We talked about it last night. What is going to happen after that . I dont know. Mr. Meadows . Thank, chairman. , you can take a bit of a breather on your return to the committee. What i want to do is go through with the people who are watching the conversation that you and i had when we spoke on the telephone. You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that i made and i intend to have some questions in that area. It does not make sense if i have not laid the predicate particularly for our viewers who are watching this. I guess the reason i want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little tv box you are looking at, the little screen you are looking at are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater. If you only look at what is going on in the puppet theater, you are not going to understand the whole story, you are not going to understand the real dynamic of what is going on here. You are certainly not going
[inaudible] im ready when you are. Are you live . Are we going . Senator whitehouse. Thank. , you can take a bit of a breather on your return to the committee. What i want to do is go through with the people who are watching the conversation that you and i had when we spoke on the telephone. You were kind enough to hear out a presentation that i made and i intend to have some questions in that area. It does not make sense if i have not laid the predicate particularly for our viewers who are watching this. I guess the reason i want to do this is because people who are watching this need to understand that this small hearing room and the little tv box you are looking at, the little screen you are looking at are a little bit like the frame of a puppet theater. If you only look at what is going on in the puppet theater, you are not going to understand the whole story, you are not going to understand the real dynamic of what is going on here. You are certainly not going to understand forces
Justice antonin scalia, in prepared remarks. It was the content of Justice Scalias reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward. A judge must apply the law as it is written, not as she wishes it were. If we can get this wonderfullyqualified, conservative woman on the court, well be making a statement to all young conservative women theres a place at the table for you. Your health care is on the lewin. A justice who on the line. A justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care act. Doesnt matter who judge barrett is, doesnt matter what shes done, doesnt matter her record, doesnt matter. Sandra here we go on to day two. Weve got todays hearing covered, bret baier, as mentioned, Chris Wallace, that maccallum, but we begin with chief Legal Correspondent shannon bream. Shannon, good morning. Here we go, day two. They want it in the books. 30 minutes of questioning from each of the senators today, thats about 31 hours, take us 11 hours, take us well i
Together. Center for media and democracy has done a little more research. Heres a Bradley Foundation memo that theyve published. The Bradley Foundation is reviewing a Grant Application asking for money for this orchestrated amicus process. And what do they say in this recommendation . Its important to orchestrate, their word, not mine. Important to orchestrate high caliber amicus efforts before the court. They also note that bradley has done previous philanthropic investments in the actual underlying legal actions. So bradley is funding what do they call it, phil anthropically investing in the underlying legal action and then giving money to groups to show up in the orchestrated chorus of anarchy. That cant be good. And it goes on because they also say this email. This email comes from an individual at the Bradley Foundation, and it asks our friend leonard leo who used to run the selection process, is there a 501c3 nonprofit to which bradley could direct any support of the two Supreme
They say constitutional privilege. And as a member of the senate, this is not a question. Im speaking to my colleagues. I find myself in a quandary here about being denied those particular documents because i cannot find any assertion of the privilege. These documents just suddenly appeared and somebody had put constitutional privilege on the page and wiped out all the text that was on the page. And my understanding is that there is ordinarily a process for getting to that determination that allows for ultimately a judicial review. And we have failed to get subpoenas out of the committee for documents, so we cant trigger it that way. And there is no apparent assertion of executive privilege that i can find in the record of how this particular paper got here. So i just wanted to establish some of the basic ground rules of executive privilege with you because i think we agree on that. I think thats basically commonly agreed and put that into the context of what we are looking at and part