Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle 20180904

Theyre central to everything youre going to hear discussed today. Questions about executive privilege, the extent of president ial power, are at the heart of the mueller investigation. If things keep going the way theyre going, it may be up to the Supreme Court ultimately to decide whether the president himself can be charged with crimes. Democrats and republicans want to know exactly where kavanaugh stands on these questions. We have assembleled a great team. Including Stephanie Ruhle who is here with us in our studio, whose hour we are trampling on by being here live today. Kacie hunt is our correspondent on the hill. A lot of us just saw the event democrats in the Senate Outside on the steps. Emblematic of what their role is. The clout compared to the republicans in charge. Thats right. Thats very little democrats can do to slow down the process of this lifetime appointment of Brett Kavanaugh because the republicans do have all the power in the senate. Theres a reality that the Democratic Party is divided. Think about the interests of the different factions just inside the senate Democratic Party. You have a selection of red state democrats that come from trump states. Theyre up for reelection. Control of the senate hinges on whether theyre successful in getting reelected. Quite frankly, a skeptical of them perhaps walk out of the hearing as Sheldon Whitehouse was pressed on this morning just frankly doesnt play well in a place like missouri. It does stand in contrast to the base of the party thats 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. Youve got these hands maid tale protesters, that is the Television Show thats about womens 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 days events. Always so much intense interest in these hearings. When people ask you what can the democrats do, thats something well be talking about for the coming days. What can the democrats in the u. S. Senate do . All they can do is try to gin up outrage in the country to get people to demand this not go forward. At the end of the day, they dont have a lot of tools. There were documents dumped just last night. Essentially called this confirmation process illegitimate. That it would taint kavanaughs legacy for the entire time. Occasionally, these hearings are unpredictable. Sometimes somethings uncovered or if the nominee stumbles in a way thats damaging, its possible we could see Something Like this. Of course Mitch Mcconnell did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees after democrats initially krolgsed that threshold with Circuit Court judges and started requiring only 50 votes to approve them. Really, after the weekend that we had, remembering and mourning john mccain who, you know, pled with his colleagues to return the senate to regular order, to start working in a different way again, today is a really striking contrast. Because quite frankly the way this process is going and continuing is not how the senate would traditionally do Something Like that. And its not necessarily in the spirit of his legacy to push forward so quickly with so Little Information and on such a partisan basis. A good point that the hearings can sometimes produce genuine spontaneous moments and discoveries. Another democrat has been heard from and correspondent Garrett Haake has heard from Dianne Feinstein of california, garrett. You and casie were talking about the problems here, which is to defeat a Supreme Court nominee in recent history. Weve seen it really twice in the last 30 years. There has to be something about the nominee that enough people find disqualifying and right now to this point Brett Kavanaugh has been too polished for democrats to really do much damage to him. Sort of the that has come out has been about his nationals baseball season tickets. There are things about his political views the democrats find disqualifying but it hasnt been enough to bring over republicans. The republicans that they would need to defeat him. So what you saw this morning on the steps of the court were democrats rallying against kavanaugh but doing so almost entirely on the basis by which we have gotten to this point. Here is feinstein, the top democrat on the judiciary committee. This entire process has cast a cloud over judge kavanaughs nomination. Democrats strongly object to moving forward when so much of his record remains secret. Were shocked at the efforts being undertaken to jam this nominee through. And hide his record from the American Public. We go to these hearings under protest. Complaints about process. Complaints about the record not being fully available to the American Public are legitimate complaints but theyre unlikely to be the kind of thing that unites the rest of the country. The two people who wont be in the room, trump and mueller. The two people who im interested in what they think about this are Susan Collins and lisa murkowski. Very specific in favor of protections enshrined in roe v. Wade. Theyve had tough questions for cavanaugh in their private meetings. Theyre seen as the two republican senators who could be pulled away from kavanaugh should he stumble in some significantxreactions to what hd in this room over the next couple of days will be extremely important. Garrett, thanks. We want to go to Kristen Welker at the white house. For those viewers who are off trying to enjoy the last blast holiday of summer, can you remind our viewers of exactly what it is . The president said on twitter yesterday that has some members of the senate and house saying a line has been crossed. Thats right, brian, and that line that was crossed happened yesterday during labor day. The president mostly endures but lashing out on twitter. Really creating the backdrop to proceedings you were watching there so closely now on capitol hill. Taking aim at a familiar target. His own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Now, of course, he has taken aim at Jeff Sessions in the past. But yesterday was a little different. He escalated his attacks and blamed what he referred to as the Jeff Sessions Justice Department for two indictments of two congressman, duncan hunter, for allegedly misusing Campaign Funds and Chris Collins for insider trading. He never mentioned those two. He did say this, two long running, obama era investigations of two very popular republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge. Just ahead of the midterms. Adding this, must love him now, same thing with lying comey, the dems all hated him, wanted him out, thought he was disgusting, until i fired him. Immediately, he became a wonderful man, a saintlike figure, in fact, really sick. A quick fact check. The investigations didnt start under the obama era, they started in 2017 but that line that was cross the is the fact that the Justice Department is supposed to be independent from of course the white house. The executive branch. And so republicans expressing significant concern that the president diminishing that. And then also really indicating that hes putting loyalty above the law. So that worries some republicans as well. Ben sassee writing this, the United States is not some Banana Republic with a twotiered system of justice. These two men have been charged with crimes because of efld, not because of who the president was when the investigation began. Fiery rhetoric, but what are republicans actually going to do to hold the president to account for those very strong wordings that he issued yesterday on twitter . Now, of course, the white house will get some heated emails about all of that. But we dont expect to hear from sarah sanders, at least not yet. Theres no briefing on the public schedule. Theyre clearly watching whats happening on capitol hill very closely. The confirmation hearings for judge Brett Kavanaugh, this would be a huge win for trump, something he would tout out on the campaign trail when hes expected to have a heavy presence there. Kristen welker, thank you. Over to the hearing room. Ari mel betteber, covering the hearing, hell be high above the hearings. If you look at the criticism, some of it that you read is bumping up against his oath of office, exactly what it is he swore to. Anyone close to being able to make a legal case . I think what the president wrote there is one of the things he volunteered, is hes seeking to obstruct justice or put a thumb on the scale based on politics. If a prosecutor did that, brian, it would be prosecutorial misconduct. The president s in a different story but is supposed to uphold the rule of law, not subvert it. I think its significant for the reasons kristen was reporting on. In this room behind me, think its very likely to come up in questioning. We know the views on executive power are going to figure in centrally in this hearing. Another thing we can say is, as we wait the start of the hearing, i think like so many things in the current era, it divides what is normal and what is not normal. There are many things that are normal about judge kavanaugh in the sense that he is the kind of main stream conservative legal figure that has been endorsed by other president s like george w. Bush, that he was popular in conservative circles in washington. By the fact he was put on that very important d. C. Circuit court by president bush after serving as staff secretary. Whats not normal, whats different, is of course the Mueller Probe that hangs over this president and the concerns that democrats are repeat lid trying to raise separate from roe v. Wade but signalling that executive power and judicial independent is going to be key. You have a president acting this way, flouting the law, resisting sitting counsel with a special counseltype investigation. Of course it was judge kavanaugh who at the time was a prosecutor and insisted along with ken starr a president should sit down and face that kind of questioning. In the not normal category of how this nominee has to square the president who appointed him and this environment with his more traditional conservative background. All right, ari melber, thank you. Pete williams is our nbc news justice correspondent. Pete, back to kacie hunts point, that on rare occasion something happened at these hearings that is not scripted and part of the binder going in. Right. Of course, the problem with these is all the rough edges have long since been smoothed off. You can be sure that kavanaugh has done several mock hearings before the committee to react to hostile questions, to adjust his tone. Weve seen excerpts from his Opening Statements which have echoes of 13 years ago and the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for john roberts who notably said he wanted to be like an umpire, just to call the balls and strikes. And according to excerpts of his Opening Statements. Im not pro dfefense, im a pro law judge. You heard about the strong feelings that Many Democrats still have about the rough treatment for Merrick Garland who never even got a confirmation hearing. The judge does give a brief head nod to garland in his opening statement. Saying her serves on the appeals court, led by our suburb chief judge Merrick Garland. You cant get to the Supreme Court in a Straight Line from the d. C. Court of appeals without going through congress. Part of the Supreme Court farm team. Clarence thomas and john roberts. And now kavanaugh hopes to be the next one. A couple of other historical ones. A man whose vacancies, in the same class of clerks for justice kennedy. They both prepped here in the d. C. Schools as well when they were much younger. So about two main issues. The two issues that will get the most questions are first of all a one thats become familiar, thats his view on roe v. Wade. Hes told some of the senators in his preconfirmation hearings that he thinks its settled law. They want to explore that. So they want to go into that. And then i think the unusual thing is his views on whether a president can be indictmented, can be forced to respond to a subpoena. His views on that have changed over the years, brian, since he was a lawyer working for kenneth star and then he wrote a law review article, saying president s should be above that. It is, to sum up, a fraught time for a confirmation hearing to be taking place. Pete williams. Well be relying on pete heavily for analysis as we go on through these hearings. Now to the woman who is normally hosting and anchoring this hour, has been very patient with us here in our studio, Stephanie Ruhle. On top of the name goresuch, the possibility that a republican president would fill one, two, perhaps three vacancies on the Supreme Court, was kind of the cover, the air cover, given to a lot of republicans for whom donald trump was not their cup of tea. Well, this is the holy grail for evangelicals, for christian conservatives, to get donald trump in office. To see the Record Number of judges hes put in place, thats a huge win. You and i can say all day long what hypocrites. What about the moral obligations a president should uphold . Theyre beasically looking at yu and i saying we might not know Donald Trumps name, but these judgeses w who are taking these seats, theyre lifetime appointments. It is a massive win. You could say, well, Mitch Mcconnell was unethical in the way he played the game. Mitch mcconnell doesnt want to go to your house for dinner. He played the game artfully and hes winning. Could Mitch Mcconnell say that with a straight face and you know hes straight up lying . Sure. But is it doesnt matter. At the end of the day, democrats can huff and puff and say its unethical. And if you look at a guy like cavanaukavanaug kavanaugh, its the Koch Brothers dream. Theyve been pouring money these races for years. If you look at the amount of judges that have been put in place since President Trump is in office, 90 are white. So theyll be waiting for a long, long time. Stephanie ruhle will stay with us. Well take our first break. When we come back, well talk about all things legal and what were going to be witnessing as soon as those both sides sit down. The cameras are laid down and well get under way here in the u. S. Senate. U. S. Senate. I dont keep track of regrets. And i dont add up the years. But what i do count on is boost®. Delicious boost® high protein nuritional drink now has 33 more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals boost® high protein. Be up for life. Your hair is so soft tein. Did you use head and shoulders two in one . I did mom. Wanna try it . Yes. It intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. Manolo . Look at my soft hair. I should be in the shot now too. Try head and shoulders two in one. Lets do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. They taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed, when he books direct at choicehotels. Com. Or just say badda book, badda boom. Book now at choicehotels. Com. But prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient or just say badda book, badda boom. Originally discovered. In jellyfish. In clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve shortterm memory. Prevagen. Healthier brain. Better life. Welcome back. We begin our coverage of the kavanaugh confirmation hearings. As members of the committee are coming forward. Equally valuable Staff Members will find their seats behind them. And then judge kavanaugh and the people he has chosen to bring to the hearing we presume family members at least for the introduction will take his seat. As you look at senator sasse. One of the great unknowns is what will happen and it was said that during his preparation period, supervised by the white hou house, faux protesters tried to interrupt his remarks, just to give him a feel of what can happen. Were happy to be joined by two of our legal experts. Starting with the former acting solicitor general. Msnbc legal analyst, someone who has argued 37 cases before the Supreme Court. And maya wily is with us. Among her many accomplishments, working in the u. S. Attorneys office, for the Southern District of new york. Thank you for being here, both of you. Welcome. Counselor, beginning with you, what are your looking for in this mornings session . This is the most consequential Supreme Court hearing in our lifetimes. Race, abortion, religion, affirmative action, environment, so many things. Ill be looking for something beyond the usual platitudes. We have judge kavanaughs prepared statement. Hes going to talk about how hes going to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes. Every nominee can say stuff like that. I think the real question is can the democrats figure out who judge kavanaugh really is as a Supreme Court justice, not as a lower court judge. For the folks watching at home, so often, and ill use plain language, a lefty is replacing a lefty or a righty is replacing a righty on the Supreme Court. This is not that. This is the seat of anthony kennedy. Who was appointed to the Supreme Court one way and grew into a different role in American Life and jurisprudence. This choice would take that kind of swing seat and change it. Thats correct. And, you know, as you talk about earlier, brian, one of the reasons its so significant is because president obama was denied his appointee to the Supreme Court. That makes judge kavanaughs consideration for appointment much more significant. Were looking at a court who leaned to the scalia side of the ledger. That means looking to the language and the ways in which founders may have understood the constitution. Not to say they wont update it some. What that means for the average american is actually to erase some of the lived experience of real people who are going to live with the consequences of the case. Criminal justice cases are a really good example. This changes the balance of the court in a significant way that may erase the way most people understand the way the constitution works. When senator john kennedy looks in the camera as he did this morning on cnn and says the majority leader was just following the biden rule, whats he talking about and why in the view of so many people is that absolute phooey . The technical term is pop poppycot. Its one thing when youre talking about gorsuch and scalia. This is, as you were saying, the most important seat. Every single one of those, you didnt know how he was going to vote at all. You know to replace him with someone who, by all accounts is a lovely man, a principled jurist, but has a very different philosophy, is really to change the composition of the court. Not in a theoretical way about originalism and constitutional text or Something Like that but in a real concrete way. On things that matter to every american. Things like, you know, labor unions or environmental protections. The conservatives have one view of this. Left want ace ds a different no. Maya, can you ever be absolutely sure . President eisenhower, until his dying days, said his biggest mistake was appointing Justice Brennan to the Supreme Court. He saw as kind of having changed and migrated during his time on the court to the left. Is there any way to really know . You know, in this case, i think there is. Although i agree with you, brian, often you dont. Remember justice suouter who wa also a big surprise. All republicans probably regret justice souter. The difference here for judge kavanaugh is he has one of the most extensive written records of anyone whos come before the court, before the senate for consideration for the court. Remember that there are millions of documents. Millions of documents that hes authored of which the democrats have been complaining. Theyve seen about 10 . But thats a significantly large number of documents. Significantly larger than anyone else. So his record is also pretty candidate. Hes been attacking a 1926 Supreme Court president that, for years, that said going directly to president ial power that says the president doesnt have absolute power to move someone from an independent collision. Like the federal commission, federal election commission, civil rights commission. Where he stands on the issue of executive power, he has a pretty extreme and narrow view of it. Our viewers at home watching all the pageantry before we get under way. That man will be behind judge kavanaugh. We dont know if hes in it to stay. I presume he has Justice Department business to run. But that brings us nicely to all of the backdrop. This is taking place during an active investigation of the president and his administration. It is not a long walk as no one needs to remind a man like you that this matter could be before the court shortly. Absolutely. Its not unusual for Rod Rosenstein to be there. When i was a highranking Justice Department employee when kagan was nominated, i was there. So thats a common thing. Whats anomalous is that its Rod Rosenstein, the authorizer of the investigation against President Trump. This is unlike any nomination weve had. The president himself is under a cloud of criminal suspicion. Rosenstein is supervising that investigation by robert mueller. There is something really strange about this. The president has a nominee to our nations highest court. And at the same time, hes doing all this stuff, tweeting, saying the Justice Department is effectively my political instrument. I dont have to, you know, it shouldnt be going after a republican congressman as he said this weekend and the like. That is a very weird thing to have a confirmation going on. And as you say when the trump case itself might go to the highest court. Do you hear republicans saying whoa, lets go slow, perhaps we shouldnt be doing this, during this fraught time . Absolutely not. Republicans want to look past President Trump as much as they possibly can. All the judges who have been appointed and specifically getting two Supreme Court justices is a massive win for them. They want to say put trump in a corner. Dont Pay Attention to him. Pay attention to this. This this where Mitch Mcconnell says im the most skilled guy for the job. There are members of a committee. Its 9 32 a. M. Here on the east coast. Members of the media are waiting for judge cavanaugh to come in, take a seat, get all their pictures and then of course the still image of the date were waiting for is when he rises and he is just walking into the back of the hearing room. He will be sworn in, take his seat and then we will be under way. You saw there briefly senator john, no relation, kennedy, republican, of louisiana, being interviewed in the hallway. Theres chuck grassley. The republican chairman. Here is the judge coming in. Father of two daughters. Lets listen in. Perhaps its no accident that some of the cameras can sound like incoming machinegun fire. For as much as the digital photography era has changed photography, you can still count on hearing the rapid fire shutters. This is where all of the stills, our colleagues in the still photography business get to lean in and take those pictures, some of them for prosperity, some of them for the covers, digital and paper, of various news magazines well be seeing for some time. Soon theyll be given the command to pull out of there. You see don mcgahn and the judges family members. You mentioned it earlier today, just last night, ben sasse was tweeting about the rule of law, about that we are not a Banana Republic. When the president is going after Jeff Sessions in a tweet. And then not 24 hours later, heres ben sasse in that room shaking hands, smiling ear to ear. This is, to say unusual is an understatement. Yes, just think about all the people around the trump orbit that are under criminal investigation or indictment. Youve got the cfo of the Trump Organization who knows where every check was cut. Youve got the National Inqui r inquirer, trumps friend, an immunity deal. Youve got the white House Counsel don mcgahn. Paul manaforts daughter tried to change her last name. The National Security adviser. I mean this is unbelievable whats going on, to have this hearing, this backdrop, unusual. Ive been told we should listen in as were getting under way. Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of mr. Chairman Brett Kavanaugh to serve as associate mr. Chairman, id like to be recognized for a question before we proceed. Order, please. Id like to be recognized for a question before we proceed. The Committee Received just last night, less than 15 hours ago, 42,000 pages of documents that weve not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Youre out of order. Ill proceed. We cannot possibly move forward, mr. Chairman, with i extend a very warm welcome to judge kavanaugh weve not had an opportunity ashley, their two daughters mr. Chairman, i agree with my colleague harris. Mr. Chairman, we received 42,000 documents that and everyone else joining us today. Last night and we believe this hearing should be postponed i know this is an exciting day for all of you here mr. Chairman mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, i move to adjourn the American People mr. Chairman, i move to adjourn from judge kavanaugh mr. Chairman, i move to adjourn. [ cheers and applause ] mr. Chairman [ applause ] mr. Chairman, we have been denied real access to the documents mr. Chairman, regular orders called for did i which turned this hearing into a charade and mockery of our norms and i therefore move to ajourn. This is a mockery of justice [ indistinct shouting from audience ] cancel Brett Kavanaugh kavanaugh [ indistinct screaming from audience members ] cancel fraud 2016 thank you. Demand order. Were not in an executive session mr. Chairman, i ask for a roll call vote on my motion to adjourn. Please, dont please vote no please vote no okay. Mr. Chairman, i move to adjourn. I ask for a roll call vote. Were not in executive session. We will continue as planned. Mr. Chairman, may i be recognized, sir . I appeal to the chair to recognize myself or one of my colleagues. Youre out of order. Mr. Chairman, i appeal to be recognized on your sense of decency and integrity. Even the documents youve requested, mr. Chairman, even the ones you said, the limited documents youve requested this committee has not received. And the documents we have, you, sir, have legal duty gentlemen, i ask for order. This committee, sir, is a violation of even the values ive heard you talk about time and time again. The ideals that we should have. What is the rush . What are we trying to hide by not having the documents out front . What is with the rush . What are we hiding by not letting those documents come out . Sir this committees a violation of the values that we as a committee have striven for, transparency. We are rushing through this process in a way that is unnecessary. I appeal for the motion to at least be voted on. Mr. Chairman at least lets have a vote. When we wrote you a letter on august 24 senator asking to have a meeting on this issue, you denied us even the right to meet. Here we are, having a meeting. Lets at least debate this issue. Lets at least call this for a vote. I appeal to your sense of fairness and decency. Your commitments youve made to transparency. This violates what you have even said and called for, sir. Youve called for documents. You yourself, limited documents. We thought there should be more. We have not received the documents that you have even called for. Sir, based upon your own principles, your own values. I call for at least to have a debate or vote on these issues. And not for us to rush through this process. [ cheers and applause ] mr. Chairman mr. Chairman senator mr. Chairman, ive heard calls id like to respond to senator booker. Senator booker, i think that i respect very much a lot of things you do. You spoke about my decency and integrity and i think [ shouting from audience ] are taking advantage of my decency and integrity so [ shouting from audience ] just vote now no, you keep doing it senator, call a vote [ indistinct shouting from protesters ] okay. I call for order. It is regular order for us to receive all documents to receive all the documents this committee is entitled to. [ indistinct shouting from protester ] mr. Chairman, it is also i think that mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order senator to require the minority to preclear questions or documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process we wish to follow to question this nominee . Id like your clarification. On why you are requesting in order to submit our questions i ask that you i ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isnt going exactly the way the minority would like to have it go. We have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day. And i think we ought to give the American People the opportunity to hear whether judge kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. Youve heard my side of the aisle call for regular order. There will be plenty of opportunity [ shouting from protesters ] what did she say . Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may i ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question . Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or is even an actual assertion of executive privilege . I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point. Because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Mr. Chairman, if i might add to this. Integrity of documents weve received. There really is no integrity. They have alterations. Attachments are missing. Emails are cut off. Recipie recipie recipients names are missing. Many are of interest to this committee but its cut off. The national ash karchives woul act as a check against any political interference. I checked after, there was no check. And to have for the first time in my 44 years here, to have somebody say theres a claim of executive privilege when the president hasnt made such a claim. Just puts everything under doubt. Why are we rushing . If i answer those questions, its going to fit into the effort of the minority to continue to obstruct and i dont thing thats fair to our judges. Its not fair to our process. 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. Unlike president obamas assertion of executive privilege during fast and furious is one example. This assertion is not legitimate. Judge kavanaugh was a Senior Lawyer in the white house. He advised the president on judicial nominations. Provided legal advice on separation of issues and handled litigation matters. As the Supreme Court has put it, quote, unless the president can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a president could not expect to [ indistinct shouting from protester ] the issues judge cavanaugh worked on are exactly the issues that require, according to the Supreme Court, some a sura assuf confidentiality. We in the senate and everyone else in america expect exactly the same sort of confidentiality. Most senators would not agree to turn over their staffs communications to anyone. For example, we didnt ask judge kagans records for her service with then senator biden be turned over during her nomination. Because of Attorney Client privilege, everybody has a right to Keep Communications from their lawyers, out of governors hands. We, therefore, didnt ask for Justice Ginsburgs documents from her time with the aclu. We didnt ask for judge so the sotomayors from her time in private practice. It cant be that the aclu is afforded more protection than the president of the United States. And then i will speak to the fact about 42,000 pages. Last night, we receive add ditional documents for committees review. These were documents we requested before the hearing. And we received them before the hearing just as we requested. The majority staff began reviewing the documents as soon as they arrived and has already completed its review. There is, thus, absolutely no reason thats no reason to delay the hearing. Weve received and read every page of judge kavanaughs extensive public record. This includes 12 years of his Judicial Service on the most important federal Circuit Court in the country where he authored 307 opinions and joined hundreds more amounts to more than 10,000 pages of judicial writing. We also received and read more than 17,000 pages of his speeches, articles, teaching materials, other documents, judge kavanaugh submitted with his questionnaire. The most robust questionnaire this committee has ever issued. And of course we received and read more than 483,000 pages of documents from judge kavanaughs extensive executive branch service. This is more pages than the last five Supreme Court nominees combined. In short, this committee has more materials for judge kavanaughs nomination than we have had on any Supreme Court nominee in history. Senators have had more than enough time and material to adequately assess judge kavanaughs qualifications. Thats why i proceed. I know that this is an exciting day for all of you in the family and all the people that are close to judge kavanaugh. Youre rightly proud of the jud judge. The American People get to hear directly from judge kavanaugh later this afternoon, after this confirmation hearing and process is finished. I expect judge kavanaugh will become the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Welcome again, judge. Before i begin, i would want to give you, judge, an opportunity to introduce your family. Thank you, mr. Chairman and senator feinstein. Push the red button, if it is not on. We have opening remarks. Yes, were getting to that. Thank you, mr. Chairman, senator feinstein, and members of the committee. Im honored to be here today with my family. My wife, ashley, proud west texan, graduate of abilene, now the town manager of our local community where we live. Our daughters, margaret and liza. Thank the committee for arranging a day off from school today. My mom and dad, martha and ed kavanaugh. My aunt and uncle, nancy and mark murphy. And my first cousins, rosie and elizabeth murphy. Very honored to be here. Honored to have my family here. Im here because of them. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Were delighted to have your family here. Before i make my opening remarks, i want to set out the ground rules for the hearing. I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the view of those behind them or speak out of turn, it is not fair or considerate to others. Officers will immediately remove those individuals. I thank the officers for doing the work that they have to do. Well have rounds of Opening Statements with each member. The Ranking Member and i may go a little over ten minutes. Im going to ask everyone else to limit your remarks to those ten minutes. I hope everyone will respect that. We plan on taking a 15minute break after senator cruzs opening statement. After all the Opening Statements by senators are complete, well take another 15minute round break to turn to our introducers, who will formally present the judge. After that, ill administer the oath to the judge. Well close that portion of todays hearing with his testimony. Mr. Chairman . Tomorrow morning when will we review senator blumenthals motion to adjourn . I renew my motion to adjourn. I think were entitled to a vote on it. Yeah. The responses that, mr. Chairman, youve given, with all due respect, fly in the face of the norms of this committee, our traditions, and our rules. Mr. Chairman, if i might add an additional point, i agree with my colleague, it is striking, given your history of treating minority requests equal will majority, that you discourage the National Archives from responding, which feinstein tried to be identical. We should not proceed until we have the full documents that allow us to review the judges records. Mr. Chairman, last friday, we learned that nearly 102,000 pages of documents from judge kavanaughs work in the white House Counsels office are being withheld from the committee and the public, based on a claim of constitutional privilege. Executive privilege has never been invoked to block the release of president ial records to the senate during a Supreme Court nomination. This includes when Justice Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, as well as justice roberts. Yesterday, my colleagues and i sent a letter to the white House Counsel, asking that the president withdraw his claim of privilege over these documents so that they can be made available to this committee and to the American People. We have not yet received a response to that letter. We should not be proceeding until we have a response and these documents have been available. It is 102,000 documents. Mr. Chairman my motion to adjourn, mr. Chairman, would raise this issue of executive privilege and whether it has been properly asserted, for reasons that have been outlined well by my colleague, senator whitehouse. There is no valid claim here of executive privilege. Even if there were one, it has not been properly asserted. The question is, what is the administration afraid of showing the American People . What is it trying to hide . Mr. Chairman, using your own words in the statement you just read, you said, i quote, weve had more than enough time to review the documents. Sir, we just got a document dump last night over 40,000 pages. I would venture to say not one senator here has had time to read through those 40,000 pages. So we are continuing to rush through this process, a process that deserves to be scrutinized. I support senator blumenthals motion to adjourn, and i hope we can at least have a vote on the motion. Mr. Chairman, i think youd be hardpressed to find a court in the country that would not give a party litigant a continuance when the party on the other side did a 42,000 page document dump after close of business the night before trial. Mr. Chairman, we waited for more than a year with a vacancy on the Supreme Court under the direction of your leader in the United States senate. And the republic survived. I think the treatment was shabby of Merrick Garland and president obamas nominee. The fact that we cannot take a few days or weeks to have a complete review of judge kavanaughs record is unfair to the American People. It is inconsistent with our responsibility under article 2, section 2 of the constitution, to advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Senator cornyn, you want to speak . Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ill be very brief. I would just say that senator whitehouse has suggested we handle this hearing like a court of law. I would suggest that if this were a court of law, virtually every member on that side would be held in contempt of court. Oh, come on. This process is supposed to be a civil one, where people get to ask questions and we get answers. Thats the basis upon which we are to exercise our Constitutional Responsibilities of advice and consent. I would suggest we get on the with the hearing. If my colleague mr. Chairman, if i could respond. If if we could respond to that . I would 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 shouldnt do anything than let people argue why they want it. These things are going to be said throughout this hearing. Were going to be in session tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday, until we get done this week. However long people want to take, were going to not necessarily accommodate all obstruction, but if people got something to say, this chairman is going to let them say it. It gets pretty boring to hear the same thing all the time. Senator booker, make it quick, please. I appreciate the deference, mr. Chairman. The question was why would we want to delay this. This is not an attempt to delay. This is an attempt to be fully equipped to do our constitutional duty, which everybody, republicans and democrats, on this committee take seriously. It is very hard to perform our role of advise and consent when we do not have a thorough vetting of the background of the candidate. In areas where the candidate himself has referred to as the most formative part of his legal career, where he himself has talked about how important this period of his life is, were denied the full vetting. Sir, this is not something that democrats are asking for. I remind you, that you yourself asked for a limited set of documents for when he was in the white House Counsels office. You, yourself, set that standard. Even on that limited standard, sir, we have not received the documents. Then even the documents, weve received 7 of them, almost half have been labeled committee confidential. They cannot be put before the American People, which further undermine and inhibit our ability to ask questions to thoroughly vet this candidate and advise and consent the president of the United States. Sir, just on the basic ideals of fairness, the traditions of this body, we should have a thorough understanding of the nominee thats put before us, so we can vet them. To go into this hearing without those documents is an undermining of the constitutional role to which we have all sworn an oath to uphold. Mr. Chairman, i have Great Respect for my colleague from texas. I would like to respond to senator booker. Then senator feinstein has asked for the floor. Id like to i ask to respond to my colleague from texas. Mr. Chairman . Senator booker, used by a standard set by two members of your Political Party in the caucus, and ill phrase because i dont 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 theyve made at lower courts. Senator leahy said something similar to that, when senator sotomayor was before us. We know how