administration, not only conducted by white house officials but allies of this white house want to know who anonymous is. >> how much weight is the white house taking these. you say they're printing them out and basically showing them to him. >> reporter: my understanding is that, yes, he is, remember, this is a president who likes to have cabinet meetings where he goes around the room and cabinet officials and secretaries praise him for the work he's doing. this is very much in line and character with that. i will tell you, anderson, talking to sources close to this white house, i talked to one source earlier today raising questions about the strength of some of these statements coming from some of these cabinet officials. i think there is, in sort of the same way they were going through that "new york times" op-ed searching for clues whether this person or that person wrote this in "the new york times." there are allies of the president going through these cabinet officials wondering if they're loyal enough and gives you an idea how intense these are inside the white house and oval office. >> appreciate it. with me is senator richard blumenthal member of the senate judiciary committee. do you think the senior administration who wrote this should come forward? >> i think he should come forward or she, because there's an obligation to tell the american people even more about the reasons that this official has such deep-seated and frankly alarming views of the chaotic out of control potentially demagogic state of our presidency. it's an imperial presidency that seems to be off the rails and has all the more relevance in the midst of the confirmation hearing we're having on a nominee who seemingly would provide no check on this presidency and provides no assurance he would maintain the independence of the judiciary. >> if this person does not come forward, is it possible that whatever their motive is, that it has the reverse impact, that essentially this confirms for president trump, for some of his supporters, that there is something of a deep state, there are -- is this bureaucracy which is actively working to thwart some of his efforts? >> there's no predicting what donald trump's base may think about this official who say there's a two-track presidency, but the simple fact of the matter is that we are in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis, with the president, and unindicted co-conspirator. never before has the president been an unindicted co-conspirator under these circumstances in fact nominating a justice to the supreme court, who may sit on his case, and give him a pass if he is an indicted co-conspirator or otherwise subject to judicial process like a subpoena to testify before the grand jury. whatever the effect on the base,it may simply further divide the country if this official fails to come forward and give more facts, not just the rhetoric, a lot of it that we see in this op-ed. >> mark meadows, republican congressman, obviously a key ally of the president are looking into whether this is something they could investigate. should it be investigated with congressional resources? >> there is a need for congress to investigate much more aggressively so much of the law breaking and wrongdoing, the culture of corruption in this administration. the only way it's going to happen is for the congress to change. that's going to be the game changer for this administration. impose some democratic and constitutional discipline. >> your colleague senator elizabeth warren said if senior administration officials don't feel the president can do his job, they should invoke the 25th amendment. they said there were whispers about that early on. do you agree with that? >> invoking the 25th amendment requires a high bar to be met, in terms of the facts. in fact, a president physically or mentally unable to do the job, and it has to be done by the vice president and a majority of the cabinet. that's a decision that increasingly is on the minds of people not only in the administration but also many of us here in congress. it would have to be initiated by the vice president or others in the administration. >> cory booker asked judge kavanaugh at the hearings you're a big part of if he would recuse himself from issues involving the president. is that something you think he should actually do. my sense is you do think that and if you do, why should he? isn't every judicial nominee is nominated by the president and they're not asked to recuse themselves from something about the person that nominated them. >> i asked brett kavanaugh very directly yesterday afternoon whether he would recuse himself. i believe very strongly that he must do so. he must commit in this confirmation hearing that he would take himself out of any consideration of any issue involving the president's personal criminal or civil liability. remember, that i and 199 of my colleagues in a lawsuit i've led have sued the president of the united states for his violation of the emoluments cause, the chief anti-corruption of the constitution and that will reach the supreme court and the president is an unindicted co-conspirator. the likelihood is as we stand here now, that the president could well be an indicted co-conspirator. not just an unindicted co-conspirator, or that he could be subpoenaed to testify and resist it or to testify in a criminal proceeding against one of his friends or cronies or officials in his government. >> you're saying kavanaugh is too much under the president's thumb just because he was nominated by the president? >> not only because he was nominated by this president, an unindicted co-conspirator, because he has utterly failed to give us any assurance he would defend the independence of the judiciary. he failed to defend justice ruth bader ginsberg against attacks by this president and failed to go so far as neil gorsuch did in saying the president's attacks on the judiciary are demoralizing and disheartening. he failed to establish that judicial independence. he has the right rhetoric, would be defended in practice, in real terms with real backbone, and that is the reason -- or one of them that i am committed to vote against him. >> appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. joining us, gloria borger, john dean and carl bernstein as well. i don't know if surreal is the word we're in this situation where you have all these senior officials coming forward and making statements to the president and then being read closely by the white house. >> it's a little kind of dare leaderish. the stunning notion to me, it's not just senior administration officials, it is the vice president of the united states, saying, i didn't say that the president is a national security risk. it is people who are running the intelligence community who felt the need, the director of the fbi, who felt the need go out there and say, i didn't say that the president was a national security risk. i mean, there is something so surreal, is the word about this, that this notion as these statements come in, somehow they're being delivered, hand-delivered to the president who is reading them, that's good, okay, fine, i know pence didn't do it. let's go to the next one. the question is i would ask is, why believe any of them. i think jim acosta pointed that out. what good does it do? what does it matter in many ways? >> does this focus on who it is and the search for it, does it take away the message this person was trying to get across? >> absolutely. this could easily be a public relations ploy. this white house fully understands if you spend a lot of times trying to kill the messenger, you can kill the message. we have to keep our focus on what's in the contents of that piece as well as in that search. >> if the white house is focusing on the search to distract from what the actual person was saying? >> i do. i think they're smart enough to do that and very good on these kind of issues and know how to distract and throw dust in our eyes? don't you think trump also want to know that? >> of course he wants to know. we don't need to become obsessed with the search. >> i agree. >> we need to focus what the country is concerned about. >> do you agree the white house is trying to essentially change the conversation? >> very much so. as soon as david said it, it clicked, right on. this whole white house operation has mastered the art of deflecting attention. they do it consistently and do it very well. >> is it possible it actually plays into the president's hands and the notion he's surrounded by people who are trying to thwart his will, his agenda? >> it does, or it can, because indeed, one of his themes and those of people around him, think there is a deep state conspiracy against president trump an that theme is being repeated because of this letter in "the new york times," this piece in "the new york times." what's really going on here is that bob woodward's book, and the contents of what is in the anonymous piece in "the new york times," those closest to the president of the united states are saying, we must save the country from the president of the united states. incidentally, people, republicans in congress, this is no surprise to them. they have heard this from people around the president of the united states. mitch mcconnell knows this kind of attitude about the danger posed by the president has been expressed to mitch mcconnell by people around the president. the same with paul ryan. what we need here are, finally, i think, some hearings on -- congressional hearings, in which an executive session or open session, those around the president of the united states are questioned about the fitness of donald trump to be the president of the united states. that's what's at stake here. what we are talking about is a portrait by numerous people. in bob woodward's book, i've read the whole book, you see it so convincingly, in scene after scene after scene. >> carl, why would anybody tell the truth in front of a -- >> pardon me? >> why would anybody tell the truth if that is in fact what their opinion is, given all these people have made statements saying, it wasn't me, it wasn't me. nobody is standing up and saying, oh, yes, i agree with what this anonymous person said. why would it be any different? >> i don't know what would happen. it's important. if you have bipartisan hearings, if the democrats were to win the house and you have republicans and democrats calling these people in, and there might be mixed opinions. there might be some gray areas, but it is very important for the leadership in the congress of the united states and the people of the united states to know whether or not donald trump is fit to be president, whether he is stable enough to be president, honest enough to be president, and has the capabilities of being president. that is what we are learning this week. the people closest to him have the gravest doubts. >> there's no expressed appetite of republicans in congress to -- >> have you noticed that? >> -- even talk about this, let alone hold hearings. >> exactly. republicans, as we all know, are whispering about this to each other. there are no profiles in courage up there because donald trump has an 80% or 90% approval rating with his party. the only thing i can see changing this is an election. suddenly, if donald trump becomes as little less scary to republicans, if he loses the house, there will be all kinds of hearings, trust me. if the senate comes close or they lose the senate, then, it's really goes to get bad for donald trump. right now, these republicans -- and you heard bob corker say it today, a senator from tennessee who is leaving. why is anybody surprised about this? we heard this stuff about donald trump. nobody is going to do anything about it because they're looking out for themselves. i know that's shocking. >> we will take a quick break and continue this discussion when we come back. breaking news, senator blumenthal alluded to it a moment ago the kavanaugh hearings and whether the nominee will recuse himself as to the president. senator cory booker will talk about what went on. you're in the business of helping people. we're in the business of helping you. business funding to help make a difference. another way we have your back. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. now t-mobile has unlimited for the rest of us unlimited ways to be you. unlimited ways to share with others. unlimited ways to live for the moment all for as low as 30 bucks a line unlimited for you for them for all right now, get unlimited for as low at 30 bucks per line for four lines at t-mobile chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken! we talked a bit before the break about letting the risk of the search overshadow what the person wrote. here's some of what this administration official wrote. the root of the problem is the president's amorality. anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles. meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails and he engages in decisions that have to be walked back. there were early whispers of the cabinet invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president. no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis so we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another, it's over. you have senator rand paul talk about polygraphing people in the administration and polygraphs not admissible in court and not that necessarily reliable. is there a danger how much this consumes the administration and it starts to eat itself. >> absolutely. the polygraph would be an awful idea. i remember when president reagan was very upset with all the leaks and said he had leaks up to his keister and started carrying on and started talking about polygraphs and dave schultz said the day you do that i walk out the door. you can't do that to people. and he killed it. we never went forward with it. >> i believe they work. it was my word against the acting fbi director. i went and took a polygraph, i passed it. we wanted pat gray to take one, two days later he left office. >> would you support polygraphing everybody? >> yeah. >> i think asking people to take a polygraph, it's -- it suggests a level of distrust above what we're seeing now. >> how many people will you polygraph? there are a lot of people in the realm of senior administration officials, and the amount of time -- >> not enough machines to do it on a mass scale. >> what about the irony of polygraphing people in the trump administration, where the president of the united states himself -- >> happens to be -- >> happens to be somebody who has problems telling the truth. >> exactly. >> it would be the most ironic thing that would ever occur, this president of all people would -- would ask his own people to take polygraphs. >> i do think there's a very good chance whoever wrote the anonymous piece has already put out a statement of denial. >> carl, i -- i've been rereading this polish journalist who wrote this famous book and i know this is a weird tangent but i'm reminded of it again. >> happy to talk about him. >> the way they were devour itself and having these competing groups playing off and fearful of one another, it makes me feel like reading what this person said, just the intrigue in this white house is stunning. >> that is what bob woodward's book is about. and, again, what was written in "the new york times," it is about a president who is unhinged. and what we are watching in the president's response to trying to find this one person is an unhinged president looking for someone when in fact he ought to be doing the business of being the president of the united states. to gloria's point, what comes through in bob woodward's book and what comes through in witness after witness after witness is donald trump's lying. the lying being what undoes him, and the reason those closest to him have concluded he cannot be fit to be the president because of the lying. his own lawyer, the last line in bob woodward's book is, trump had one overriding problem that the lawyer, dowd, knew, but could not bring himself to say to the president, you are an f'g liar. that is what suffuses everything we are learning about the honorable supposedly people who serve him. they can't take the lying. no country can survive a president who lies like this. that's what this is about. >> so what do you do then? give the lying president a polygraph, if everybody else -- >> that goes to the question of the fitness -- this is all about the fitness of the president of the united states to be president. if the democrats take the house, perhaps there is a way to have truly bipartisan hearings with republicans as full participants, in which the fitness of the president and what these people are saying to bob woodward, these same people who are named incidentally, should come in and testify, and give their feelings about whether or not donald trump is fit to be the president of the united states. that's the issue. >> i think that those that are calling for the 25th amendment and invoking the 25th amendment is premature. >> too quick. >> we're in a gray area right now in which there are a lot of allegations but we really don't have this pinned down. what is needed -- i don't think anything will happen before the mid-terms. but after the mid-terms there needs to be some sort of mechanism exploring this question, whether open hearings or closed hearings. >> truth and reconciliation? >> i think something -- and the republican party leadership bears responsibility here. if they know and let this go on, the republican party is culpable on this and it could destroy the party if they're not careful. >> what is the tipping point? >> i don't think there is a tipping point. i think there's an exploration more serious than anything we've done. >> the tipping point would be their own self-interest at a certain point. >> politics. >> it's called politics. they're not going to do it on their own. they would have done it already. >> you can only tip over so many times, it's tipped and spilled out. >> i agree. there has to be some way to move beyond -- you can't throw a president out based on a book by bob woodward, as much as i admire bob, i think he's wonderful, we're talking about a need for the country to reach a consensus. >> it's also important to remember, john, what this writer is saying is it's not just what this writer thinks, this writer is alleging there is a whole sea of people within the administration aware of this. >> that believes he's amoral and off the rails, that he really is somebody -- he is not a leader -- >> it is fascinating how the writer used phrases that mike pence used, lodestar, off the rails, a phrase john kelly allegedly used in the woodward book. obviously, if there's a reason for that -- >> a little camouflage. >> i want to thank everybody, still. a lot to get to tonight, certainly what's become a washington obsession, who's behind that op-ed and whether it's obscuring the actual message what that person said. also tonight, we remember true hollywood star, burt reynolds and his films including "smokey and the bandit" and so many more. the all-new lexus es... ...is stolen. hijacked from dreams. pulled from decades of obsession. taken from the souls of artists. we confess. we stole everything we could. from everything we've ever mastered. and put it here. the all-new lexus es. every curve. every innovation. every feeling. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. advil liqui-gels minis. breakthrough in pain relief. a mighty small pill with concentrated power that works at liquid speed. you'll ask... what pain? advil liqui-gels minis. you never listen to your dad when you're a teenager. my dad- he always gave me two pieces of advice. one was to always be humble. and the second was to always do the right thing. now that i'm the new ceo of uber, i've taken that advice to heart. and i'm using that advice to change our company. moving forward, we're taking into consideration what's good for our driver partners, our riders, and the cities that we operate in. and it's going to make us a much, much better service. my ci can worry about it,ine. or do something about it. garlique® helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally. and it's odor free. and pharmacist recommended. garlique.® as we said earlier, top white house officials denying they wrote that notorious op-ed. here's that list again with officials denying they wrote it. and bob corker, gloria borger mentioned a while ago not that much about who did it but the perception when you get down to it, it could have been almost anybody. >> i think a lot's been made out of nothing. the biggest issue they will have is figuring out who wouldn't have written a letter like that. >> who wouldn't have written a letter like that. quite a question there from the republican senator. >> "360's" randi kaye has more on the guessing game. >> reporter: three little words. >> they're saying senior administration official. >> reporter: have set off a collective game of clue across the country. >> is it a trump appointee? is he in the white house? >> reporter: calling all amateur sleuths. >> there are plenty of suspects. did you have other guests? >> there are good people in the administration, like dan coats, somebody who, you know, realizes the horror of what happened in helsinki, and people like general mattis. we won't know. i don't know when we will find out who anonymous is. >> reporter: when or if. one former speechwriter for president bill clinton thinks anonymous could be a speechwriter, too. >> it reads like a speechwriter and a lot of alliteration, words starting the same way. >> reporter: like this. it may be cold comfort in this chaotic era. others are speculating it's the president's chief of staff. >> an unnamed senior administration official. >> kelly would be high on my list. >> reporter: general john kelly has a military background and the buzzword lodestar, used in the op-ed is a military term. >> sounds like a military term to me. >> reporter: others are quick to point out lodestar is a word mike pence likes to use. >> vigilance and resolve will be our lodestar. be our lodestar. with vigilance and resolve as our lodestar. >> it's too obvious to say lodestar when you're pence. you've used it a million times. >> if you want to be conspiratorial, it's even possible someone wrote it knowing that the word "lodestar" was a favorite word of vice president pence and wanted to either cast suspicion on the vice president or wanted to distract attention from themselves. >> reporter: the guessing game moved into hyper drive with names such as white house counsel, don mcgahn. cia director, gina haspel and even george conway, married to kellyanne conway and often trolls trump on twitter. >> it's not clear to us anyway it's somebody in the white house. >> he may be a guy inside the white house. he may be upper level, lower level, maybe he's in the old executive office building. >> reporter: the 538th, nate silver makes a living with predictions zeroed in on anti-trade, tweeting it made him wonder if it's someone in treasury or highly concerned with economic policy. whoever anonymous is, it's a whodunit tailor-made for tv. >> i'm surprised by how good a writer ivanka is. >> reporter: randi kaye, cnn, new york. >> with me now is cnn chief political correspondent, dana brash and douglas brinkley, saw in randi's report. you've been talking to sources, what's going on behind the scenes? >> it really is still an explosion of anger. what we saw in the initial outburst yesterday we saw in public when the president came out and talked about all the great things his administration has done, has become a little bit less so according to people i'm talking to who are speaking to those in and around the president, and more kind of a -- i wouldn't say shoulder shrug but more of a hope that this is like so many other big explosions in the media that make the president look bad and ends up being sort of overtaken by something else that happens in the world and maybe something else that the president is doing. he knows how to try to distract. this does seem different but we have seen that before. there actually is more than i thought there would be, anderson, even from people who might at least on some level agree with the substance of what was written, some feeling that this is just wrong. you heard it from democrats as well, believe it or not, this is wrong to do it this way, do it anonymously, come out in way that looks heroic but more and more people i talk to said it's more of a cowardice way. >> you heard from senator blumenthal that this person should come forward because there's more this person knows and should tell the country about. it comes on the heels of bob woodward's book that describes staffers thwarting the president, while the white house has denied the account, the op-ed suggests they trust him less. as a presidential historian, is there anything else to compare this to? >> first off, anonymous has half a spine, to do this, brave to do this in "the new york times" and not to put your name forward. it's only been a day or two and see if somebody comes forward and owns up to. it may be a cabal working within the administration. everybody thinks of this strange and twisted times, brings you back to richard nixon. we spent a lot of time talking about him on cnn. it does remind me of nixon in 1974, when nixon was unraveling in watergate and henry kissinger would come in and nixon would bark an order and people wouldn't follow his major directives because they thought the president was a bit out to lunch or drinking or having stress. i think that's what we're having now. a lot of people are concerned about the mental health of donald trump. nobody doubts he can do a great rally. nobody doubts he's a genius at media. the question with the 25th amendment being raised, i think is not going to happen, just being talked about, is he fit for command? and how in the modern world do we judge psychiatric health of a president? these are big questions. but also anonymous, you mentioned the joe clyde book in the clinton years and i mentioned during harry truman's year, george kennan was mr. x for a while, we get these palace intrigues, government washington intrigues for a while but this one is really weird. >> beyond the whodunit, somebody who is close to the trump world, part of trump world but not in the white house say to me earlier today there is genuine concern that what we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg and the question is what's underneath. by that, this person meant what's underneath in terms of the real opposition to the president from within. we know about the resistance outside and that was the point of this op-ed. how deep does that iceberg go within his own administration? >> if this person is to be believed who wrote this it certainly seems like there are a number of others with whom they're communicating. and look, the reality is we have spoken to a lot of people at various levels across our network and other news organizations who at various times have raised off-the-record concerns. this is a different situation, when you have somebody writing it again, we don't know who that somebody is, we have to trust "the times" it really is senior. >> thanks so much. i want to bring is chris to see what he's working on for "cuomo primetime." >> i like the motive of adding to your conversations. i don't like listening to myself. whodunit, that's candy for us. we love a scoop, want to know who it is. if it's a big shot it matters, if it isn't, it really doesn't except to put a light on "the new york times" decision. however, what have they done opposed to whodunit is a really important speculation. this speculation this feels like the end of something. i think dana is right, only the beginning, a reflection how it's being handle by the president, by all accounts is poorly. we will get into it tonight. what does it mean for the trump white house? what does it mean on the other side of this notion of what's going on in the white house, all done in the shadow of this kavanaugh hearing, who is someone else who could go by the title of anonymous right now because we don't know anything about the guy from these hearings. >> that's true. chris starts in 18 minutes. and the president will be speaking and it will be interesting if he actually talks about this or tries to distract with something else. i'm sure you'll follow up on that. and breaking news tonight talking with new jersey senator cory booker, whether he would recuse himself as to president trump and the mueller investigation make their way to the high court. we'll talk about all the drama ahead. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. a place with 24-hour valet service... and upholstery classes. a place where seniors get the care they need in the comfort of home. home instead senior care. we distributeus, i'm the owner environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet? suffer from a heart attack.s it can happen anywhere, anytime. but during a suspected heart attack, immediately calling 911 and chewing bayer aspirin can help save a life. carry bayer aspirin. help save a life. in 2011, california passed a law requiring carbon monoxide alarms in single-fami... (beeping) ...in single-family homes. that was seven years ago. (beeping) carbon monoxide alarms... (beeping) (annoyed sigh) ...typically last (beeping) seven to ten years. which means california's about to start hearing a lot of this... (silence) but you can beat the b... (beeping) huh-huh. by getting a new kidde carbon monoxide alarm now. beat the beep by going to your local walmart to find the kidde solution that's right for you. (beeping) huh. this breaking news on day three of senate hearings in court, new jersey senator cory booker pushed judge kavanaugh whether he would recuse himself if any case about trump came before the high court. and whether booker would risk expulsion from the senate as to e-mails he sent out as committee confidential. >> i knowingly violated the rules that were put forth and i'm told that the committee confidential rules have knowing consequences. so, sir, i come from a long line, as all of us do as americans and understand what that kind of civil disobedience is. i understand the consequences. i am right now before your process is finished, i will release the e-mail about racial profiling. i understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate. if senator cornyn believes i have violated senate rules i openly invite and accept the consequences of my team releasing that e-mail right now. >> republicans pushed back later and said he and his staff had already been informed those documents could be released. i spoke with senator booker just before the broadcast. senator booker, you just finished your second round of questioning of judge kavanaugh and asked if he would recuse himself in any case with president trump? why should he recuse himself? should all candidates recuse themselves from those that nominated him? >> no. this candidate has a long shadow over him. from the president's federalist list that he wasn't originally on until the mueller investigation started. and then, he appeared on the list. and he's the only person who has spoken on multiple occasions, written about, on one hand raised his hand about the issue of can a president be investigated, can a president be indicted. it is clear the signal was sent whether intentionally or not, i'm a person who believes a president shouldn't be investigated or indicted, that's a long shadow hanging over a person who's being nominated by a president who asks for loyalty tests and literally said i wouldn't have appointed the attorney general if i had known he would have recused himself. there's such a shadow that would undermind the liggettcy of what he has to do. of the decisionmaking, he would step out of the process and eight justices to recuse himself. >> you call the process a sham. do you think kavanaugh has been honest in his testimony? >> i guess the issue for me, the document release they've been work represents only about 10% of the totality of his documents. in the little we got called committee confidential i continue tweeting out today against that sham rule there are a lot of nuggets there worthy of asking this candidate. >> this morning you said you would break senate rules to kavanaugh and said you were willing to risk expulsion to do that and now the republicans said the documents had been approved to be released this morning and accusing you of a political stunt to bolster a run for the president. was it a stunt? >> the amusing thing about that is what cornyn first said, he threatened me with expulsion. he was doing that because last night i broke the senate rules by reading from that e-mail. and then today throughout the entire day, this is not just about one e-mail, i've already released over 20 committee confidential documents in violation of what they say are the senate rules in which cornyn said i should be expelled for. so according to cornyn's rules, it's a lot of talk, a lot of bluster right now. i am breaking the rules. but i was raised and taught that an unjust law, you almost have an obligation to stand against it. so i am violating those laws. i have been doing all day, and it was an unjust law. you see there's no consequence. they will not move to expel me from the senate for violating the committee confidential rules and i will continue to do so because i believe the public has the right to know where he stands on these issues. >> was it a violation? >> bill burke said he cleared the documents before 4:00 a.m. per your staff's request and that they had told you you could use them publicly. grassley's office also confirmed you were told that the restrictions on the documents had been waived before you spoke today. so how do you square that with the idea that -- with what you've said? >> well, i square that very easily. number one, last night i broke the rules before they -- then they scrambled to release the document. but i continue to release documents. i've released 20 so far that they have not cleared. i am breaking the rules. i am breaking the sham rules. 20 documents if you check my twitter feed. anybody in the public now can have access to the ones they wanted to hide. they haven't cleared those yet. maybe they're rushing to catch up to me and clear those as well. >> today, though, earlier had those been cleared and did you know those had been cleared? >> again, when i broke the committee rules last night, those documents had not been cleared. >> at the end of the day, do you have any reason to believe that kavanaugh is not going to get the votes for confirmation? >> um, i don't. but, again, what my duty is, is to try to properly vet this candidate so that i can give advice and consent. it's written in the constitution. and to properly vet somebody, you should have the fullness of their record. for some reason, the fullness of their record is being hidden from the american public. we only have about 10% of these documents. 90% of his résume is being hidden. i pushed documents out about a lot of different things today against the rules of the senate -- against the rules, excuse me, of the committee. that's just the tip of the iceberg. that's just a drop in the bucket of the totality of the documents out there that they've been hiding. >> appreciate your time. quick reminder, don't miss full circle on facebook. you get to pick some of the story we cover. join us at 6:25 p.m. eastern. if you haven't seen the show, it's a lot of fun. one of america's most recognizable, beloved movie stars has died. coming up, the life and career of the one of a kind burt reynolds. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. sally field today honored the man who once called her the love of -- she called the love of her life. burt reynolds died today at age 82. he was for anyone my age iconic as was his romance with sally field, who told "people" magazine there are times in your life that are so indelible, they never fade away. here's why. >> you've got a great profile. >> yeah, i do, don't i? especially from the side. >> burt reynolds knew what he had. he also knew that you knew. yet he never seemed to take it all too seriously because he also knew that he and we were all just along for the ride. ♪ the kind of ride in the kind of car in the kind of movie that for 96 minutes in 1977 made us forget those very troubled times and ignore one big sign of them. the one that says speed limit, 55. "smokey and the bandit" made more than a quarter billion dollars at the box office and made a black trans am the car to have. it made burt reynolds an icon. he had already been a star for years. >> we get connected up with that body and the law, this thing is going to be hanging over us the rest of our lives. >> the 1972 film "deliverance" transported him from journeyman actor to leading man and scared us all to death along the way. two years later in "the longest yard" he played the football player he'd been in real life until injury led him to acting. he'd return to the game and fun and games in "semi-tough," perfecting the persona that would make smokey catch fire and "cannonball run" and "smokey 2" into the 80s. >> jack horner, filmmaker. >> he faded, then came back big in "boogie nights" and a string of other smaller parts that showed off his range and one critics over. but at the end of the day, at the end of a career few could even hope for and the end of it all, he'll always be remembered for the kind of easy charm we all wish we had. >> don't you ever take that hat off for anything? >> sure. i take it off for one thing and one thing only. >> oh. if we were lost on a desert island together -- >> yes? >> -- do you think we'd get along and talk and things? [ laughter ] >> sure. yeah, we'd get along. it would never be boring, i can tell you that. it would never be boring. >> take your hat off.