Transcripts For CNNW Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer 201809

Youre the situation room. Tonight, a new kind of loyalty test for Trump White House insiders as the president rages over the anonymous op ed that portrays him as an amoral leader endangering the United States of america. More than 20 Top Administration officials are publicly denying that they are the author from the Vice President to cabinet members and even the first lady. Were also monitoring the confirmation hearing for the president S Supreme Court nominee. Democrats pressing their concerns about judge Brett Kavanaugh and battling with republicans over the release of documents. Ill speak with senator herono. Shes a democrat on the committee. First, lets go to our chief White House Correspondent jim acosta. The president is heading to montana where you are getting ready for the rally. That op ed is definitely on his mind. Reporter thats right. Well see if the president talks about that New York Times op ed later on this evening. He did not talk about it on his way out of the white house earlier today. But we do know the white house has struggled all day long to contain the fallout of this op ed written by someone who describes themselves as a Senior Administration official. We do know multiple white house officials and allies outside the white house have been its become a washington who done it as a Senior Administration official anonymously wrote a scathing op ed in the New York Times claiming to be part of an internal white house resistance, out to stop the president from damaging the nation. So far more than a dozen top officials, a whos who from the Vice President to cabinet secretaries all released statements to say not it. I think its a disgrace. The anonymous editorial published in the New York Times represents a new low in american journalism. I think the New York Times should be ashamed and whoever wrote this should be ashamed as well. Even the daughter of John Huntsman said it wasnt her father. Full disclosure, my dad works for the administration. Did you write it . I did not and my dad did not as far as i know. Reporter Sarah Sanders tweeted out a statement calling for the speculation over anonymous to stop as she lashed out at the New York Times posting the papers phone number. Nancy pelosi said she thought it was Vice President pence. The Vice President that was my first thought. By process of elimination it will come down to the butler. Reporter officials inside the administration have been carefully reading the op ed for clues. The author suggests there may be more than one resister in the ranks writing the president s appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our Democratic Institutions while thwarting mr. Trumps misguided impulses until hes out of office. And its been noted that mike pence frequently uses the word lodestar which is in the piece. Our lodestar. Anonymous meaning gutless. Reporter the president is clearly furious over anonymous, once again using the episode to bash the media. When you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration whos probably failing and the New York Times is failing. If i werent here, i believe the New York Times probably wouldnt even exist. Reporter as for solving the mystery of anonymous, the white house has one big problem. There is a lengthy list of potential suspects. Theyre saying Senior Administration official. That could be many people. There are i think thousands of political appointees, hundreds of folks who would qualify under that title alone. Reporter one Administration Official told me that the white house wanted a coordinated response to all of this earlier in the day but did not get one as multiple cabinet secretaries were releasing their own statements throughout the day. As one official put it, it didnt seem very organized. But this is not the first time weve seen this disarray this week. We saw it earlier this week when the white house was caught flatfooted trying to coordinate a response to the bob woodward book. But the president has talked extensively about how much he hates anonymous leakers. This one might be the biggest one of them all. Jim acosta in billings, montana, where the president will be speaking at a political rally later tonight. Lets talk more about how the Trump Administration sb handle g i is handling this op ed bombshell. I was told by an Administration Official that the president was watching all of these come in. In fact, he was being handed printouts of them as they were coming in, keeping score of who was giving a denial. Weve seen this time and time again with the president. He really love es a strongly worded denial. We heard him say it earlier this week in response to the bob woodward book. He called the denial from defense secretary james mattis a beautiful statement. I am noetold the president is watching all of these come in and hes keeping track. All of these denials were pretty swift this morning, i would say. The Vice President was first out there. His spokesperson said this would be an amateurish act. We wouldnt do this. Mike pompeo traveling across the world, he said this was not me. The director of National Intelligence said it wasnt us. The question here inside the white house still, if it wasnt these top officials, who was it . Also important to keep in mind, back in watergate, mark felt denied he was not deep throat. Who knows if these denials are accurate or not . Excellent point indeed. Is the white house more focused on finding this individual, the socalled witch hunt thats underway right now or the substance of the points this person was making . Thats a good question. Weve heard very little discussion about the actual substance of the matter. What truly is an overriding theme between the woodward book and this, the fact that there are officials in the government trying to protect the country from the president. Very little soul searching i can see. They are trying to find out who is trying to take the president down, but not trying to look at actually what appears to be the root of all of this. We tried to ask the president this earlier this afternoon. Not in the mood to talk. This is not a selfreflective person necessarily. He thinks things are going just fine. Watch for him tonight at the rally. Almost certainly hell Say Something. It will be very, very lively. Now to the battle over the president s second u. S. Supreme court pick Brett Kavanaugh. Weve seen new fireworks in the confirmation hearing. Jessica, whats the latest . Reporter today the big flash point a point was over documents. Cory booker said he was ready to risk expulsion by exposing confidential emails. The republicans said it was all a big show. They said they released those emails at 5 00 a. M. But tonight that is still a detail that cory booker is disputing. Bring the charges. Im going to release the email about racial profiling. I understand that the penalty comes with potential ourselfiou from the senate. Reporter but republicans called the move a political stunt, saying the documents in question had been cleared for release hours before the hearing, calling out those across the aisle. Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we are privy too. Reporter one of the newly released confidential documents disclosed by democrats, this 2003 email from Brett Kavanaugh when he was working in the george w. Bush white house. I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to roe as the settled law of the land since court can overrule its precedent. I think it was over stating something about legal scholars. I thought that was not a quite accurate description of all legal scholars. To your broader point, roe v wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. Its been reaffirmed many times. Reporter kavanaugh also faced questions from an exchange from senator kamala harris, also a possible 2020 candidate Late Wednesday night. Have you discussed mueller or his investigation with anyone at the law firm founded by President Trumps personal lawyer . I need to know im not sure i know everyone who works at that law firm. I dont think you need to. Who did you talk to . I would like to know the person youre thinking of. I think youre thinking of someone and you dont want to tell us. Reporter thursday morning kavanaugh was resolute. I havent had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone. Ive never given anyone any hints, forecasts, previews, winks, nothing about my view as a judge or how i would rule as a judge on that or anything related to that. Reporter kavanaugh made his view clear that whatever the Supreme Court may rule on president ial power, it will be binding. Ive made clear in my writings that a court order that requires a president to do something or prohibits a president from doing something under the constitutional laws of the United States is the final word in our system. Reporter and judge kavanaugh also stressed today that he is not a republican or a democratic judge. Instead saying he is an independent u. S. Judge and will be the same if he is named to the u. S. Supreme court. And the questioning will continue tonight. Four more senators have to ask questions. And then they will go into closed session where judge kavanaugh will face even more grilling behind closed doors. Joining us is senator herono. Thanks so much for joining us. Aloha. Let me begin with the anonymous op ed in the New York Times. Do you believe this unnamed trump Administration Official should come forward publicly . Of course. By the way, the fact that there are a group of them trying to save this country from the worst of the trump impulses, it makes me wonder how bad could it be. Because even overt things such as the 1. 5 trillion tax breaks to the richest people in our country, separating children from their parents at the border, undoing environmental laws, those kinds of things are bad enough. So i would want these people to come forward, because they are not accountable to anybody. Theyre not voted in. Why dont they come forward and tell us whats going on in the white house . We do know its chaotic. We did hear from this anonymous official. Their argument is that theyre trying to protect the American People and protect National Security from the commander in chief himself, and they can only do that if they stay on the job. I think thats really trying to justify how theyre wanting to make sure that certain of his programs get through, such as separating the children at the border, such as these huge tax cuts, such as some of the other things i mentioned. Theyre not even defending the Affordable Care act protections for people with preexisting conditions. Theyre picking and choosing what things they want to protect us from, the president s worst instincts. I shudder to think what else could be coming down the pike but for these unnamed people. I think its time for people to come forward and have us face certain facts about this president. He is unreliable. He lies every single day. This is a serious threat to our democracy. So do you believe the president is unfit for office . Do i want a president who lies every single day and who has the kinds of policies . I think its the lying that bothers me the most. As this unnamed person said, he has no hes amoral. He has no moral compass. That is dangerous for our country, because ive said before that with this president , its all about himself every day every moment. I want to show you all those cabinet members, the Vice President of the United States, truly extraordinary, all of these people have issued public statements denying that they were the one who wrote that article in the New York Times. This is pretty extraordinary whats going on right now. Have you ever seen anything like this before . Of course not. And theyre sending out all their denials and everything else. They are closest to the president. They should know. Obviously theyre not ready to come forward and let the public know and our country know whats going on inside the white house. We have a pretty good idea. Its chaos. Do you believe its time for members of the cabinet to start discussing the 25th amendment to the constitution which could potentially lead to the ouster of the president . Apparently some discussions along those lines had already occurred. Im just saying that the people who should know, socalled adults in the room, they need to step forward and theyre not prepared to do that yet. In that article in the New York Times there was this line, given the instability many witnesses, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president , but they thought it would lead to a constitutional crisis so they backed away. Let me get your thoughts on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the president s nominee for the u. S. Supreme court. Democrats on your committee, the judiciary committee, including yourself, released documents this morning that were said to be committee confidential. But the chairman says those documents had already been cleared, were released earlier overnight. Why did you imply those documents were being suppressed . They were suppressed. This was a perfect example of after the fact trying to cover their the process as laid out by the chairman was we had to clear documents that we intended to use. I did not request that this document be cleared. Theyre trying to say they actually cleared it this morn g morning. I referred to the document last night. The fact of the matter is they dont want to be confronted with the idea of having to expel some of us because they cannot justify why these documents should have been confidential in the first place. Senator, were going to get back to the hearing right now. Speaking of that specific issue, cory booker, democratic senator from new jersey, is asking kavanaugh questions. Lets listen. I cant help but wonder what else he might be holding back. So i understand you stand by your record, but its our job to try to examine that record, the fullness of that record. I just want to ask you some questions perhaps that can illuminate bill burkes role. Judge, have you communicated in any way with bill burke or his team since Justice Kennedys retirement announcement on june 27th, 2018 . I saw him on the saturday after my nomination. I saw him at an event, a social event with a number of people. Did you communicate with him beyond that . No, i have not communicated with him beyond that. Ive somedtayed away from that. Thats an issue for the senate and the bush library. So if you havent communicated directly with him about this process, have any of your intermediaries been in discussions with bill burke or his team since Justice Kennedys retirement announcement on june 27th, 2018 . All i can say is what i know. So to your knowledge, you dont know if your people have been in consultation or coordination with bill burke . When you say people youve been helped to prepare for these hearings, i imagine. You mean white house and Justice Department people . Whoever might be helping you prepare for these hearings. The white house and Justice Department people could speak for themselves about that. Im asking you if the folks preparing you have been communicating with bill burke about these documents, whats being released. Do you have knowledge of that . Do you know if people who have been preparing you have been in contact with bill burke about the documents . I dont know what the process has been. Im not asking about the process. Im asking do you know if the people that have been preparing you have been in touch with bill burke . I dont know the answer to that question. You do not know if the people who have been preparing you have in any way been communicating with bill burke about the documents . You want to identify some specifics . No, sir. Im just asking you that. Yes, sir. I dont know whos ive been staying out of it for obvious reasons. Its not my privilege to assert. Youve never taken a stand regarding the release of the documents with anybody in the white house, the doj or anyone else. This is an issue for the bush library. I understand its an issue. You stated this on the record. Im asking, have you ever taken a stand with anyone from the white house or doj about document release . No. I dont have a position stand on i know you dont have a position. Im asking what has transpired. Right. Im in the position i think Justice Scalia was in when he was being asked about his memos from the office of Legal Counsel and he said thats a decision again, i have a short amount of time. I just want to know what you think, sir and what you know. What i think its an issue for the senate and the bush library. Why dont we move on. Okay. You told Trump White House<\/a> insiders as the president rages over the anonymous op ed that portrays him as an amoral leader endangering the United States<\/a> of america. More than 20 Top Administration<\/a> officials are publicly denying that they are the author from the Vice President<\/a> to cabinet members and even the first lady. Were also monitoring the confirmation hearing for the president S Supreme Court<\/a> nominee. Democrats pressing their concerns about judge Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> and battling with republicans over the release of documents. Ill speak with senator herono. Shes a democrat on the committee. First, lets go to our chief White House Correspondent<\/a> jim acosta. The president is heading to montana where you are getting ready for the rally. That op ed is definitely on his mind. Reporter thats right. Well see if the president talks about that New York Times<\/a> op ed later on this evening. He did not talk about it on his way out of the white house earlier today. But we do know the white house has struggled all day long to contain the fallout of this op ed written by someone who describes themselves as a Senior Administration<\/a> official. We do know multiple white house officials and allies outside the white house have been its become a washington who done it as a Senior Administration<\/a> official anonymously wrote a scathing op ed in the New York Times<\/a> claiming to be part of an internal white house resistance, out to stop the president from damaging the nation. So far more than a dozen top officials, a whos who from the Vice President<\/a> to cabinet secretaries all released statements to say not it. I think its a disgrace. The anonymous editorial published in the New York Times<\/a> represents a new low in american journalism. I think the New York Times<\/a> should be ashamed and whoever wrote this should be ashamed as well. Even the daughter of John Huntsman<\/a> said it wasnt her father. Full disclosure, my dad works for the administration. Did you write it . I did not and my dad did not as far as i know. Reporter Sarah Sanders<\/a> tweeted out a statement calling for the speculation over anonymous to stop as she lashed out at the New York Times<\/a> posting the papers phone number. Nancy pelosi said she thought it was Vice President<\/a> pence. The Vice President<\/a> that was my first thought. By process of elimination it will come down to the butler. Reporter officials inside the administration have been carefully reading the op ed for clues. The author suggests there may be more than one resister in the ranks writing the president s appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our Democratic Institutions<\/a> while thwarting mr. Trumps misguided impulses until hes out of office. And its been noted that mike pence frequently uses the word lodestar which is in the piece. Our lodestar. Anonymous meaning gutless. Reporter the president is clearly furious over anonymous, once again using the episode to bash the media. When you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration whos probably failing and the New York Times<\/a> is failing. If i werent here, i believe the New York Times<\/a> probably wouldnt even exist. Reporter as for solving the mystery of anonymous, the white house has one big problem. There is a lengthy list of potential suspects. Theyre saying Senior Administration<\/a> official. That could be many people. There are i think thousands of political appointees, hundreds of folks who would qualify under that title alone. Reporter one Administration Official<\/a> told me that the white house wanted a coordinated response to all of this earlier in the day but did not get one as multiple cabinet secretaries were releasing their own statements throughout the day. As one official put it, it didnt seem very organized. But this is not the first time weve seen this disarray this week. We saw it earlier this week when the white house was caught flatfooted trying to coordinate a response to the bob woodward book. But the president has talked extensively about how much he hates anonymous leakers. This one might be the biggest one of them all. Jim acosta in billings, montana, where the president will be speaking at a political rally later tonight. Lets talk more about how the Trump Administration<\/a> sb handle g i is handling this op ed bombshell. I was told by an Administration Official<\/a> that the president was watching all of these come in. In fact, he was being handed printouts of them as they were coming in, keeping score of who was giving a denial. Weve seen this time and time again with the president. He really love es a strongly worded denial. We heard him say it earlier this week in response to the bob woodward book. He called the denial from defense secretary james mattis a beautiful statement. I am noetold the president is watching all of these come in and hes keeping track. All of these denials were pretty swift this morning, i would say. The Vice President<\/a> was first out there. His spokesperson said this would be an amateurish act. We wouldnt do this. Mike pompeo traveling across the world, he said this was not me. The director of National Intelligence<\/a> said it wasnt us. The question here inside the white house still, if it wasnt these top officials, who was it . Also important to keep in mind, back in watergate, mark felt denied he was not deep throat. Who knows if these denials are accurate or not . Excellent point indeed. Is the white house more focused on finding this individual, the socalled witch hunt thats underway right now or the substance of the points this person was making . Thats a good question. Weve heard very little discussion about the actual substance of the matter. What truly is an overriding theme between the woodward book and this, the fact that there are officials in the government trying to protect the country from the president. Very little soul searching i can see. They are trying to find out who is trying to take the president down, but not trying to look at actually what appears to be the root of all of this. We tried to ask the president this earlier this afternoon. Not in the mood to talk. This is not a selfreflective person necessarily. He thinks things are going just fine. Watch for him tonight at the rally. Almost certainly hell Say Something<\/a>. It will be very, very lively. Now to the battle over the president s second u. S. Supreme court pick Brett Kavanaugh<\/a>. Weve seen new fireworks in the confirmation hearing. Jessica, whats the latest . Reporter today the big flash point a point was over documents. Cory booker said he was ready to risk expulsion by exposing confidential emails. The republicans said it was all a big show. They said they released those emails at 5 00 a. M. But tonight that is still a detail that cory booker is disputing. Bring the charges. Im going to release the email about racial profiling. I understand that the penalty comes with potential ourselfiou from the senate. Reporter but republicans called the move a political stunt, saying the documents in question had been cleared for release hours before the hearing, calling out those across the aisle. Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we are privy too. Reporter one of the newly released confidential documents disclosed by democrats, this 2003 email from Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> when he was working in the george w. Bush white house. I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to roe as the settled law of the land since court can overrule its precedent. I think it was over stating something about legal scholars. I thought that was not a quite accurate description of all legal scholars. To your broader point, roe v wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court<\/a>. Its been reaffirmed many times. Reporter kavanaugh also faced questions from an exchange from senator kamala harris, also a possible 2020 candidate Late Wednesday<\/a> night. Have you discussed mueller or his investigation with anyone at the law firm founded by President Trump<\/a>s personal lawyer . I need to know im not sure i know everyone who works at that law firm. I dont think you need to. Who did you talk to . I would like to know the person youre thinking of. I think youre thinking of someone and you dont want to tell us. Reporter thursday morning kavanaugh was resolute. I havent had any inappropriate conversations about that investigation with anyone. Ive never given anyone any hints, forecasts, previews, winks, nothing about my view as a judge or how i would rule as a judge on that or anything related to that. Reporter kavanaugh made his view clear that whatever the Supreme Court<\/a> may rule on president ial power, it will be binding. Ive made clear in my writings that a court order that requires a president to do something or prohibits a president from doing something under the constitutional laws of the United States<\/a> is the final word in our system. Reporter and judge kavanaugh also stressed today that he is not a republican or a democratic judge. Instead saying he is an independent u. S. Judge and will be the same if he is named to the u. S. Supreme court. And the questioning will continue tonight. Four more senators have to ask questions. And then they will go into closed session where judge kavanaugh will face even more grilling behind closed doors. Joining us is senator herono. Thanks so much for joining us. Aloha. Let me begin with the anonymous op ed in the New York Times<\/a>. Do you believe this unnamed trump Administration Official<\/a> should come forward publicly . Of course. By the way, the fact that there are a group of them trying to save this country from the worst of the trump impulses, it makes me wonder how bad could it be. Because even overt things such as the 1. 5 trillion tax breaks to the richest people in our country, separating children from their parents at the border, undoing environmental laws, those kinds of things are bad enough. So i would want these people to come forward, because they are not accountable to anybody. Theyre not voted in. Why dont they come forward and tell us whats going on in the white house . We do know its chaotic. We did hear from this anonymous official. Their argument is that theyre trying to protect the American People<\/a> and protect National Security<\/a> from the commander in chief himself, and they can only do that if they stay on the job. I think thats really trying to justify how theyre wanting to make sure that certain of his programs get through, such as separating the children at the border, such as these huge tax cuts, such as some of the other things i mentioned. Theyre not even defending the Affordable Care<\/a> act protections for people with preexisting conditions. Theyre picking and choosing what things they want to protect us from, the president s worst instincts. I shudder to think what else could be coming down the pike but for these unnamed people. I think its time for people to come forward and have us face certain facts about this president. He is unreliable. He lies every single day. This is a serious threat to our democracy. So do you believe the president is unfit for office . Do i want a president who lies every single day and who has the kinds of policies . I think its the lying that bothers me the most. As this unnamed person said, he has no hes amoral. He has no moral compass. That is dangerous for our country, because ive said before that with this president , its all about himself every day every moment. I want to show you all those cabinet members, the Vice President<\/a> of the United States<\/a>, truly extraordinary, all of these people have issued public statements denying that they were the one who wrote that article in the New York Times<\/a>. This is pretty extraordinary whats going on right now. Have you ever seen anything like this before . Of course not. And theyre sending out all their denials and everything else. They are closest to the president. They should know. Obviously theyre not ready to come forward and let the public know and our country know whats going on inside the white house. We have a pretty good idea. Its chaos. Do you believe its time for members of the cabinet to start discussing the 25th amendment to the constitution which could potentially lead to the ouster of the president . Apparently some discussions along those lines had already occurred. Im just saying that the people who should know, socalled adults in the room, they need to step forward and theyre not prepared to do that yet. In that article in the New York Times<\/a> there was this line, given the instability many witnesses, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president , but they thought it would lead to a constitutional crisis so they backed away. Let me get your thoughts on the Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> hearings, the president s nominee for the u. S. Supreme court. Democrats on your committee, the judiciary committee, including yourself, released documents this morning that were said to be committee confidential. But the chairman says those documents had already been cleared, were released earlier overnight. Why did you imply those documents were being suppressed . They were suppressed. This was a perfect example of after the fact trying to cover their the process as laid out by the chairman was we had to clear documents that we intended to use. I did not request that this document be cleared. Theyre trying to say they actually cleared it this morn g morning. I referred to the document last night. The fact of the matter is they dont want to be confronted with the idea of having to expel some of us because they cannot justify why these documents should have been confidential in the first place. Senator, were going to get back to the hearing right now. Speaking of that specific issue, cory booker, democratic senator from new jersey, is asking kavanaugh questions. Lets listen. I cant help but wonder what else he might be holding back. So i understand you stand by your record, but its our job to try to examine that record, the fullness of that record. I just want to ask you some questions perhaps that can illuminate bill burkes role. Judge, have you communicated in any way with bill burke or his team since Justice Kennedys<\/a> retirement announcement on june 27th, 2018 . I saw him on the saturday after my nomination. I saw him at an event, a social event with a number of people. Did you communicate with him beyond that . No, i have not communicated with him beyond that. Ive somedtayed away from that. Thats an issue for the senate and the bush library. So if you havent communicated directly with him about this process, have any of your intermediaries been in discussions with bill burke or his team since Justice Kennedys<\/a> retirement announcement on june 27th, 2018 . All i can say is what i know. So to your knowledge, you dont know if your people have been in consultation or coordination with bill burke . When you say people youve been helped to prepare for these hearings, i imagine. You mean white house and Justice Department<\/a> people . Whoever might be helping you prepare for these hearings. The white house and Justice Department<\/a> people could speak for themselves about that. Im asking you if the folks preparing you have been communicating with bill burke about these documents, whats being released. Do you have knowledge of that . Do you know if people who have been preparing you have been in contact with bill burke about the documents . I dont know what the process has been. Im not asking about the process. Im asking do you know if the people that have been preparing you have been in touch with bill burke . I dont know the answer to that question. You do not know if the people who have been preparing you have in any way been communicating with bill burke about the documents . You want to identify some specifics . No, sir. Im just asking you that. Yes, sir. I dont know whos ive been staying out of it for obvious reasons. Its not my privilege to assert. Youve never taken a stand regarding the release of the documents with anybody in the white house, the doj or anyone else. This is an issue for the bush library. I understand its an issue. You stated this on the record. Im asking, have you ever taken a stand with anyone from the white house or doj about document release . No. I dont have a position stand on i know you dont have a position. Im asking what has transpired. Right. Im in the position i think Justice Scalia<\/a> was in when he was being asked about his memos from the office of Legal Counsel<\/a> and he said thats a decision again, i have a short amount of time. I just want to know what you think, sir and what you know. What i think its an issue for the senate and the bush library. Why dont we move on. Okay. You told Ranking Member<\/a> feinstein that you had never taken a position on the constitutionality of criminally investigating or indicting a sitting president . Im happy to have my recollection refreshed. But thats my recollection. You said you, quote, did not take a position on the constitutionality, period, end quote. You stand by that . Yeah. Im happy to have my recollection refreshed, but that is my recollection as i sit here. Thats your position now . You said this to me in private as well, that you had never taken a stand on the constitutionality about investigating or indicting a sitting president . I think in the various georgetown events, i referred to it as an open question. In my minnesota law review, i referred to it as an open question. I said if it comes to me, a lot of things would have to happen. But have you i just want to try to get the question in. Yes. The constitutionality itself, have you taken an issue on the constitutionality of these issues, about criminally indicting or investigating a sitting president . No. Ive said repeatedly no. That was it. I asked yes or no. You said no. Can i refresh your recollection. This is a georgetown article. I have the quotes. I just want to walk through it. You agree you did say this. You said, the constitutionality seems to dictate youre expressing a view on the constitutionality. In the Washington Post<\/a> you wrote, the constitution appears to preclude that was in the georgetown law journal in 1998 and as its been reported, i advised my advice to independent counsel starr was not to seek in the minnesota law review article you said that the constitution establishes a clear mechanism, talking about what the constitution establishes, yes . Lets be very clear. Can i get 30 seconds . Of course. So the constitution obviously sets out a mechanism for removal. Yes. The question of criminal indictment is simply a question of timing and the question is does it have to be after or may it also be before the Justice Department<\/a> for 45 years has said it must be after. I guess you see what im getting at here. Youve talked about this issue quite a bit. People were asked to raise their hand, how many people believe as a matter of law that a sitting president cannot be indicted during the term of office, we saw the videotape. You raised your hand. You commented on it multiple times. It said law, right . It didnt say constitution. As a matter of law. Yes, sir. Its important to know that the Justice Department<\/a> since 1973 and to this day through republican and democratic administrations has had that position. So before it could come to a court, if im on the d. C. Circuit, before it could come to a court, that position presumably would have to change after 45 years, and then a prosecutor with a president would have to decide i want to go forward as a matter of prudence and third would have to decide you have the evidence and fourth they would have to be challenged. After all that it would get to court. Okay. I want to move on. Youve made clear that youve never, you know, spoken about these issues in a constitutional manner. I just want to say that in a lot of your statements, it seems like youre not just talking about this as a matter of policy. Youre making some speculations about the constitutionality of it, which i think sends a clear signal about where you stand on those issues. I promise you i have an open mind. Okay. You speak a lot in your speeches and articles about the matter of charact character. Just looking at what President Trump<\/a>s comments theres a number of sources that keep track of how many lies he tells. Its sort of stunning that according to one source hes made 4200 misleading claims during his presidency. Thats an average of about 7. 6 false or misleading statements a day. Ive listened to you speak a lot about character and the character of the presidency. You said that character matters and that the president of the United States<\/a> should be a role model for america. Do you still think character matters for the president of the United States<\/a> . Senator, given the leadin to your question, youve heard me talk about, i need to stay so far away from any political comments. Three zip codes away. Ive heard you say that. But that wasnt what you did when you were a bush appointee. You talked a lot about bushs character. Even in your confirmation hearing you said at your swearing in ceremony you were willing to comment about president bush and his character. In fact, you said you had the greatest respect for president bush. Now, we have a president now that has said a lot of comments. This isnt in any way a partisan or political issue, because people on both sides of the aisle have denounced the kinds of statements this president has made, matters of character. President trump during the campaign referred to immigrants as racist. He said a federal judge was unable to do his job because of his heritage. He bragged about sexual assaulting women. He mocked a disabled reporter. I could go on and on and on. The list is long, but my time is brief. Do you want to say right now you have the greatest respect you said this about the last president. You thought it was okay. Do you have the greatest respect for donald trump . Senator, to reiterate, you you cant even say you have Great Respect<\/a> for donald trump . You dont hear sitting judges commenting on political im asking what you said about president bush the last time you were before the United States<\/a> senate. Do you have the greatest respect for donald trump kwo . I appreciate the question. What i said you dont need to repeat it again. I want to tell you why im building toward this. Because theres an issue of this president whos asking for loyalty tests from the people hes putting forward for offices. Now, you heard how he eebs contin hes continuing to bash the attorney general of the United States<\/a> of america and saying that if he knew he was going to recuse himself, that he wouldnt have put him forward. Youve seen this president demanding loyalty, expecting loyalty. President trump not only said that about Jeff Sessions<\/a>, but you know he said that about other folks. So youre not willing to comment on the character of this president. Youre not willing to say you have Great Respect<\/a> for this president. Just last night you wouldnt comment on the fact that the president when he was talking about both sides being to blame really excusing the behavior of neo nazis. Im just wondering what kind of loyalty is being required of you for this job. Thats what im building to and trying to keep apples to apples. What you said about president bush, why arent you saying it about President Trump<\/a> . In may of 2016, then candidate trump put out his first list of potential Supreme Court<\/a> nominees. You werent on that list. In september of 2016 he put out another longer list. You werent on that one. Then in may 2017 something incredible happened. Robert mueller was appointed by the special counsel to investigate any links in coordination between the russian government and the trump campaign. The president was now in jeopardy, or at least his campaign was in jeopardy. He was a subject of a criminal investigation. Then President Trump<\/a> puts out a third list of nominees and your name is on that list. Now, youve heard so many of my colleagues asking about your views of the constitutionality of a president being investigated. Youre failing to at least hold President Trump<\/a> in your eyes to the same level of the president ial character which youve talked about in speech after speech. Suddenly youre going mum as to the character of the president , given all his lies and remarks that have been characterized on both sides of the aisle. Now there is a suspicion and i dont think its a big leap to think that the public has this suspicion that somehow i wonder, do you credibly believe if you agreed right now to recuse yourself, do you belief that somehow like he said the Jeff Sessions<\/a> that he would not hold your nomination up if you recuse yourself . Do you credibly believe that . Senator, in this process, i need to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Thats the question right here. Right now theres a shadow over the independence of the judiciary, because a president who has been credibly accused by his former lawyer of being an unindicted cocon spspirator to a judge on the bench. Youre the only one that has spoken extensively from raising your hand at a Georgetown Law School<\/a> event to speaking about it. I dont think its a big leap to have the common person begin to suspect that youre being put up right now, a person that cant even speak to the character of this president , wont even say what you said about george bush, that you have the greatest respect for a president. Its hard to say about someone who brags about sexual assaulting women. It is understandable for people to suspect theres something going on, that somehow this is rigged, that you were going to get on that bench i hear your admonitions that youre going to be independent, but the suspicion is clearly there. And so youve written extensively about this. Youve spoken to the issue. Youve written about the issue in law journals. Can you tell me why the common person, millions of americans wouldnt sit back and say, well, this is donald trump whos demanded loyalty from an fbi director, from the attorney general, all the people he seems to be putting in positions in law enforcement. He criticizes very dramatically the Justice Department<\/a> for doing investigations on folks, it seems, because theyre republicans in the most partisan way. To me, that casts a shadow over these whole processes. Its a shadow. Of course its extended by not having your documents, by not having access to your full record. But can you speak to that for me, sir . Can you speak to that credible suspicion that people might have that this system is somehow rigged and the president is putting somebody up just to protect him from a criminal investigation . Senator, three quick points. One, my only loyalty is to the constitution. Ive made that clear. Two, the Justice Department<\/a> for 45 years has taken the position and still does that a sitting president may not be indicted while still in office. Three, i have not taken a position on the constitutionality and promised you i have an open mind on that question. And four, i did talk about a congressional proposal which was not enacted. And as youve heard me say for two days, i draw a distinction between what congress does and what the constitution requires. Just because i talked about something for congress to consider in the wake of the experience with president bush does not mean that i think thats in the constitution. Ive made clear that i have not taken a position on the constitutionality and have an open mind. If you put those four points together, i think you should conclude that i and read my 12 years of opinions and read the letters and read the teaching evaluations and look at my whole life. I think you should conclude, respectfully, that i have the independence required to be a good judge. I appreciate it. I afford you, sir, your respect as well. Youve spent your whole life in public service. You and i both know and im not sure if youll say it right now, but this is unusual times in the United States<\/a> of america. If you had told me whats been going on the last three or four months was going to happen four years ago, id think youd be describing a fiction novel and not something that could actually be happening in our country right now. Youve seen an Administration Official<\/a> writing about the president and invoking the 25th amendment, people around him being indicted, criminally charged. I really belief thive this. Every single senator up here is going to be tested. The test for all of us is coming. This is going to be a time where, if we have a constitutional crisis, the faith in this country will be tested, shaken again, and its really important that the Supreme Court<\/a> be above suspicion. And so, senator blumenthal asked you this. I sent you a letter. Why not right now, right now even at the jeopardy of President Trump<\/a> pulling back your nomination, why not now alleviate all of that suspicion that the reasonable person can have, why not just announce right now that you will recuse yourself from any matters coming from the Supreme Court<\/a> involving the Mueller Investigation<\/a> . Because if i committed to how i would decide or resolve a particular case and wouldnt a recusal take you out of the position that you had to decide or resolve, to say this is a time in this nation where i should do the right thing and take that suspicion off to restore the faith in the Supreme Court<\/a> and in this country . I have ten minutes on my time. Ill give you whatever time you want to respond to it and ill make sure you arent interrupted. Just a few seconds. Look at me, will you please . Im the guy that gave you the time. Oh yes, sir. [ laughter ] if i committed to deciding a particular case, which includes committing to whether i would participate in a particular case, all i would be doing is demonstrating that i dont have the independence of the judiciary that is of the judging that is necessary to be a good judge. Because all of the nominees who have gone before have declined to commit because that would be inconsistent with Judicial Independence<\/a>. Thank you, mr. Chair. Judge kavanaugh, if you want to continue to look at the chair, you can. Were going to break away from the hearing, continue to monitor it. Jeffrey toobin, you listened closely. How did judge kavanaugh do . What senator booker was trying to do is associate donald trump with Brett Kavanaugh<\/a> and say, in effect, since he will have appointed you, shouldnt you get out of any case in which he is principally involved . Now, that would be a good argument, i think, if kavanaugh had come out of the Trump Administration<\/a> in the way that he came out of the Bush Administration<\/a> to go onto the d. C. Circuit. But hes been a judge for 12 years. Every justice on the Supreme Court<\/a> was appointed by some president , and that doesnt mean they have to recuse themselves regarding everything regarding that president. So i think ultimately judge kavanaugh got the better of that exchange, because the mere fact of appointment does not require recusal. Thats never been the rule of the Supreme Court<\/a>. Dont you think what cory booker was alluding to was his question of whether you can subpoena a sitting president , which is something that kavanaugh has written on having served with ken starr and they did get bill clinton before the grand jury. And since that time, he kind of wrote it wasnt a legal case, but he has opined that perhaps that wasnt the right decision, that president s can be too busy and perhaps they shouldnt be able to be subpoenaed while theyre still in office. And that may be, i think, what booker was trying to get at, that particular point, which could become relevant. Judges are not supposed to live in hermetically sealed containers. I think its good for judges to write law review articles. Im not disagreeing with you. Its good for them to be part of the world. Right. Not they cant talk to anybody, they cant express any opinions. So i dont see the fact that he wrote about this, particularly since this was something that he had expertise in since he worked on the starr investigation. I think this is an unprofitable line of there was an article in the university of minnesota law review that he wrote which is different than an opinion. Right. But it may be his opinion. He makes a good point, that he doesnt want to discuss issues, cases that potentially could come before him if he is a Supreme Court<\/a> justice. Thats true. And on some level i wondered why cory booker didnt ask him to explain his rationale behind saying in those articles where he thought the constitution was probably guiding him toward. He didnt get that question and so he ended up saying, when im on the court, im going to decide it based on the facts in front of me. But hes doing what every other Supreme Court<\/a> nominee who has been before the Senate Judiciary<\/a> committee has done when asked questions like this, which is to say i cant get into the specifics. I dont think cory booker was expecting anything else, other than trying to bring up the subject and in some cases make it a part of the record. The judge has been grilled very tough by a lot of these democratic senators. Theyre asking very pointed, specific, direct questions. He seems to be okay. He seems to be not stumbling. He seems to be moving forward on his way to confirmation. He does. I think at this point his confirmation will certainly go forward. But as we look at how the world is probably perceiving this, obviously these hearings are partisan. This time around, we had donald trump basically on trial before the senate during this committee. We see abuses of this process from the republicans getting documents in at the midnight hour. Cory booker releasing Confidential Committee<\/a> documents earlier today. So the process is broken. Its not working and its even more partisan than usual, which really doesnt help us in terms of putting forward an image of our democracy on stable footing. He seems to be moving forward. Lets talk a little bit about the white house in uproar right now, the president very angry at this anonymous op ed article. Really . I hadnt heard about that. How damaging do you believe this all is for the Trump Administration<\/a> . Well, Trump Supporters<\/a> this op ed was printed in the New York Times<\/a>, which Trump Supporters<\/a> believe is the deep state and hates donald trump and they will either believe that, you know, it was planted there or that its untrue, or whatever you want to say. I dont think its going to affect donald Trump Supporters<\/a> other than perhaps if the president talks about it, say, at his rally tonight in montana, other than perhaps getting them to the polls. It could actually when you think about it, it could help him because he can say they are out to destroy me. Oh, come on. Thats the best Case Scenario<\/a> that the trump folks believe. It is. Now, on the other side of that, the op ed presents a picture of the president. Its like weve been doing the blind man and the elephant here and weve seen pieces of it. And this op ed presents a full picture of the president that this person believes is a danger to National Security<\/a>. I think that is damaging. It depends on who you are and what you believe. You know, again, politically im telling you this, jeff, Trump Supporters<\/a> are not going to look at that New York Times<\/a> op ed and say, oh my god, thats terrible. Theyre just not. You know, Trump Supporters<\/a> are Trump Supporters<\/a>. Right. If you believe that, nothing matters. Campaigns are about saying things and talking about evidence in the real world. And this is evidence in the real world about how donald trump runs his presidency. And here we have had in the past two days we havent had Chuck Schumer<\/a> and nancy pelosi saying hes incompetent. Weve seen Donald Trumps<\/a> employees saying hes incompetent and incurious and ignorant. I still have enough faith in america to think that when you have your own allies saying that you are terrible at your job, that actually is never going to be a political positive. Something ive never seen and ive covered washington for a while. We saw today in the aftermath of this very damning op ed in the New York Times<\/a>, top cabinet officials, including the Vice President<\/a> of the United States<\/a> you see all these senior Administration Officials<\/a> that issued statements denying they were the one who wrote that article. Ive never seen anything like that before. The president is getting copies of these statements. I assume hes looking to see who hasnt issued that statement yet. Right. This is all part of the trump show, but i think in a normal white house, this would literally be the opposite of how you deal with a story like this. Every single time from about 7 00 a. M. This morning up until now that a senior trump cabinet official has issued a statement denying that they wrote this op ed, it has extended the life of this story even further. President trump wants that because he wants to know they are willing to express publicly their loyalty to him. Meanwhile, however, a lot of people in the white house, first of all, do not believe its a cabinet level official. They believe its someone just below that tooeier. There is in fact a witch hunt going on right now, people speculating about each other. Theres a very good possibility that this only increases the chaos and this president , increases his own paranoia. It wasnt a very, very senior trump Administration Official<\/a>, id be surprised, given the fact that the New York Times<\/a> know who did it and theyre getting criticized severely for publishing an anonymous article like this. I was a senior sfraadministrn official. There were thousands of us. Regardless, christmas came early for Vladimir Putin<\/a> with this op ed. Every time a letter gets to the president s desk and makes headlines, hes probably clapping because it really plays into so many of his objectives. The president looks less credible, the president looks paranoid and it looks like theres insubordination at the white house. That doesnt really broadcast to the world that things are going well in the u. S. Democratic experiment. At the same time, this is a call to foreign intelligence officials. You Say Something<\/a> nasty about the president , you hurt his feelings and everyones going to be chasing their tails trying to make him happy. There is one thing about Trump Supporters<\/a> that they do not like. And that is chaos. They dont like seeing the chaos in the white house. Nobody does in the country, including Trump Supporters<\/a>, no matter what they think of donald trump. They like what hes done, they like his policies. They dont like chaos because chaos is scary. Its scary for anybody. The more chaos there is, the more we see things like this occur, it could start whittling away. Weve seen that a little bit, but it isnt going to be the New York Times<\/a> that does it. The other problem for donald trump electorally is they can make the argument hes being chased by this witch hunt. D democrats have a much easier argument, to say this is a president that is chaos and corrupt. This is the argument donald trump made against hillary clinton, creating a sense of scandal fatigue among democratic voters. The risk for republicans is this could also suppress republican voters. Theyre tired of all the chaos, tired of all the drama. They dont want to go out to the polls to deal with this. The president s National Security<\/a> advisor john bolton just added his name to the list of those denying he was responsible for this article. Its a little like china during the cultural revolution where everybody has to go and perform and bow down to their leader. Its sort of a mix between communist china and north korea, dear leader kind of talk. This is how donald trump runs his presidency. We all said the way to deal with omarosas book is to ignore it. He didnt ignore it. You know what . Hes the one who got elected president , not me. So maybe hes right. I was talking to a friend of his, somebody who talks to him regularly who said to me, believe it or not and he spoke with him before the New York Times<\/a> op ed came out. He said to me, believe it or not, hes perfectly fine. Hes able to disassociate. And he said look after the woodward book excerpt, he said look at the mattis note, look at the kelly note, look at how they said how dumb the woodward book was and how they didnt have anything to do with it. He was perfectly satisfied with that and seemed to just be able tokpacompartmentalize everythin. He literally cannot fire these people. You worked in the white house during the obama administration. You had top secret security clearances. Rand paul says they should take everyone in the white house who has classified security credentials, go ahead and issue lie detector tests for them. How would officials react if everyone had to submit this isnt law and order. Disincentivize these disclosures by creating an environment where people feel comfortable sharing their views and thoughts and dont feel like you have to write an anonymous op ed. Everybody stand by. Well have more on the op ed mystery, the president s anger and the deeper mysteries to serve and the safety of our troops in syria. Well have more information tonight. How can we say when you book direct at choicehotels. Com you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed . Lets say it in a really low voice. Carl . Lowest price, guaranteed. Just stick with badda book. Badda boom. Book now at choicehotels. Com todays Senior Living<\/a> communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. And theres never been an easier way to get great advice. A place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. A place for mom. You know your family we know Senior Living<\/a>. Together well make the right choice. My ci can worry about it,ine. Or do something about it. Garlique\u00ae helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally. And its odor free. And pharmacist recommended. Garlique. \u00ae breaking news tonight. Cnn has learned that American Military<\/a> commanders are increasingly concerned that u. S. Troops could be at risk in a potential russian attack on militants in syria. Lets go to our pentagon owe reporter, barbara starr. What are you picking up . Reporter good evening. Tensions are rising. Russia has warned the u. S. Military twice in the last week as recently as yesterday that Russian Forces<\/a> and Regime Forces<\/a> in syria are prepared to attack in an area where there are u. S. Troops. This is along the border where iraq, jordan and syria all come together a place called atam. There is a buffer zone that u. S. Forces help protect. The Russian Forces<\/a> say there are militants inside of there and they want to go inside of the buffer zone and get them out. Tonight a lot of concern that the Russian Military<\/a> may be making their move and that u. S. Troops could get caught in the cross fire. Implications are enormous. Barbara, thank you. Want to go back to the Senate Judiciary<\/a> hearing. Senator Carmella Harris<\/a> is asking questions of the Supreme Court<\/a> nominee, Brett Kavanaugh<\/a>. My colleague asked you you said you were pretty confident the answer was no. So, frankly, if last night you had just said no or an absolute no even today, i think this could be put to rest but i will ask you again and for the last time. Yes or no, have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm of casles, benson, torres about special counsel mueller and his investigation . And i asked, were you ever part of a conversation . Im not asking you what did you say. Right. Im asking you, were you a party to a conversation that occurred regarding special counsel muellers investigation . And a simal yes or no would suffice. About his investigation and are you referring to a specific person . Im referring to a specific subject and a specific person im referring to is you. Who was the conversation with . You said you had information. That is not the subject of the question, sir. Okay. The subject of the question is you and whether you were part of a conversation regarding special counsel muellers investigation. The answers no. Thank you. And it would have been great if you could have said that last night. Thank you. In my never mind. Lets move on. Okay. Yesterday senator bloom men that will asked if you could recuse yourself in cases involving the personal civil or criminal liability of the president. You declined to say you would so my question is could a reasonable person question your independence in a case of the president s civil or criminal liability. Sorry, could you repeat it . Would it be reasonable for someone to question your independence in cases involving the president s civil or criminal liability should that occur . My independence i believe has been demonstrated through my 12year record and what youve heard from the people who have worked with me and i believe deeply in the independence of the judiciary. I rule based on the law and you can look at cases that ive ruled against the when i became a judge against the Bush Administration<\/a> and i talked about the history of our country and the history of the Supreme Court<\/a>. And on that point, sir, in particular history of the Supreme Court<\/a> and confirmation hearings, Justice Kagan<\/a> during her confirmation hearing committed to recusing in cases she handled as solicitor general. Justice pribreyer committed to recusal in cases of lloyds of london. Justice beginsbeginsburg commit recusing on her circuit list. Justice scalia committed to recuse in the case of an issue that he had decided as a d. C. Circuit judge so my question is will you commit to recusing in any case involving the civil or criminal liability of the president who appointed you . Or nominated you . The independence of the judiciary requires that i not commit to how i would decide a particular case and to issue a commitment on a discretionary recusal direction so if i answer that question in either direction, i would be violating my Judicial Independence<\/a> in my view by committing in this context ive explained with all due respect, sir, i have shared with you that other nominees sitting at that desk or some desk like that have committed to recusing. There have been circumstances where they have committed so is it your opinion then that they violated somet ethical code or rule . I dont know all the circ couple stances butible they wi e they were required recuse sal. A discretionary recusal is a requirement to get a job or nonrecusal as a commitment to get a job, either direction, would be violating my independence as a judge, as","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia902808.us.archive.org\/12\/items\/CNNW_20180906_220000_Situation_Room_With_Wolf_Blitzer\/CNNW_20180906_220000_Situation_Room_With_Wolf_Blitzer.thumbs\/CNNW_20180906_220000_Situation_Room_With_Wolf_Blitzer_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}