anonymity than on the content of that op-ped. if a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words and people have the right to be able to defend themselves. to the writer of the op-ped, you are not protecting this country. you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions. and if that s not enough for you, let s not forget bob woodward s upcoming book, fear, quoting many members of the president s inner circle including former white house chief economic adviser gary cohn who says he swiped a letter off the oval office desk to prevent trump from signing it and killing a critical trade agreement with south korea. that letter, yes, missing the president s signature, now revealed. so, what about the democrats you might be saying? what are they doing in the midst of all this trump-related turmoil? they re shaking things up. on their own with an extraordinary moment this morning from the confirmation
extraordinary moment this morning from the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. senator cory booker saying he is breaking senate rules and releasing 12 pages of kavanaugh s e-mails on racial inequality. dragging his part including minority leader chuck schumer and senators blumenthal and durbin along with him to exactly where their fired up base is. i understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate and if senator cornyn believes that i violated senate rules, i openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that e-mail right now. this is about the closest i ll probably ever have in my life to an i am spartacus moment. chuck grassley s office weighed in saying that senators had been notified that restrictions on the documents were already waived. senator booker pushing back taking effort to work with his colleagues. to make last night s documents publicly available. don t forget the kavanaugh hearings.
rooted in the tradition of the country so as to prevent so, let me ask you this. is there any right rooted in the history and traditions of the country where legislative bodies could not intercede on behalf of the unborn before medical viability? is that part of our his vi? supreme court precedent has recognized the right to abortion. i m just saying, what part of the history of our i don t think our founding fathers, people mentioned the founding fathers, i don t remember that being part of american history. so how did the court determine that it was? the court applied the precedent that existed and found in 1973 that under the liberty clause before 1970 i mean, when you talk about the history of the united states, the court has found that part of our history is for the legislative bodies,
all i can say is that that s different legally and factually than the morrison situation where you had a statute. let s talk a little bit about the law regarding the president. clinton v. jones tells us see if i m correct. that you can be president of the united states. you can still be sued for conduct before you re a president and when you invoke executive privilege the court has said, no, wait a minute. you have to show up at a deposition before it happened before you were president. is that correct? civil suit is the clinton versus jones case of allegations or a suit that involved activity before president clinton became president. so it s pretty well understood through supreme court precedent that if you re the president of the united states and you engaged in conduct that allowed you to be sued before you got to be president you can t avoid your day in court. now, on the civil side. the nixon holdings said what?
know, is a precedent of the supreme court, so entitled the respect as a matter of stare decisis. as you know and i would just reiterate, if someone wants to challenge that decision, they one of the things that anyone can raise about any case is that it s based on a mistaken premise or mistaken factual premises, and that s the kind of things courts are open to hearing. my time has expired. i thank the chairman for the indulgence of the extra minute. a couple things. first, i would note i m brooke baldwin. you have been watching another day of this contentious confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh there. we will discuss everything, but first, the president is taking names, making a list, and checking it twice. it wasn t me refrain being repeated over and over as each minute goes by today. from top officials inside the president s own administration denying