take up comprehensive legislation that comes from four or five different committees in congress to fight the addiction crisis, to help our communities combat some of the deadliest aspects of the crisis nationally. and this help is urgently needed. let's start with talking about how congress got here. first, just a couple of years ago we passed two bills in this congress that were historic and making a difference. one is called the comprehensive addiction and

you think he was lying. >> senator whitehouse said that today in the hearing. him about sophomoric terms in his yearbook. >> right. >> he did not tell the truth about what those terms mean. according to reporting from the "new york times," the fbi can now look into that. with senator klobuchar, even more telling him. she was asking him something right at the heart of the matter -- >> have you ever gotten blackout drunk? >> and honestly saying he may not remember when he assaulted dr. ford. that was at the heart of the matter. instead of answering honestly, he attacked her. and he knows he cannot handle the truth. >> can i say -- >> sometimes in the national media, if you're accused of running a gang rape ring and you're innocent of doing that, it might tick you off. >> right. everyone stick around. we've got more. brett kavanaugh's future comes down to these four senators. why their votes are the deciding factors. we're going to go into who they are and how they might vote. stay with us. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insur

i would just say senator whitehouse suggested we handle v this hearing like a court of law but i would suggest that if this were a court of law that virtually every member on the dais on that site would be held in contempt of course. because this whole process is supposed to be a civil one where people get toe ask questions and we get p to get answers. that's the basisis upon which we are to exercise our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. so i would just suggest we get on with the hearing. >> if my colleague -- >> if i could just respond. if i could s just respond. if i could just respond to that. >> you can respond but just a minute. if people wonder why the chair is so patient during this whole process, i. have found that it takes longer to argue why you shouldn't do anything about people a argue why they want it. these things are going to be said about this hearing. we're going to be in session tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday, until we get'r done this week. so however long people want to take, we are going to not necessarily accommodate all o

gore and through the myriad controversies of the bush whitehouse, brett kavanaugh was front and center representing the political interests of republicans. his service as a partisan warrior was rewarded with a judgeship where he immediately began to establish a jurisprudence far outside the judicial mainstream. as a judge, he ruled against commonsense gun safety measures. he ruled against commonsense environmental protections. he consistently ruled against rule making powers of independent agencies, going so far as to claibl the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau unconstitutional. and he's praised the dissents in both ro west and -- ro west and casey, two landmark cases. remember, we can't forget. brett kavanaugh was selected from a preapproved list of candidates vetted by the federalist society and the heritage foundation, two hard right groups dedicated to the destruction of our health care law and the repeal of roe v. wade. he was selected by a president who explicitly promised to pick judges who would do those two things exactly. so unlike former nominees, brett kavanau

. >> we'll be joined by senator sheldon whitehouse. "morning joe" will be right back.hitehouse "morning joe" will be right back if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. you can do it. we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things you want to do today. -whoo! while sav♪ng for the things cal: we saved our money and now, we get to spend it - our way. valerie: but we worry if we have enough to last. ♪ cal: ellen, our certified financial planner™ professional, helps us manage our cash flow and plan for the unexpected. valerie: her experience and training gave us the courage to go for it. it's our "confident forever plan"... cal: ...and it's all possible with a cfp® professional. find your certified finan

whitehouse. >> no. >> miss klobuchar. >> no. >> mr. cruz. >> on the nominee, no. >> mr. blouin many that will. >> no. >> >> mr. hooker. >> no. >> miss paris. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 11 yea, ten nays. >> the nominee will be reported to the floor. >> mr. chairman may i be recognized. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to thank my friend and colleague senator flake and thank you for giving us the time today to have a conversation. a number of my colleagues have asked for a one-week delay in order that there might be an fbi investigation of what allegations are currently before this committee. i respect senator flake's view that in his opinion it was best to respect your having given dr. ford the time to be heard yesterday and advance the nominee to the floor. but it is my hope that we could work together on a bipartisan basis to diligently pursue an fbi investigation within the next week, not for the purpose of delay, but for the purpose of investigating further either allegations made by dr. ford or others with a goal tow

whitehouse: mr. president, as i resume my remarks, we'll head west ward to the tallest peaks of the rockies where the northern rocky mountains have been warming more than three times as fast as the global average over the past 100 years. a 2014 union of concerned scientist report warns that the rocky mountains will, quote, become even hotter and drier leading to increased wildfire, reduced snow pack, and declines in the keystone trees that define the rocky mountains' forests. a recent std by u.s. forest service and researchers found that species like the piggy rabbit and snow shoe hare that have specific habitat requirements will be particularly vulnerable. some mountain amphibians are even at risk from a harmful invasive fungus that thrives in these warmer temperatures. increased spread of disease and invasive species is a recurring theme of climate change. animals and plants already stressed from depleted food and changing temperatures are more susceptible to disease. and stressed ecosystems leave

and i don't think that that's a surprise, but i thought it was effective that senator whitehouse wentuld say if you look at his record on the court, though, the numbers were presented in a way that -- there's all sorts of ways to lie with statistics. if you look at his track record on the d.c. circuit, it's almost identical the number of times he was in agreement with republican-appointed colleagues versus democrat-appointed colleagues. but you know, it's not -- >> and there's certainly not amicus in every case as well. so i understand that. >> there's amicus on both sides in all these cases. sought the idea of presenting this as a conspiracy theory, that's tin foil -- >> let's hold this. we're going to continue this conversation in a moment. i just want to quickly check in with chris, see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. chris? >> it was just getting good. >> i know. but i've got to do the promo. you don't want to dot promo and -- >> i'll weigh in and you can go back. a general point i find as a statement of frustration and disgust is i don't see an

today senate whitehouse said he doesn't believe that brett kavanaugh was telling the truth about theion of those terms. this is a person who has 300 opinions. 13 passed on to the supreme court which were used by the supreme court. >> you use what you have. >> [overlapping talking]. >> george bush is still standing by him. there is more substance to this man and they are talking about terms written in a yearbook. >> the thing that is amazing to me, the tough media mind in that montage pointed to his fury over his family being destroyed and allegations of gang rape and his reputation being destroyed. they pointed to his fury as proof that he is capable of assault! and all of these other horrible things. the moment in his life when he has to defend himself. i think he is allowed to be angry. could you imagine if he went out there and was the opposite and was congenial. they would think he was mentally ill. there is nothing wrong with him! those hypocrites. >> [overlapping talking]. >> i need a beer right now. >> lots more to cover. breaking news next "the five." ♪ you shouldn't be rushe

. >> senator whitehouse? >> thank you, chairman, thank you dr. blasey ford, a lot of people are proud of you today. from a prosecutor's eye view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to somebody who's come forward with an allegation of sexual assault and let them know that we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. it's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that. and so both because making a sincere and thorough investigative effort is such an important consolation to the victim in those circumstances, and because it's what you're obliged to do professionally, sincere and thorough investigation is critical to these claims in a prosecutor's world. it may be the most basic thing that we owe a victim or a witness coming forward is to make sure that we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation. you have met all of the standards of what i might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement. you have vivid, specific and detailed recollections, something prosecutors look for. your recollections are cons

here's senator sheldon whitehouse referring to an entry in the nominee's yearbook. >> let's look at beachk ralph club biggest contributor. >> that probably refers to throwing up. i'm known to have a weak stomach. anyone who's known me my whole life know, you know, i got a weak stomach whether it's with beer or spicy food or anything. >> so the vomiting that you reference in the ralph club reference related to the consumption of alcohol? >> senator, i was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. >> and did the word ralph you used in your yearbook -- >> i already answered the question. >> did it relate to alcohol? >> i like beer. i like beer. do you like beer, senator, or not? what do you like to drink? >> next one is -- >> senator, what do you like to drink? >> drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness. in your written testimony you said sometimes you had too many drinks. was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened or part of what happened the night before? >> no. i remember what happened. and i think you've

. >> senator whitehouse? >> thank you, chairman, thank you dr. blasey ford, a lot of people are proud of you today. from a prosecutor's eye view, one of the hardest things that we have to do is to speak to somebody who's come forward with an allegation of sexual assault and let them know that we can't provide the evidence to go forward to trial. it's a hard day for the prosecutor to do that. and so both because making a sincere and thorough investigative effort is such an important consolation to the victim in those circumstances, and because it's what you're obliged to do professionally, sincere and thorough investigation is critical to these claims in a prosecutor's world. it may be the most basic thing that we owe a victim or a witness coming forward is to make sure that we give them a full, thorough and sincere investigation. you have met all of the standards of what i might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement. you have vivid, specific and detailed recollections, something prosecutors look for. your recollections are cons

i would just say that senator whitehouse's suggest that had we handle this hearing like a court of law, but i would suggest that if this were a court of law that virtually every side, every member on the dais on that side would be held in contempt of court. >> oh, come on. >> this whole process is supposed to be a civil one where people get to ask questions and we get to get answers and that's the basis upon which we are to exercise our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent. so i would just suggest we get on with the hearing. >> if my colleagues -- >> mr. chairman, can i respond? mr. chairman if i can respond. can we respond to that? sir -- >> you can respond but just a minute. if people wonder why the chair is so patient during this whole process, i have found that it takes longer to argue why you shouldn't do anything than to let people argue why they want it. these things are going to be said throughout this hearing. we're going to be in session tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday, till we get done this week, so however long people want to take, we

. >> i think i should try to clarify about the calendar that senator whitehouse put up there. the entry has six boys listed for july 1st, 1982. it says go to timmy's house for squi's with judge, tom, pj, bernie and squi. dr. ford said there were four boys there. the calendar entry lists six, plus kavanaugh. that's seven. that's the wrong gathering. two allegations made by my colleague are incorrect. first, i never terminated an fbi investigation. i didn't have any authority to open or close an fbi investigation. the fbi considers this matter closed. if my colleagues were worried about the partisanship of the investigation, the democrats could have joined us at every step of the way. however, we all know they declined to participate. second, we did receive a letter signed by mark judge himself under penalty of felony. i read it previously this morning. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's been a lot of talk about the need for an fbi investigation. there are many of us who wish that that's where this would have begun, as it should have begun. as it could have begun h

take it back to sheldon whitehouse is questioning brett kavanaugh. >> he would have flat out made you the judge, 100% finito, right? >> the question of recusal is governed by precedent and rules, underappreciated aspect is i consulted with colleagues and so too they consulted with me when they had their own questions, that is part of the process. >> isn't the 100% responsibility for direct appointment more significant in terms of influence than simply making a big political contribution to a judge? >> well, that is like 100% responsibility, appointed, period, done. >> well, just on the -- i don't mean to quibble, on the premise of your question, the senate obviously, it's a shared responsibility, the president and senate participate in the supreme court appointment process. >> you were clear yesterday in our discussion it was the president of the united states who appointed you and this is about that, this is about how you get to the seat and you got appointed by the president. would that not pertain as a significant influence, i mean, what possible greater influence could there be on

then we also have senator whitehouse.ut i want to go and let him comment. >> senator grassley, may i be recognized? >> yes. mr. chairman, thank you. >> i was disappointed to see last night that some of our colleagues are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves in this hearing with regular order and accordance with the rules of the committee and the rules of this centage. i know last night some of our colleagues even tried to cross examine the nominee about documents, but refused to let him even read them. members of the senate and members of congress generally are privy to sensitive information, including classified information on occasion. we are expected to protect that information for all of the obvious reasons. it is inappropriate to raise these and an open session before the committee. i think our colleagues understand that, but nevertheless decided to go ahead anyway. i just think it's important that we remind one another that the clear rules about the discussiol material, and there can be consequences to the viol

joining me now is right-of-way senator sheldon whitehouse, of course a member of the senate judiciary. always good to have you on, sir. >> thanks, chuck. good to be with you. >> i know this a moving story and perhaps it's going to keep moving as the day and evening wears on. but it's my understanding the commit e's committee's in negotiations with dr. ford. what more can you share with us? >> that's all i can share other than the really appalling wrongfulness of insisting putting somebody who claims they've been the victim of a sexual assault onto the stand without giving them the courtesy and the benefit of investigation of their claims, whether to exculpate or corroborate. it doesn't matter. every witness before they get put on the stand is entitled to that, and we have not given them that, and it is really a disgrace from a point of view of process. >> how would you do this? do you want the president -- it's my understanding it's the president that could ask the fbi to investigate here. is that what you'd like to see happen? >> i would like to see the fbi conclude its background in

senator whitehouse is trying to say, look, this will continue to be a subject of a lot of controversy if this man makes the bench. and think of what a distraction that will be. keep in mind on the other side senator grassley thinks that he is being very accommodating on -- for his part. he's moved it. he's offered to move it. and lawyers for ford, they say look, we're not asking that much here. what's the rush. so that's the two sides. and some of the exchanges back and forth are really very ugly. >> fred, may i just add something. to ariane's point, judge kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations. you would think as a judge what he would say is i would welcome an independent investigation by the fbi or montgomery county police or whomever as part of my background. i would welcome other witnesses to testify. because i know at the end of the day my side is going to be proven to be correct. the failure of kavanaugh himself to ask for the same thing that ford is asking for, lie detector tests, witnesses, investigation by law enforcement authorities, is a bit surprising to me. >>