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 to understand forces outside of this room who are pulling sticks and pushing causing the public puppet theater to react. First let me say why do i think outside sources are here pulling strings. Part of it is behavior. We have colleagues here who nominee, you, this before there was a nominee. Unusual. Little jobhave the political ram that we have already complained of driving this process through with breakneck speed in the middle of a pandemic while the senate is closed for safety reasons and while we are doing nothing about the epidemic around us. 180se some very awkward from colleagues. Mr. Chairman, you figure in this. Our leader said that when it was garland versus gorsuch that of course the American People should have a say in the courts direction. Of course, of course, said mitch mcconnell. That is long gone. Senator grassley said the American People should not be denied a voice. That is long gone. Senator cruz said, you do not do this in an election year. That is long gone. Made his famous promise, if an opening comes in the last year of President Trumps term, we will wait until the next election. That is gone, too. Of hard to a lot rushin hypocrisy and taking place. My experience around politics is that when you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows. People may say, what does this matter, it is no big deal. There are some high stakes here we have been talking about on our side. I will tell you three of them right here. Wade, over gravelle and obergefell. Ses withu have a Family Member an interest in some autonomy over their body under roe v. Wade, the ability to have a marriage, have friends mary, have a niece or a daughter or a someone of marry, the same sex, they have a say. If you are one of the millions who depend on the Affordable Care act, you have a stake. It is not the platform. Lets Start Talking about the Affordable Care act. Here is the president talking about this litigation gearing up this nominee for november 10. Said, weitigation he want to terminate healthcare under obamacare. That is the president s statement. Not we react to that, do act as if we are making this stuff up. This is what President Trump said. This is what your Party Platform says. Reverse the obamacare cases. Senator after senator including in this Committee Filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care act should be thrown out by courts. Why is it surprising for us to be concerned that you want this nominee to do what you want, nominees to do . A lot of this has to do with money. This is an interesting comparison. Of National Federation independent businesses until it filed the nfib against the case had its biggest donation ever of 21,000 in the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care , 10 wealthy donors gave 10 million. Somebody deserves a thank you. Lets go on to roe v. Wade. Same thing. Same thing. President has said that revolting reversing roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he is putting prolife justices on the core of your why dont we take him at his word . The republican Party Platform says it will reverse roe. Why would we not comment and take you at your word . Senators here have said i will vote only for nominees who would knowledge that roe v. Wade is wrongly decided and they are pledged to vote for this nominee. Do the math. That is a simple equation to run. The republican brief in june medical said roe should be overruled. Wenot act surprised when have questions about whether that is what you are up to. World that in the ad you have spared yourself wisely, the susan b. Anthony foundation is running advertisements right now seeing you are set to give our prolife country the court that it deserves. There is the ad with the voiceover. She is set. She is set. Roe, obamacare cases and obergefell, gay marriage. Samesex that opposes marriage says in this proceeding, all our issues are at stake. The republican platform wants to reverse obergefell. Brief filed in the case said samesex relationships do not fall within any constitutional protection. When we say the stakes are high on this is because you have said the stakes are high. You have said that is what you want to do. How are people going about doing it . What is the scheme, here . Let me start with this one. In all cases, there is big anonymous money behind various lane of activity. One is through the conduit of the federal society. It is managed by a guy named leonard dileo and it has taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know . Because trump has said so over and over again. His white House Counsel said no said so. We have an anonymously funded group run by this guy named leonard leo. We have anonymous funders running through something called the judicious Crisis Network which is run by severino and it foroing pr and campaign ads republican judicial numbering nominees. A 70 million donation in the garlandgorsuch contest. They got another donation to support kavanaugh. Perhaps the same person spent 35 million to influence the makeup of the United StatesSupreme Court. Tell me that is good. An array ofou have groups funded by dark money that have a different role. They bring cases to the court. They do not wind their way to the court, they get shoved to the court by legal groups many of which get quickly to the court to get their Business Done there. In anen they turn up orchestrated chorus. I have had a chance to have a look at this and i was in a case. The Consumer Financial protection board case and in 3, 4,ase there were 1, 2, 5, 6 11 filed in every single one of them worse was a group fired followed by something called donors trusta. It is an identity scrubbing for the right wing. Business, itave a does not have a business plan. It does not do anything. It is does an identity scrubber. This group, the Bradley Foundation, funded 8 out of the 11 briefs. That seems weird when you have amicus briefs coming in little motel is funded by the same groups but nominally separate in the court. Actually attached is to my brief as an appendix. The center for media democracy saw it and did better work. Whichent on to say foundations funded the brief writers in that case. Here is the Bradley Foundation for 5. 6 million to those groups. Here is donors trust, 23 million to those brief writing groups. The grand total across all the groups was 68 million. The groups filing amicus briefs pretending they were different groups. It is not just in the Consumer Financial protection board case. Might say, that was his that was just a one off. They had a long trail through the court through other decisions. Did some work about this. Here is donors trust and Donors Capital Fund and here is the Bradley Foundation. They total giving 45 million to four, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 groups. Both of the lawyers in the case. Funded by donors trust, funded by Bradley Foundation and janice. This is happening over and over again. The briefs. Nd just it goes beyond just the amicus presentations. The Federalist Society, do you are never this group acting as a conduit and donald trump doing his usual selection judicial selection . Theyre getting money from the same foundation. 16. 7 million. From the Bradley Foundation, 1. 37 million. From the same group of foundations total, 33 million. So you can start to look at to tiend you can start them together. , all of theoups same funders over and over again bringing the cases and providing this orchestrated chorus. Fundshe same group also the Federalist Society over here. The Washington Post wrote an apose that made leonard leo little hot. He had to do anonymously funded suppression work. Guess who jumped in to take over the Selection Process in this case . Severino made the half. Once again, it ties right in together made the hop. The center for democracy made more research. Here is a memo they published. Is Bradley Foundation reviewing a Grant Application asking for money for this orchestrated amicus process. What did they say in the recommendation . It is important to orchestrate, their word, not mine, and to hestrate highcaliber important to orchestrate highcaliber amicus. Through previous philanthropic investment in the actual underlying investments. ,radley is funding philanthropic lien investing in, the underlying legal action and lingering money to groups to show up in the orchestrated amicu. Of thank you that cannot be good. It goes on. He also found this emailed. Ans email comes from individual at the Bradley Foundation and it asks our aiend leonard leo, is there 501 c 3 nonprofit through which riley could direct any support of the two Supreme Court amicus projects other than the trust . . Why they wanted to avoid the reliable donors trust i dont know why, they wanted to avoid the reliable donors trust, but they did. On his address he writes back, yes, send it to the judicial education project which can allocate the money. Guess who works for the judicial education project . Kerry severino who also helped select this nominee running the trunk federal society Selection Process trump. Abound. Ections in the Washington Post article, they point out that the judicial Crisis Networks is on the same hallway and same building of the Federalist Society and when they send their reporter to talk to somebody at the Crisis Network, someone from the federal society came down to let them up. This more and like it is not this more and more looks like it is not threes games, but the same schemes with the same judges,selecting funding campaigns and showing up in court in these orchestrated flotilla was to tell the judges what to do. On the judicial Crisis Network, you have the leonard leo connection. She hopped in to take care for the society. You have a campaign i talked about where they take 70 million contributions. That is a big check to write, 17 million to campaign for Supreme Court nominees. No idea who that is or what they got for it. You have briefs that she wrote. The republican senators filed briefs in that case signed by ms. Severino. The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for republican senators. Do not say the aca is not an issue. The Crisis Network funds the republican attorneys general association and individual attorneys general. Guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care act case . Republican attorneys general. Trump joined them because he did not want to defend so he is in with the republican attorneys general. Here is the Crisis Networks campaigning for the nominee, writing briefs for senators against the affordable supporting republicans who are and leadings case the Selection Process for this nominee. Here is where they are. Mitch mcconnell, senator collins, senator cornyn, senator holden, who is still here . Rubio, a huge assortment whoepublican senators severino wrote a brief for against the Affordable Care act. This is a pretty big deal of your i have never seen this this is a pretty big deal. Much dark money and this much influence being used. Here is how the Washington Post sums it up. This is a conservative activist behind a campaign to remake the nations courts and it is a 250 million dark money operation. Of moneyion is a lot to spend if you are not getting anything for it. That raises the question, what are they getting . Well, i showed the slide earlier on the Affordable Care act and on obergefell and on roe v. Wade. That is where they lost. But with another judge, that could change. That is where the contest is. That is where the republican Party Platform tells us to look at how they want judges to rule to reverse roe, the obamacare cases, and to reverse obergefell and take away gay marriage. That is their stated objective and plan. Why not take them at their word . There is another piece of it. And that is, not as what ahead of us, what is behind us not is what is ahead of us, but what is behind us. What is behind us is now 80 cases, mr. Chairman, 80 cases under chief Justice Roberts that have these characteristics. One, they were decided 54 by a bare majority. Two, the 54 majority was partisan in the sense that not one democratic appointee joined the five. I refer to that group as the roberts five. There has been a steady roberts five that has delivered now 80 of these decisions. The last characteristic is that there is an identifiable republican donor interest in those cases and in every single case that donor interest won. It was an 800, 54 partisan route, ransacking. And it is important to look at where those cases went because they are not about big public issues like getting rid of the Affordable Care act, undoing roe v. Wade and undoing samesex marriage. They are about power. If you look at those decisions, they fall into four categories over and over again. Unlimited and dark money in politics. Citizens united is the famous one, but its continued stance with mccutcheon and we have one coming up now. Money in politics, never protecting against dark money in politics despite the fact that they said it would be transparent. And who wins when you allow unlimited dark money in politics . A very small group. The ones who have Unlimited Money to spend and a motive to spend it in politics. They win, everyone else loses. If you are looking at who might be behind this, lets talk about people with Unlimited Money to spend and a motive to do it. We will see how that goes. Knock the civil jury down. It is in the constitution, in the bill of rights, in our declaration of independence. But it is annoying to big Corporate Powers. Because you can swagger your way as a big Corporate Power through congress, you can tell the president you put money into to allege what to do, he will put your stooges of the epa, it is all great. Until you get to the civil jury. They have an obligation as you know, judge merrick. I have an obligation to be fair to both parties irrespective of their size. You cannot bribe them. It is a crime to tamper with a jury. It is Standard Practice to tamper with congress. They make decisions based on the law. If you are used to being the boss and swaggering your way around the political side, you dont want to be answerable before a jury. One after another, these 804 decisions have knocked down the civil jury, a Great American institution. The first was unlimited dark money, the second was demean and diminish the civil jury, third was weaken regulatory agencies. A lot of this money i am convinced is colder money polluter money. Polluter. Ndustry is a the fossil fuel industry is a polluter. Who else would be putting buckets of money into this . If you are a big polluter, what do you want . You want weak regulatory agencies, ones that you can boxed up and run to congress and get your friends to fix things for you in congress. Over and over and over again, these decisions are targeted at regulatory agencies to weaken their independence and weaken their strength and if you are a big polluter and a weak Regulatory Agency is a good idea of a good day. The last thing is politics and voting. Why on earth the court made the decision, a factual decision, not something courts are ordinarily supposed to make, as i understand it, judge barrett. The factual decision that Nobody Needed to worry about minority voters in states being disconnected against or that legislators would try to knockback their ability to vote. These five made that finding in