in the hearing. so long as is a reasonable request, no guarantee that the we will be able to use them. but to submit the ones we ask questions about, you will go back to president trump, go back to president bush for review. now, i see that plainly. if i could just finish my point, we have a number of those documents released to us the night before. to think that we could somehow ask you about the documents, revealed to you what questions we wanted to ask, and it s not even your determination. it goes back to bill burke, who is then making a determination about documents paid on the specific document that i brought up as a great illustration of the absurdity of the process. i brought up a document entitled racial profiling. i asked the candidate about his views about this issue. it s controversial issue. that document actually does reveal his thinking about that issue at the time. the fact that there is nothing in that document that is personal information, there s nothing national s
republican or democrat, will have an opportunity to do what they want to do today. because this is the last day he s 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 one, then senator hannity. kennedy. i m in a similar situation. senator whitehouse. i think he asked before you did. the chairman, you recognize me for 30 seconds and 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 confidential routine that we went through. i do not accept its legitimacy. i do not accept its validity. because i don t accept its legitimacy or validity, i don t
nomination and nominate judge watford to the supreme court, i would certainly ask judge watford about his relationship with judge krasinski. thank you very much, mr. chairman. senator booker, before you speak, i hope that you are not going to say that we have not gotten the documents you want and all that sort of thing. my staff was here until three trying to accommodate everybody who asked for documents. would you proceed please? i appreciate that, sir. sir, the very section of the process that you read points out the absurdity of the process. that s what is deeply frustrating to me, and deeply disappointing. the process you read, you invite committee members to submit a list of document control number specifically identifying the confidential documents or documents publicly released with reductions. that the members wish to reuse
process is finished, i am going to release the email about racial profiling. i understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate. if senator cornyn believes that i have violated senate rules, i openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that email right now. i am releasing it to expose that emails are being withheld from the public have nothing to do the national security. nothing to jeopardize the sanctity of those ideals that i hold dear. instead, what i am releasing this document right now to show, sir, is that we have a process here for a person the highest office in the land, for a lifetime appointment. we are rushing through this before me and my colleagues can t even read and digest the
accept that i m under any obligation. i have not made a big fight about this. i have gone ahead with my questioning. again, left silence imply consent. i think that rule is ineffectual as if we had unilaterally repealed the law of gravity. it simply isn t so. i haven t agreed to this rule, i haven t voted on this rule, this rule does not exist in our committee or senate rules. i will leave it at that. i am not willing to concede that there is any legitimacy to this entire committee confidential process in this hearing. nothing sensitive, nothing personal, nothing classified, and nothing confidential has been released. did you object to it when it was previously used under other supreme court nominees? it was developed then three bipartisan process. that is correct. we reach an agreement through unanimous consent. no, there was an agreement between the chairman s