The news of the week with fresh, diverse voices from a cross section of thought leaders, elected officials and journalists, focusing heavily on the rising.
has nominated a potential justice who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. in fact, whether he is required to obey a subpoena to appear before a grand jury, whether he is required to testify in a prosecution of his friends or associates or other officials in his administration and whether, in fact, he is required to stand trial if he is indicted while he is president of the united states. there is a basic principle of our constitution and it was articulated by the founders, no one can select a judge in his own case. that s what the president is potentially doing here, selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially
will cast a decisive vote in his own case. that is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. senator sasse urged us to do our job. i agree. part of our job is to review the record of the nominee as thoroughly and deliberately as possible, looking to all the relevant and probative evidence. we can t do that on this record. mr. chairman, you have said multiple times that your staff has already reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to this committee at 5:41 p.m. yesterday. both sides are using the same
korea that he felt could endanger and others felt could endanger national security, so they basically took it off his desk and john porter was complicity in this, the former staff secretary who then was asked to leave for other reasons, but you have this sense of people trying to save the presidency or save the president from himself or try and protect him from bob mueller, which is what you know, which is what they were which is what they were trying to do if that conversation took place with mueller. you know, i was talking to an attorney with some knowledge of this today who said to me, look, very often you will go and you will talk to a prosecutor and say, you know, my client they really they can t they can t testify, they re too anxious, they re too nervous, they get too jumbled, they don t get their facts straight, you know, that happens sometimes. but what they had in this case
that so many americans believe that the law which i think all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. it s not the way it s supposed to be, judge. that s not what i m looking for. now, i m going to end i ve still got plenty of time left, i think i have two hours allotted, mr. chairman. somebody talked about they had seen this movie before or commented to my friend this thing is as long as a movie. these are the words of justice curtis, in 1857 when he dissented in the dread scott case. when a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are