tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith FOX News October 5, 2018 6:00am-9:00am PDT
the media ever since. >> our team. it takes a lot of people to make this show happy. a very happy 22nd birthday, fox news. [cheering and applause] >> bill: good morning, everybody. emotions on a hard boil from capitol hill. we're one hour away from a key senate vote on brett kavanaugh as the judge fires back in an op-ed defending his testimony from a week ago. hope you're doing well at home, office, mobile device, wherever you find us today. welcome to friday i'm bill hemmer. >> sandra: a big morning ahead. i'm sandra smith. tensions rising inside and outside the senate chamber. protestors swarming senate offices trying to persuade lawmakers. police arrested 300 yesterday and they're back today.
>> bill: judge kavanaugh wrote this, quote, i was very emotional last thursday, more so than i have ever been. i might have been too emotional at times. i know my tone was sharp and i said a few things i should not have said end quote. >> sandra: president trump standing behind his nominee as lawmakers on both sides dig in. >> president trump: democrats have been trying to destroy judge brett kavanaugh. [booing] since the first second he was announced. he was announced for one simple reason, an incredible intellect, person and incredible talent. >> this investigation was not thorough. it was not complete. and it did not get to the bottom of what happened and who judge kavanaugh is. >> don't tell me we haven't
spent enough time. judge kavanaugh should be confirmed on saturday. >> that report, if that's an investigation, it's a -- investigation. >> they made up their mind to vote no before anyone said hello. what you all have done is [bleep]. >> we have analysis but we begin with kristin fisher back on capitol hill. where do we stand on the vote count as of now? >> bill, things have been just so tense here on capitol hill. there has been so much emotion that it's almost hard to believe that we're actually here just 90 minutes away from that first critical vote and making even more tense we still have no idea how those four key republican senators -- three key republican senators and one democrat will vote. everything hinges -- i mean everything from judge kavanaugh's immediate fate to the future of the supreme court, everything hinge on how
jeff flake, susan collins, lisa murcowski are going to vote and the red state democrat joe manchin and truly nobody knows how they are going to vote, even the chairman of the judiciary committee chuck grassley. listen to what he said an hour and a half ago. >> our leader said yesterday this is one of the few times in the united states senate we won't know how it is going to go until everybody has cast their vote. so we don't -- as of now, i don't really know and i don't know whether anybody else does. >> this is going to be a nail biter to the bitter end. >> bill: walk us through the technicalities. this is something a lot of us don't sit around and watch often but how will the vote work today starting at 9:30 kristin? >> the way it's going to work is the senate will meet in just 30 minutes at 9:30. that will trigger the first vote, the procedural vote to
take place at 10:30 and so we should get an idea how things are going to go by around 11:00 this morning. if republicans get a simple majority that puts another 30 hours on the clock and that sets up the second vote, the big confirmation vote to take place tomorrow. so we're looking at around 5:00 saturday afternoon as the moment that judge kavanaugh could be confirmed to the supreme court. but i say might because, bill, the one thing that i've heard across the board from everybody i've talked to that if anybody tells you they know for sure how it is going to go they're lying. it's that uncertain right now. >> bill: too close to call from the hill there. >> sandra: judge kavanaugh firing back at what he calls wrongful and vicious allegations made against him. pending an op-ed in the "wall street journal" to address
those attacks while assuring the country he can be an independent and impartial judge. kevin corke is live from the white house on this big morning. >> this may well be a reflection of the closeness of the vote you just heard kristin talking about, the idea of reassuring those who saw the judge react so forcefully during the hearings that he is, in fact, measured and most certainly can be impartial. that is after all a job description. let me take you to the "wall street journal" and share a bit of that op-ed that you heard bill mention earlier in the broadcast. he said among a number of things my testimony reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused. he also said this, i might have been too emotional at times. and i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand that i was there as a son, husband, and dad. going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person that i've been for my entire 28 year legal career. hard working, even keeled, open minded, independent and dedicated to the constitution and to the public good.
now last night in minnesota the president said democrats would never be satisfied with, well, just about any of his high court nominees especially one that has the skill set of judge kavanaugh. >> president trump: he has been an incredible judge. because they know that judge kavanaugh will protect, uphold and defend the constitution of the united states as written. >> while it's still likely judge kavanaugh will be confirmed sometime this weekend, perhaps as soon as tomorrow as you heard kristin fisher point out, at least one former supreme court justice has actually begun to waiver in his support with judge kavanaugh's nomination. >> federal judge should have been confirmed when he was a nominee but i think his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind.
>> all eyes on capitol hill, a lot of eyes here and in the building behind me. by the way, i want to point this out quickly before i let you go. today around 1:45 we expect the president to receive the newly released report on the defense industrial base and expected to sign a number of presidential declarations. you may have heard that from peter navarro during his interview on fox's special report. i'll have details as soon as i get them. for now back to you. >> sandra: thank you for all that. >> bill: for more on this josh holmes the former chief of staff to mitch mcconnell. good morning to you. i know you know the senate majority leader quite well. this is a game of high stakes poker. at the moment it's too close to call. >> that's right. it's as high stakes as it gets. very few votes you walk into in the senate without a clear understanding where things lie. this is one where the best thing that leaders can do is set up a process that ultimately allows all the undecided voters to get to a yes vote.
that's what they've done over the last week starting with senator flake asking for the f.b.i. investigation. senator collins going through a rigorous review of literally all of the testimony. and the f.b.i. report itself yesterday on several different occasions. senator murcowski in the same boat. i think what they've done here is allow each senator to get to a point where they have enough information to make this decision here at 10:30. >> bill: how does mitch mcconnell work in a matter like this? does he know? does he have conversations? or is that forbidden at this critical hour? >> well, nothing is forbidden. takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to drive the process forward and make sure you have an outcome that's as favorable as you could possibly have. he has worked over the last couple weeks to try to insure everybody has the information, as i just said. there is a number of different senators who wanted different things. the f.b.i. report has put a good capstone on where all of
the lack of corroboration has come from in terms of the additional testimony that's been provided. and, you know, i'm cautiously optimistic. i think most republicans on the hill are cautiously optimistic this will get done. >> bill: but up the four undecided voters. three republicans and joe manchin. you try to evaluate this. we got a clue yesterday from flake and collins. they said the investigation was thorough. murcowski gave very little signal. i would say manchin gave very little signal as well. he is in a state up for reelection that 40 some odd days that went to president trump two years ago by 42 points. and the drama that lies in the vote today we'll see a procedural vote that will
largely forcast. is there a john mccain moment at the repeal and replace? we don't know if we're in store for that? >> you go back to last friday when senator flake sent out a statement essentially supporting judge kavanaugh. a couple hours later entered into a deal with senator coons for this week-long f.b.i. investigation. nothing is done until it's done. speaker boehner used to say like putting frogs in a we'll find out at 10:30. >> bill: another thing. daines, republican from montana has a wedding this weekend. >> i've got a wedding on saturday. my goal this weekend is to walk my daughter down the aisle and to see a new united states supreme court justice. votes are held open all the time before the u.s. senate once a vote is called. there have been extenuating circumstances. go back and see where they've had to hold the vote open for a member to come back and cast
their vote. i'll be there. >> bill: some way he'll get there. do we have the votes do you believe or is this a mike pence moment sometime this weekend? >> i don't know what formulation is going to take to get to 50 or 51 but i feel confident all the information that has been provided and requested by the outstanding senators here has been given and does point towards an exoneration of the charges against judge kavanaugh. so i think ultimately republican senators will support his nomination and at some point this weekend we'll have justice kavanaugh. >> bill: we await to see the fate. thank you, josh holmes for your analysis in d.c. thank you, sir. >> sandra: coming up later in this show senator thom tillis will join us live and have much more on the fight to confirm judge kavanaugh at 9:45 a.m. eastern time.
a lot happening in the next couple hours. >> bill: yes. stand by for all that. an hour from now the critical vote on kavanaugh. lawyers are slamming the investigation on behalf of the f.b.i. conducted this past weekend. another attempt at delay. former d.o.j. official tom dupree will break that down coming up in a moment. also this, roll it. >> sandra: the numbers are in and unemployment for the united states has fallen to a 49-year low. we're going to dig into the latest jobs numbers. >> bill: overseas another busy day for the first lady continuing her solo trip in africa. highlights from her visit to kenya today coming up shortly. >> president trump: melania, who is in africa, our first lady doing a great job for the people of africa. amazing. let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient
originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. ♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ ♪ just say the words ♪ and we'll beat the birds down to acapulco bay ♪ ♪ it's perfect for a flying honeymoon they say ♪ ♪ come fly with me ♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ ♪ come fly with me ♪ let's fly, let's fly away ♪ the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities,
like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. you know your family, we know senior living. you don't see psoriasis. you see clear skin. you see me. but if you saw me before cosentyx... ♪ i was covered. it was awful. but i didn't give up. i kept fighting. i got clear skin with cosentyx.
3 years and counting. clear skin can last. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you. cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me now. i'm still clear. how sexy are these elbows? get clear skin that can last. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. >> you want to make sure before you make a final decision, you want your constituents to know that you are very thoughtful about it and what might come up
new, they're going to wait until the last minute. i've been in that same position so i'm not going to hold it against them for not announcing ahead of time. >> bill: chuck grassley earlier today. crunching the numbers game. four key senators have not publicly stated how they will vote. tom dupree is former assistant attorney general under george w. bush. we're getting word joe manchin is back in the scif. where the latest f.b.i. report can be viewed by senators and said he is undecided until he walks out onto the floor. mitch mcconnell' arrived at his office on capitol hill. how does it go one hour from now? >> i think
>> bill: some of the numbers we found. written questions answered by scotus nominees 1,278 on behalf of judge kavanaugh. that's coming up in a moment on screen now. 1,247 for all the other scotus nominees in u.s. history. it totals 113 others, tom. 324 for justice neil gorsuch. his judicial record has not been in public debate here. is that because the left has already concluded what they believe he will do on the bench? or is there a soft point in his record they could make more vulnerable. >> the challenge for those on the left opposing judge kavanaugh his track record over
28 years in public service doesn't give them a huge amount of stuff to shoot at. he has been widely acclaimed even opponents who someone who takes the law and constitution very seriously. they put more questions than we've ever seen before and anything but a rush to judgment. but i think when you are trying to find ways to attack judge kavanaugh on his approach to the law and constitution the democrats have come up empty. >> bill: we'll sit and wait and watch together. >> we will. >> bill: thank you for your time today. 20 past the hour. >> sandra: the news out of capitol hill keeps coming into our newsroom this morning. democratic senator joe manchin still undecided at this hour. three other key republicans still on the fence. will the senate majority leader get the votes he needs today? >> a vote against judge kavanaugh tomorrow will be an endorsement of the mishandling of this confirmation process
because of hiding relevant information that could have been examined on a bipartisan basis. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that
ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®.
>> bill: new jobs numbers are in and the labor department says the u.s. economy added 134,000 jobs last month. that is lower than the estimate. they expected 180,000. hurricane florence likely factored into the number. unemployment, check it out, smitty. how low can you go? this is like the jobs number limbo here. 3.7% hasn't been seen in 49 years. 49 years. >> sandra: that's -- >> bill: you want to work? you want a job? come and get it. >> sandra: it's impressive. why isn't there a bigger stock market rally if that number is
so good? there is a lot of speculation as to what this means for interest rates, the feds' next move and it plays a part. so on and so forth. >> bill: ben is doing the limbo. >> sandra: that's an unbelievable number. the economy is hot, no doubt. activists look to keep the pressure on undecided senators ahead of this morning's key procedural vote. yesterday more than 300 people were arrested and police are anticipating another busy day. gillian turner is live in the hart building. protestors starting to trickle in there? >> they are, sandra. they're coming in faster and furious, the longer we wait, the more there are. the crowd size gathered here today is ground zero for the believed survivors movement. smaller group than yesterday. take a look. a few dozen, maybe 100 people so far. we spoke to organizers saying it's early morning yet. they still expect thousands of
people to arrive here today. it is a really diverse crowd so far. men, women, young, old, huge mix of ethnicities and nationalities. i have to tell you, they seem pretty organized. we listened a while ago as organizers convened the crowd and gave them the prep session for the day. a heavy emphasis on remaining respectful of the senators they encounter, not making anybody feel physically threatened or intimidated. they stopped twice during the prep session to ask two people from the crowd to not raise their voices. >> sandra: we see the pictures and the people. they are coming. what are you expecting to see there later? >> so we don't know exactly when the leaders will -- when the leaders will show up, the leaders of the movement. the organizers here tell us their goals for today are specific. they want face time with the three or four undecided senators. one of them told the crowd in
the prep session earlier that these senators have stopped holding town halls. what they're doing today is bringing the town hall here to these senators where they work in washington they really believe the face time with the senators can get them to convince -- can get them to believe kavanaugh is not the right nominee for the bench. >> sandra: gillian turner, thank you very much. >> bill: senate reconvenes in moments. pivotal vote on the nomination of brett kavanaugh. a forecast for what we can expect on saturday. will the one-week delay bring those on the fence to a yes? daryl issa is on stand by and we'll await mitch mcconnell live on the floor coming up in moments. >> they've always got a reason why the goal posts need to be moved further down the field. farther down the field. and nothing we could do would satisfy them. ... for strength and energy!
whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! when did you see the sign? when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage. and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com. - [voiceover] this is an urgent message from the international fellowship of christians and jews. there is an emergency food crisis for elderly holocaust survivors in the former soviet union. - this is a fight against time. what we're dealing with is coming out, meeting someone who's 85, 90 years old, can't get around, has no food, has no water, and just wants to give up and die. and that's where we come in.
we are called to comfort these people, to be a blessing to their lives. - [voiceover] for just $45, we'll rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - in ukraine, there's no supper network. they don't have food cards or neighbors that come in to help. they're turning to us because they have nowhere else to turn. - [voiceover] your gift is a life line to help these elderly jewish holocaust survivors, help them to live out their final years with dignity and love. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - what i pray is that you won't turn your eyes, but you will look at their suffering and your heart will be changed.
>> sandra: the senate is back in session and we're less than an hour away from a key vote on brett kavanaugh. joining us live in california congressman daryl issa, this is a big moment. what do you expect to happen with some of those undecided republican senators mainly flake, murcowski and collins with this one-week delay in the f.b.i. investigation? >> i served with both jeff flake as a house member and with susan collins when she was my counterpart on oversight. she values and jeff also served on oversight in the house. they value a good investigation. and judge kavanaugh has had seven good investigations and this last one was everything that could be added to what had already been an incredibly comprehensive set of hearings and investigations. so i think they are convinced. i think they should be convinced with their experience of knowing that the democrats are asking for an investigation to go on.
not an investigation that yields any new information. >> sandra: joe manchin is still an undecided vote as well. as he was walking into the scif to read the report again this morning he chatted with reporters for a few seconds and said undecided. i will probably be undecided until i walk in the door. what do you expect from him? >> he is a thoughtful member. i knew him when he first came to the senate and he came up and introduced himself. we chatted. and we got to be what i would call friends. he is the kind of person who doesn't really have a party that he will align with. he will align with the truth. i think when you look at his history on other confirmations, he has been one of the democrats who, when he thought somebody was qualified, voted for them and perhaps is one of the first crossovers. so i'm not going to predict his vote. what i'll say is he is a thoughtful member who will vote
his conscience. >> sandra: he was asked what are you weighing the most? his response was everything. congressman for those still undecided as they walk in to place their votes this morning, this first vote on the kavanaugh confirmation, to be clear, minds can change and can change the vote in the vote that would happen tomorrow after the 30 hours. what do you think those undecided senators are weighing the most right now? >> i think if they're doing what i hope they would do is they're looking at the last 25 years of judge kavanaugh and they're asking i'm a senator, how would i be if you had to go back further than 25 years? if you had to go back to junior high or high school? am i a good senator? because today i do my job or am i a good senator because i've never done any wrong and never any mistakes including an extra beer. i think it will cause a lot of people to make the right vote.
>> sandra: congressman issa, thank you for your time this morning. chuck grassley is speaking on the senate floor now. let's step in and listen. >> he spent the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit considered the second most important federal court in the country. his record there has been extremely impressive because the supreme court is an example adopted a position advanced by judge kavanaugh's opinions no fewer than a dozen times. judge kavanaugh is also a pillar in his community and also in the legal profession. he serves underprivileged communities, coaches girls basketball and is a electorate his church and prepared young lawyers for their careers, a law professor at three prestigious law schools and a mentor to dozens of judicial
law clerks. this should have been a respectable and dignified confirmation process. in a previous era this highly qualified nominee would have received unanimous support in the senate. before left wing outside groups and democratic leaders had him in their sights, judge kavanaugh possessed an impeccable reputation and was held in high esteem by the bench and the bar alike. even the american bar association, which the democrats say is their gold standard for judging judges, the aba gave him their unanimous well qualified rating. what left wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh is nothing short of monstrous. i saw what they did to robert
bork, i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left wing, dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning. before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge kavanaugh would be, quote, unquote, complicit in evil.
another member of the committee revealed the endgame when she suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacancy open for two years if they defeated judge kavanaugh and took control of the senate in these mid-term elections. i saw the most transparent -- i oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in senate history based on the fact that more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings, publications, documents from judge kavanaugh's executive branch service, this is on top of the 307 judicial opinions he authored. despite democrats' efforts to bury the committee in even more paperwork, the senate judiciary committee held a timely four-day hearing on judge kavanaugh's nomination last month. judge kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours over the
course of three days. judge kavanaugh showed the nation exactly why he deserved to be on the supreme court, because of his qualifications. judge kavanaugh's antagonizeers couldn't land a punch on him during his three days of testimony. even when they made false or misleading arguments, they couldn't touch him. some of my colleagues accused judge kavanaugh of committing perjury. for that false claim, the "washington post" fact checker awarded my colleague three pinocchios. another colleague claimed judge kavanaugh described contraceptives as abortion-inducing drugs. the video that my colleague shared on the internet was doctored to omit the fact that judge kavanaugh was describing the plaintiff's claims in a
case that he decided, not his own views. my colleague was awarded four pinocchios. of course, that's the most pinocchios you can get. but they still had one big card to play, which they had kept way up their sleeves for a month, actually for 45 days, i think. by july the ranking member received a letter from christine blasey ford alleging that kavanaugh assaulted her in high school 36 years ago. instead of referring dr. ford to the f.b.i. or sharing these allegations with her colleagues, either of which would have respected and preserved dr. ford's confidentiality and that's what dr. ford requested, the ranking
member referred dr. ford to democratic activist attorneys closely tied to the clintons. the ranking member shamefully sat on these allegations for nearly seven weeks only to reveal them at the 11th hour when it appeared judge kavanaugh was headed towards confirmation because he was so qualified. the ranking member had numerous opportunities to raise these allegations with judge kavanaugh personally. i'll give you six examples. she could have discussed them with judge kavanaugh during their private meeting on august 20th. a meeting which took place after her staff had sent dr. ford to democratic lawyers. or another time shared them with 64 of her senate colleagues who also met with him individually. the ranking member's staff
could have raised them with judge kavanaugh during a background investigation follow-up call in late august. senators could have asked judge kavanaugh about the allegations during his 32 hours of testimony over the course of three days. judiciary members could have asked judge kavanaugh about this in their closed session of the hearing, which the ranking member didn't attend. the closed session is the appropriate place to bring up issues where confidentiality is supposed to be respected. and there were no questions about these allegations among the 1300 written questions sent to judge kavanaugh after the hearing. this amounts to more than -- more written questions submitted to this nominee after a hearing than to all supreme court nominees combined.
keeping the july 30th letter secret deprived senators of having all the facts that they needed to have about this nomination. so it wasn't then until september 13th -- july 30th to september 13th, nearly seven weeks after the ranking member received these allegations and on the eve of the confirmation vote that the ranking member referred them to the f.b.i. and somehow they were leaked to the press. it wasn't until those news reports on september 16th that i learned even of dr. ford's identity. this is an outrage. the political motives behind the democrats' actions should be obvious to everyone. dr. ford requested the opportunity to tell her story to the senate judiciary committee. after a lot of foot dragging by
dr. ford's attorneys they finally agreed to a public hearing. as promised i provided a safe, comfortable and dignified forum for dr. ford, as well as judge kavanaugh. dr. ford was sincere in her testimonies as was judge kavanaugh, who emphatically denied the allocations. it is true that confirmation hearings aren't a trial. but trials have rules based on common sense notions of fairness and due process. not the other way around. it's a fundamental aspect of fairness, a fundamental aspect of due process that the accuser have the burden of proving allegations. judge kavanaugh was publicly accused of a crime and his reputation and livelihood were at stake. so it was only fair that his accuser have the burden of proof, the consensus is that
the burden was not met. ultimately, the existing evidence, including the statements of three alleged eyewitnesses named by dr. ford, refuted dr. ford's version of the fact. our investigative nation counsel mitchell, who has nearly 25 years of experience advocating for sexual assault victims and investigating sex crimes concluded that there was lack of specificity and simply too many inconsistencies in dr. ford's allegations to establish that judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault even under the lowest standard of proof. she concluded, quote, a he said/she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the events and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. for the reasons discussed
below, i do not think that a reasonable prosecutor could bring this case based upon the evidence before the committee, nor do i believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard, end of quote. so we have thoroughly investigated judge kavanaugh's background. in addition to the prior six f.b.i. field background investigations with interviews of nearly 150 to the sexual assault allegations and the f.b.i. confirmed what we senate
investigators already concluded. that is this, there is nothing in the supplemental f.b.i. background investigation report that we didn't already know. these uncorroborated accusations have been unhe quifshically and repeatedly rejected by judge kavanaugh and neither the judiciary committee nor the f.b.i. could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. there also is no contemporary -- contemporaneous evidence. this investigation found no hint of misconduct and the same is true of six prior f.b.i. investigations conducted during judge kavanaugh's 25 years of public service. nothing an investigator including career f.b.i. special agents does ever be good enough to satisfy democrat leaderships in washington who staked out
opposition to judge kavanaugh before he was even nominated. there is simply no reason, then, to deny judge kavanaugh a seat on the supreme court on the basis of the evidence presented to us. the democratic strategy used against judge kavanaugh has made one thing clear, they will never be satisfied no matter how fair and thorough the process is. 31 years ago, the senate democrats treatment of robert bork, their playbook remains the same. for the left wing advice and consent has become search and destroy. a demolition derby. i'm pleased to support judge kavanaugh's confirmation. i'm sorry for what the whole family went through the last several weeks. we should all admire kavanaugh's willingness to serve his country despite the
way he has been treated. it would be a travesty, then, if the senate did not confirm the most qualified nomination in our nation's history. the multitude of allegations against him have proven to be false. they've also proven that no discussion of his qualifications came up with any -- discussion of his qualifications, nothing showed he wasn't qualified. we had a campaign of distraction from his outstanding qualifications. a campaign of destruction of this fine individual. what we have learned is the resistance that has existed since the day after the november 2016 election. it's centered right here on capitol hill. they have encouraged mob rule.
when you hear things about get in their face, bother people at every restaurant where you can find a cabinet member, these are coming from public servants that ought to set an example of civility in american society. it has been made worse by what has happened to judge kavanaugh. i hope we can say no to mob rule by voting to confirm judge kavanaugh. i yield the floor. >> bill: chuck grassley, chair of the judiciary committee. dianne feinstein will pop in in a moment. thom tillis is on stand by. what is your expectation today when we see the procedural vote 40 minutes from now, senator? >> my expectation is that we are successful with the cloture vote and we'll tee up the nomination tomorrow. probably tomorrow evening. i couldn't agree more with
everything that chuck grassley said. the real sham here is the behavior of the democrats with this process beginning the day before the nomination when they were against the fill in the blank nominee. >> bill: if that is the case, that means jeff flake is a yes vote and susan collins would be a yes vote. do you believe that to be what we're about to see here? and where is senator murcowski on that? >> i'm not going to speak for my colleagues but i am confident that we will have a successful cloture vote. we'll see that. there has been a lot of study. i spent almost four hours in the secured facility yesterday reviewing the documents. my colleagues did and if anything, the veracity of the allegations were reduced as a result of the additional information that all members have seen. the only thing they have left if they are talking about judge kavanaugh's temperament based on his hearing last week. that wasn't judge kavanaugh, that was brett kavanaugh defending his wife, daughters and extraordinary reputation.
i think he did a great job there. he has great temperament and demonstrated it on the bench with over 300 opinions. he has two unanimously well-qualified ratings from the american bar association with the democrats say is the gold standard. it is time to confirm this judge and end the nonsense on the judiciary committee. >> bill: you believe they'll pass cloture. will he be confirmed tomorrow? >> i do. i believe that he will pass cloture and get confirmed. >> bill: thom tillis, thank you, the republican from north carolina. thank you, sir. dianne feinstein now on the floor. >> if adopted this argument could rewrite supreme court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision. even in cases as in this one where she had gone before a court. his reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is willing to disregard precedent,
but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether roe and casey were settled law and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. roe versus wade as we all know is one of a series of cases that upheld and individual's right to decide who to marry, where to send your children to school, what kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life, as well as whether and when to have a family. the government cannot interfere with these decisions according to these cases. another issue that gives me great pause is judge kavanaugh's extreme view on guns. in reviewing his record and judicial opinions it is clear
his views go well beyond simply being pro-gun. during a lecture at notre dame law school judge kavanaugh himself said he would be, quote, the first to acknowledge that most lower court judges have disagreed with his views on the second amendment. specifically, in district of columbia versus heller judge kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion that unless guns were regulated either at the time of the constitution was written or traditionally throughout history, they cannot be regulated now. end quote. in his own words, gun laws are unconstitutional unless they are, quote, traditional or common in the united states, end quote. judge kavanaugh would have struck down d.c.'s assault weapons ban because they have not historically been banned. this logic means that as
weapons become more advanced and more dangerous, they cannot be regulated at all. when i asked judge kavanaugh about his views that if a gun is in common use it cannot be regulated, he replied this way and i quote, there are millions and millions and millions of semi automatic rifles that are possessed. so that seemed to fit common use and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon, end quote. think about that. judge kavanaugh made up a new standard that had nothing to do with common use but instead relied on whether a gun is widely possessed and owned as determinative as to whether it is subject to any regulation. the united states makes up 4% of the worldwide population, but we own 42% of the world's guns. by judge kavanaugh's standard, no state or locality will be able to place any limitation on
guns because of widespread ownership in this country. i'm also concerned about his views on presidential power. specifically he has said that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, cannot be prosecuted. should not be investigated, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. in other words, the president of the united states is above and outside the law. these views raise serious concerns that should concern us all, especially at a time when the president continually threatens to fire the leadership of the department of justice for failing to be loyal and reigning in the mueller investigation. these views alone are not sufficient for me to vote against judge kavanaugh. but what we have seen and experienced in the past several weeks has raised serious new
concerns. concerns i believe should worry us all. judges are expected to be, quote, even handed, unbiased, impartial, and courteous, end quote. however, at the hearing last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. judge kavanaugh raised his voice, he interrupted senators, he accused democrats of, quote, lying in wait end quote, and replacing, quote, advice and consent with search and destroy, end quote. he even went so far as to say that dr. ford's allegations were nothing more than quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with pent-up anger about president trump and the to 16 election, end quote. quote, revenge on behalf of the
clintons, end quote. how could he? this behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence that is unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the united states supreme court. his display was so shocking that more than 2,400 law professors from around the country have expressed their opposition. they wrote, and i quote, instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, judge kavanaugh responded in an inflammatory and partial manner as he interrupted and at times was discourteous to senators, end quote. the professors concluded, and i quote, we have differing views about other qualifications of judge kavanaugh, but we are united as professors of law and
scholars of judicial institutions in believing he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to enter a copy of the letter in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. finally, i want to mention the serious and credible allegations raised by dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, the two women who came forward to tell their experiences facing sexual assault. when dr. ford decided to make her story public, she faced all her worst fears. she was harassed, she received death threats, she had to relocate her home, her husband, and two children, and yet, in less than a week, she came before the senate and told 21
senators she had never met, along with millions of americans, about the most tragic, traumatic, and difficult experience of her life. and she did so with poise, grace, and most importantly bravery. unfortunately, she was met with partisanship and hostility. my republican colleagues have largely chosen to ignore her powerful testimony. senators weren't allowed to hear from my witnesses who could corroborate or refute her account. they refused to gather evidence or do an impartial investigation into her allegations. deborah ramirez also reluctantly came forward to tell her story. like dr. ford, ms. ramirez offered to speak to the f.b.i. both ford and ramirez submitted
evidence to support their allegations, including naming over two dozen witnesses each. unfortunately, the limited investigation that was conducted by the f.b.i. failed to interview any one of the witnesses these two women identified who could support her account. let me say that again. they refused to investigate, to talk with, any of the 24 witnesses that could have supported their accounts. mr. president, i think it's important to remember why we're here today. we're here to determine whether judge kavanaugh has demonstrated the impartiality, the temperament, the even handedness that's needed to serve on this great high court of our land. if confirmed, he will join eight other individuals who are charged with deciding how the
laws of our land are interpreted and applied. he would be a deciding vote on the most important issues affecting our country and every american for generations to come. mr. president, madam president, based on all the factors we have before us, i do not believe judge kavanaugh has earned this seat. thank you. >> bill: senator feinstein on the floor. some of the comments to be expected given the public testimony she has said over the past week plus. chuck schumer is up next followed by mitch mcconnell. sandra, as we wait now in the 10:00 eastern hour in washington, d.c. and here in new york city, this is pretty much the procedure we expect. there will be a vote around 10:30 eastern time to end the debate. called a cloture vote if they get a simple majority. the clock runs for 30 hours
based on senate rules which would mean if cloture is arrived at we should see a vote on kavanaugh late afternoon saturday. >> sandra: we await chuck schumer ahead of dianne feinstein. we heard from chuck grassley who said feinstein deprived senators of having all the facts. she had numerous opportunities, he said, to discuss dr. ford's allegations. but then as you just heard from dianne feinstein herself, she called the investigation that occurred over the past week incomplete. said it was limited and it was really about what was not in it. so expect a lot more of this from senators when that 30-hour window opens and they can take to the floor to say what they choose after this initial vote happens at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. >> bill: four people to watch. you may know this by memory already, among the democrats joe manchin from west virginia. he is back in the scif, the secret area beneath the capitol where you can view the latest
f.b.i. report. apparently he said he was undecided and won't make up his mind until he walks onto the floor of the senate. the tricky thing for manchin in all of this he is up for reelection the first part of november. joe manchin is in a state that donald trump won by 42 points only two years ago. he voted against the tax plan and what will he do now on brett kavanaugh? he is in a tough reelection fight. the polling suggests he has a lead. he is very popular back home as the governor prior to his time as a senator but he is in an interesting situation and has kept his cards very close so far. >> sandra: and other words from chuck grassley a few moments ago. resistance is centered right here on capitol hill, he said. they are encouraging mob rule. i hope we can say no to mob rule by voting to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. right now we've got the vote that will be happening less than a half hour from now. chuck schumer will be up next
at the podium. he walked up and walked away. we'll see when he begins speaking. >> bill: we're watching the hallways carefully and so is mike emanuel. get to him quickly on capitol hill. what are you picking up so far today? >> good morning. a lot of nervous tension on capitol hill as we wait to find out how the undecide eds will vote. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley have done everything possible to get senators the information they need in order to make a decision on judge brett kavanaugh and praising judge brett kavanaugh for doing everything possible he can to step up against these allegations uncorroborated allegations to make his case to say he will be fair in judging the cases as they come to him on the supreme court to make his case he will be a fair jurist going forward. and so there is definitely a lot of anxiety.
>> the well was poisoned from the outset when president trump selected judge kavanaugh from a list of names pre-approved by hard right special interest groups for whom the national interest is a trifling concern compared to repealing roe versus wade, cutting people's healthcare, and achieving a partisan majority on the supreme court. the rot worsened when the republican majority on the judiciary committee shielded the bulk of judge kavanaugh's records from the public, discarding decades of precedent and thwarting norms of transparency and fairness and finally the dam broke under the weight of credible allegations that judge kavanaugh committed a sexual assault in high school.
in 2018, the republican majority conducted a hearing that made the anita hill hearings in 1991 look fair by comparison. in this hearing, there were no corroborating witnesses on either side. no independent investigation of the facts to inform the questioning. they even hired an outside counsel to put a witness, dr. ford, on trial. only at the 11th hour with the urging of breakaway members of their caucus republicans submitted reluctantly to a one-week investigation of the allegations. an investigation which was then severely circumscribed by the white house. our republican friends blame us for this process. they're always finding a straw man, but nothing could be further from the truth. first they blame us for delay.
knowing full well that majority leader mcconnell has complete control of when nominees are brought to the floor. leader mcconnell could have moved this nominee two weeks ago, or one week ago. democrats had nothing -- no say and don't when it comes to who comes to the floor. but in each case leader mcconnell couldn't move the nominee forward because he was blocked by fellow republicans, not democrats, for moving forward. when it comes to complaining about delay, two words never come from our republican friends' lips, garland. republicans are also saying we engaged in, quote, a smear campaign where the politics of personal destruction with this nomination. in reality, again, they're using democrats as a strawman
because what they're really talking about is what dr. ford said. democrats did not induce her to come forward. her conscience did. and our republican friends are -- are they accusing dr. ford and her deeply held memories of what happened to her of a smear campaign? are they accusing dr. ford of a smear campaign? of engaging in the politics of personal destruction? because that is who they're actually blaming. they're decrying her testimony. and then trying to blame democrats. i don't blame them, they have a flawed nominee. they don't want the focus on the nominee. when future americans look back at these proceedings, let them draw no lessons from this senate's conduct here. let them look back on this
chapter as the shameful culmination of the scorched earth politics practiced by the hard right in america. people who will stop at nothing to entrench an advantage on our nation's courts. let the confirmation process for judge kavanaugh be recorded as a sorry epilogue to the brazen theft of justice scalia's seat. the end of bipartisan cooperation and consultation on the confirmation of supreme court justices. and for what? for whom were senate republican leaders willing to discard all semblance of fairness to confirm? judge brett kavanaugh certainly a product of an elite education, but also someone with hard right, conservative jurisprudence far, far away
from what average americans believe. why most democrats opposed his nomination at the outset feels like ancient history now. let us not forget that most importantly we strongly disagree with a number of judge kavanaugh's views. he is deeply skeptical of unen numb rated rights including a woman's right to make private decisions about her medical care. he is deeply skeptical of the government's role in protecting americans with pre-existing conditions. he is deeply skeptical of nearly all rules and regulations that protect consumers, workers, the environment, and the flashing red light warning sign at the center of judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence are his views on
executive power and accountability. somehow this conservative judge and scholar of the constitution sees at the heart of american democracy a president, king, an executive who is unaccountable to the laws he is sworn to uphold. a head of state who while in office should be beyond the reach of subpoenas, criminal investigations, or civil investigations. this moment in american history demands deep skepticism about judge kavanaugh's views on executive power nominated by an executive who disdanes the con straights of his office and who is at this moment the apparent subject of investigations his supreme court nominee believes should be invalid. i met with judge kavanaugh for almost two hours. i asked him about all of those
issues. his answers were constantly evasive and utterly unsatisfactory. it was deja vu in the first round of hearings when judge kavanaugh deliberately avoided talking about his views on roe, healthcare, presidential accountability, and more. there was no legal reason, rule or logic that prevented him from being clear and saying what he thought. he was evasive because he knows that his views are deeply at odds with the progress america has made over the last century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most americans believe. his performance was not only unfair and frustrating to the senate, it was unfair to the american people. when a nominee refuses to
disclose their views, chances are you have a nominee whose views are far outside the mainstream of america, whether they be far right or far left. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not have as grave a concern about these views as we do, but let no american be surprised if judge kavanaugh becomes a decisive vote to restrict the rights and privileges of the american people while stretching the bounds of privilege to the current occupant of the white house. judge kavanaugh's nomination ultimately does not only encompass questions of ideology or credentials, but questions of character. here again, judge kavanaugh falls woefully short of what americans expect and deserve in a supreme court justice. he has repeatedly misled the senate about his involvement in
some of the most serious controversies of the bush add ministration. our policy against taor tour and involvement in the nomination of controversial judges. faced with credible allegations of various types of misconduct, judge kavanaugh's credibility was again tested and he continued to disassembly about easily refuted facts. beyond the issue of credibility judge kavanaugh presented to the senate the bitterest partisan testimony i have ever heard coming from a candidate seeking the senate's approval, whether they be for the bench or the executive branch. now there are many who think that what happened when judge kavanaugh was 17 years old should not be dispositive.
even if you believe that, his actions at age 53 in terms of demeanor, partisanship, and above all credibility should be dispositive. judges at every level of the federal bench should be held to the highest standard of ethics and moral character. judges at every level should be judicious and credible and independent but especially -- especially on the supreme court. i do not see how it's possible for my colleagues to say with perfect confidence that judge kavanaugh has the temperament, independence, and credibility to serve on the united states supreme court. so i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why judge kavanaugh? there is no dictate that you have to march blindly forward with a nominee when there are
others available to you. there are many judges who i'm sure conservatives would be happy to have on the court. i would remind my colleagues the seat that brett kavanaugh aspires to fill was held by a justice who assumed the bench after one nominee was voted down by the senate and a second nominee withdrew his nomination. but the republican majority has pressed forward blindly on judge kavanaugh, even when brave women came forward to speak truth to power. why? for what cause? for the sake of winning? that's not reason enough. my colleagues on the other side, if you have doubts about judge kavanaugh's credibility, about his ability to tell the truth, about his ability to be impartial and nonpartisan no matter what you think of his jurisprudence or what he may or
may not have done in high school and college, you should not vote to confirm him to the supreme court. so, my friends, democrat and republican, for all the controversy, all the heavy handedness of the process, all the hyperbole and vilification of both sides, there is always hope that the senate can save itself. we can salvage some decency here at the end. if judge kavanaugh is rejected president trump will pick another nominee, probably not to my liking and right of center but without the cloud that hangs over this nominee. and we can proceed to consider that nominee in a much less bitter, much better, less partisan way.
a bipartisan majority of senators, considering fully the weight of judge kavanaugh's testimony, record, credibility, trustworthiness and temperament, considering fully the heartbreaking testimony of dr. christine blasey ford can vote to reject judge kavanaugh's nomination and ask the president to send the senate another name for the sake of the senate, of the supreme court, and of america i hope, i pray, my colleagues will do so. >> sandra: listening to senator chuck schumer on the senate floor. we now await leader mcconnell. want to bring in a close personal friend of judge kavanaugh, david mcintosh. a personal friend of kavanaugh's and also attended
yale, although not at the same time. your thoughts as we await this key procedural vote to confirm your friend brett kavanaugh. >> it is very clear by what chuck schumer was saying and dianne feinstein what their agenda is, that is to deny president trump any nominee by stalling, delaying and using the worst personal smear tactics on a man who has superb character. every time i've seen him he has exhibited that type of superb character and his friends have come forward to say that. but they've smeared him instead because they want to stop president trump from nominating him and anybody else to the supreme court. >> sandra: thank you for your time this morning. let's listen now to leader mcconnell who has taken to the floor. >> votes you've ever cast in the senate. the stakes are always high for a supreme court nomination, but colleagues, the extraordinary events of recent weeks have
raised them even higher this time. when we vote later this morning, we will not only be deciding whether to elevate a stunningly well-qualified judge to our highest court, not anymore, not after all this, the united states senate will also be making a statement. that partisan politics can override the presumption of innocence? or we'll reaffirm in the united states of america, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. we'll either state that facts and evidence can simply be brushed aside when politically inconvenient and signal that media bullying and mob intimidation are valid tactics for shaping the senate.
the mob can attack, and the senate caves. or we'll stand up and say that serious, thoughtful, fact-based deliberation will still define this body. we'll either give notice that totally uncorroborated allegations are now officially -- officially enough to destroy an american's life, or we'll declare that our society cannot, must not, will not set the bar so low. so, madam president, today is a pivotal day in the nomination process of this excellent judge, but it is a pivotal day for us here in the senate as well. the ideals of justice that have served our nation so well for so long are on full display. so let's step back and sample a
few of the choice moments that the senate and the american people have been treated to during the disgraceful -- absolutely disgraceful spectacle of the last two weeks. the very night judge kavanaugh was announced as the president's choice, we heard the junior senator from oregon declare this nominee would pave the way to tyranny. his audience? crowds of far left protestors still filling in the blanks on their picket signs. they weren't quite sure who the nominee was going to be yet. we've heard the junior senator from new jersey describe judge kavanaugh's nomination as a great moral struggle in which there are just two camps, you are either complicit in the evil, or you are fighting against it. more recently, we've heard the junior senator from hawaii
argue her personal disagreement with judge kavanaugh's judicial philosophy met -- listen to this -- he deserved less of a presumption of innocence when it came to allegations of misconduct. if you disagree with her you aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence when it comes to allegations of misconduct. that's from a member of the judiciary committee, that's the definition of due process? apparently you get due process only if you agree with her. and even more recently we saw the junior senator from rhode island hold forth with great confidence -- great confidence offering his expert interpretations of goofy jokes in high school year books from the early 1980s. that was incredibly enlightening. innocent jokes, beer drinking references, oh, no, our
colleague was quite positive there must be some other sinister meanings at play. until, of course, a number of judge kavanaugh's classmates set him straight earlier this week. so stop and consider these snapshots. the absurdity -- the absurdity -- the indignity. this is our approach to confirming a supreme court justice? this is the senate's contribution to public discourse? before the ink had dried on justice kennedy's retirement our democratic colleagues made it clear what this process would be about. delay, obstruct, and resist. and before the ink had dried on judge kavanaugh's nomination colleagues across the aisle, including democratic members of
the judiciary committee, were racing to announce they had made up their minds and were totally opposed to his confirmmation. mere hours after judge kavanaugh was nominated, my friend the democratic leader promised, quote, i will oppose him with everything i've got, he said, hours after he was nominated. it was thus abundantly clear his number one goal was to defeat the nomination by any means necessary. it was right there from the beginning, madam president, a clear declaration, plain as day, nothing -- nothing could get most democrats to consider this nominee with an open mind. it would be delaying tactics, obstruction, and so-called resistance until the final vote was called. for a few weeks their efforts played out along lines that sadly have become somewhat
ordinary around here. there were excuses for delay, those fell flat. there are gross distortions of judge kavanaugh's record that were batted down by outside fact checkers. and there were all the usual phony apocalyptic pronouncement shouted when a republican president nominates a supreme court justice. happens everywhere. hostile to women, vulnerable people and workers, same old tricks and same old playbook. but here was the problem. the old plays weren't working. the distortions were being drowned out by the facts. senators received and reviewed more pages of background materials on judge kavanaugh's nomination than for every previous supreme court nomination combined.
we read judge kavanaugh's 12-year record of judicial rulings from our nation's second highest court, 300 plus opinions. we heard sworn testimony, written accounts from hundreds of character witnesses from all stages of judge kavanaugh's life and career. and a picture painted by these facts was nothing like the caricature. so it was clear, madam president, the old tactics weren't working. wasn't going to get the job done. the resistance demanded more. try something new, they said. well, we all know what happened next. uncorroborated allegations of the most sensitive, most serious sort were quickly sharpened into political weapons. one such allegation shared by dr. ford in confidence with the democratic side of the
judiciary committee somehow mysteriously found its way into the press. chairman grassley set out on a sober, focused search for the truth. the committee collected testimony. organized a new hearing and most recently asked for the supplemental f.b.i. background investigation judge kavanaugh's seventh -- seventh f.b.i. investigation. by any fair standard the facts, the actual facts proved to be straight forward. no corroborating evidence, none. none. was produced to support any of the allegations leveled against judge kavanaugh. no corroborating evidence from the f.b.i. inquiry or from anywhere else, nothing. well, that wasn't enough for our democratic colleagues, of course, the facts were not
exactly the point. after all, we get it by now. when the very f.b.i. investigation for which they had been clamoring turned up no new evidence, the democrats moved the goalpost yet again. i believe the latest story is that the whole investigation is invalid, listen to this, because individuals who had only recently been told second hand or third hand about nearly 40 year old allegations weren't treated as essential witnesses. let me say that again. the latest story is the whole investigation is invalid because individuals who had only recently been told second hand or third hand about nearly 40-year-old allegations weren't trao*eted as essential witnesses. never mind they didn't actual witness anything. they didn't witness anything. so let's be clear madam president, these aren't
witnesses, these are people supposedly in possession of hearsay that they first heard 35 years after the supposed fact. what nonsense! the people whom dr. ford claimed were witnesses, they have spoken with the f.b.i. we know that because they, through their attorneys, put out public statements saying so. and what we know now is what we knew at this time a week ago, there is absolutely no corroborating evidence for these allegations. same thing we heard a week ago. if they were, you bet we would have heard about it. but there isn't. so notwithstanding that, madam president, the leak of dr. ford's letter in violation of her privacy and against her
wishes opened the floodgates. the feeding frenzy was full on. the weaponization of her letter by the left led to a torrent of other equally uncorroborated allegations. they were dumped on judge kavanaugh and his family. and breathlessly sdsh-breathlessly the media seized on them. the more outland i shall the better. americans were informed the brett kavanaugh masterminded young drug gangs until the accuser walked her story back. we were informed that judge kavanaugh beat someone up on a boat in a rhode island harbor until that accuser totally recanted. we heard another tall tale of physical assault until that account was thoroughly debunked by a sitting federal judge. oh, and yes, we were informed that juvenile jokes in his high school year book were sinister,
secret references. all the keystone cops were on the case. keystone cops were on the case, madam president. and senate democrats cheered them on. they read parts of this uncorroborated, unbelievable mudslide -- mudslide into the senate record. they cited them in an official letter demanding judge kavanaugh's nomination be withdrawn. were they true? well, of course that was quite beside the point. quite beside the point. so long as they were convenient. every effort was made to insure that the fact-free verdict of the mob and the media would win out over the actual evidence. make sure the mob prevailed.
but the uncorroborated mud and the partisan noise and the physical intimidation of members here in the senate will not have the final say around here. the senate will have the final say. so madam president we're almost at the end of the runway. the cross winds of anger, fear and partisanship have blown strong these past weeks. they've harmed a good man and his family. they've tarnished the dignity of this institution, but all of it can end today. the time has come to vote. the senate stands on the threshold of a golden opportunity. we have the opportunity to advance the nomination of an incredibly well qualified and well respected jurist to a post that demands such excellence. we have the opportunity to put judge brett kavanaugh on the
supreme court where his distinguished service will make us and our nation proud for years to come. but we have the opportunity to do even more. today we can send a message to the american people that some core principles remain unfettered by the partisan passions of this moment. facts matter. fairness matters. the presumption of innocence is sank -- the senate has turned its back on this before but never for long and without deep regret. we don't look back proudly on the era of mccarthy or any of the other times when the politics of personal destruction poisoned its judgment. no, no, the senate looks back on those things with shame.
and with a conviction that we cannot go down that road again. we know the senate is better than this. we know the nation deserves better than this. by confirming judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court this brilliant jurist will be charged with upholding the rule of law and honoring american justice. we must hold ourselves to that very same standard. we must seize the golden opportunity before us today. to confirm a supreme court justice who will make us proud. and to reaffirm our own commitment to the justice that every single american deserves. >> sandra: leader mcconnell wrapping up his remarks on the senate floor ahead of the key procedural vote expected to happen any moment now. this is the vote to invoke cloture to end the debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh. this is a simple majority vote
and we await that to begin now. >> bill: mitch mcconnell saying no corroborating evidence from the f.b.i., then referring to democrats as the keystone cops who were on the case. want to drop in here. not quite sure how we'll hear the vote itself. mike emanuel is waiting in the wings on capitol hill. want to bring in mike for a moment here and just give us a sense, mike, of how it will proceed now. >> they'll call the roll, bill and you will hear the senators names and hear them say aye or nay and basically old-fashioned we'll count the votes as they come through. obviously lawmakers have known this was the time, 10:30 and they filed into their december exxon the senate floor. we expect it to be rather timely. timing on the floor is not always swift. a 15-minute vote but you would think with this level of anticipation it would happen pretty promptly and we would have a sense whether they advance the nomination.
affirmative. alexander, blunt, bozeman, burr, cap tow, cassidy, collins, corker, cornyn, cotton, crepeau, cruz, daines, insdaoe, ernst, fisher, flake, gardner, graham, grassley hatch, heller, hoeven, height smith. isaacson, kennedy, kyle, lankford, mcconnell, moran, paul, purdue, portman, risch, roberts, rounds, rubio, salve, scott, shelby, sul vann, soon, tillis, toomey, wicker, young.
>> bill: collins is a yes, flake is a yes. democratic senator from west virginia, joe manchin is a yes. lisa murcowski republican from alaska is a no. if that holds, the cloture motion will pass and we will begin a 30-hour period where we will move ultimately to a debate likely around 4:00 or 5:00 saturday afternoon. back on the senate floor. >> miss heitkamp, no. mrs. mccaskill. no. mr. menendez, no.
senators do sometimes,, they sometimes vote to bring the debate to a close which has been a indication from susan collins. she has announced she has voted yes but she is going to make a further announcement how she will vote tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. >> bill: back inside. >> mr. carper. >> senator not recorded. mr. carper, no.
>> are there any senators in the chamber who wish to change their vote? as a reminder to our guests in the gallery, expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. on this vote the yays are 51, nos are 49. the motion is agreed to. >> bill: there it is, brett kavanaugh will proceed to a final vote saturday afternoon. there is a critical announcement expected at 3:00 eastern time on behalf of susan collins, republican from maine where she already announced she will advance the motion for now but will make a final decision public at 3:00 today. to all of our fox stations
watching across the country, stay tuned to the fox news channel and this fox station for ongoing coverage on this story. for now from new york we'll say goodbye for the moment. meanwhile on cable our coverage continues, sandra. >> sandra: we want to bring in our guest gregg nunziata joins us now. the former chief nominations counsel to the senate judiciary committee. greg, if you could, just tell us your thoughts in this moment right now. >> this is about as riveting as the senate floor gets. high-stakes vote that could go either way. every senator was at their desk, that happens very, very rarely and it shows the gravity of this. we were looking at four senators who could have gone either way. brett kavanaugh needed the support of two to advance his nomination today. he got three of the four. as i think has been explained a few times today's vote doesn't necessarily tell you how the final vote will come out.
technically the vote was just whether or not to have a final vote tomorrow. we'll need to hear from some of those four senators what their final decision is. it could be that you are willing to end the debate but not willing to vote yes to confirm. could be you're against ending the debate and want more time but forced to it you'll vote to confirm. we'll want to hear from murcowski, collins and manchin when the next step is. >> bill: would you expect murcowski to vote no here and vote yes later? >> i wouldn't expect that but it's possible. >> bill: collins, we'll get a schedule from joe manchin at some point, too and he will have his chance on the floor also. >> absolutely. it is still down to kavanaugh needs two of those four tomorrow to get confirmed. >> sandra: give us an idea what happens now the 30-hour window opens. limitation of 30 hours. the maximum that the senators can go here and then the final
confirmation will take place at the earliest sometime tomorrow afternoon on a saturday afternoon. what happens now and what do those senators do and what's the conversations that are had? still as you are pointing out a lot can change. >> the senate doesn't need to take the next 30 hours. throughout this process on kavanaugh, they have taken every last minute and pushed things along further into the weeks as possible. so i would expect that they will take all 30 hours. during that time senators will have the opportunity to speak. i suspect many will. it's an important vote. maybe a career-defining vote for some of these senators. you can expect a number of speeches as they lay out their case for and against and there will be a lot of conversations between the senators particularly focusing on those remaining undecided votes and trying to line them up for our final decision tomorrow. >> bill: thank you. stand by. we'll bring in a few more voices. want to bring in our a-team.
ed henry, capri cafaro and david asman. good day to all of you. i want to remind you what susan collins and jeff flake said late yesterday. collins praised the f.b.i. for what she considered a very thorough investigation. flake said no corroborating evidence. mcconnell followed that with his speech 20 minutes ago and david, begin with you. what is your expectation now as we await a final vote? >> there are two senators you look at. one is a democrat who voted yes on moving the vote and that's mr. manchin. apparently he heard a lot from his constituents in west virginia. he is in a very heavy pro-trump state over 40% of his constituents voted for donald trump in the last election. so he is really in the spotlight. he voted yes today. he could vote no tomorrow on the final vote but then you
have ms. murcowski who voted no today. is it conceivable you could vote no on a move for the vote on the cloture move and vote yes tomorrow? that's rarely, if ever done. maybe ed henry who know more about the history. what is she going to hear from her constituents in alaska between now and tomorrow at the time of the vote? will she change from a no today to a yes on kavanaugh tomorrow? an open question. >> sandra: what about that, ed? >> i can't think of a case in a high profile situation where you vote no now and then yes somehow for final passage. i think david is right that murcowski is highly unlikely to be yes for kavanaugh. what does that mean? here is the math. if murcowski stays no tomorrow and manchin potentially splits this and says to its constituents look i voted yes to move it forward. i don't like the division in washington i want to give the man a vote. but potentially votes no in
final passage to appease democrats. let's assume that for a moment and collins and flake, who both voted aye to move it forward. if they hold on final passage you're at 49 tomorrow evening. you are not at 50. you are at 49 and you need senator daines from montana to get to 50 and have vice president pence break the tie. bill and sandra, call the caterer, get his daughter in the wedding. we have to move it to the senate chambers or something. that's the key. >> bill: if you think about joe manchin. he is in a tough reelection battle and in a state that went for president trump. you grew up in ohio. what does joe manchin do? he voted against tax reform. is he willing to vote against brett kavanaugh in the same week the fox polling shows significant movement in the close races especially in north
dakota. what do you do based on that? >> you bring up heidi heitkamp and she is throwing up her hands and voting no. it is not a political decision for her. she recognizes that may not help her in a reelection bid. joe manchin is making a different calculus here. i agree he could split the baby and move forward with the procedural vote. what i think will happen now and this is where joe manchin is going to have to weigh his priorities. the people of west virginia obviously have supported donald trump and have gone from blue to red significantly. all the counties in west virginia went for donald trump in 2016. it seems as if with the cloture vote he is reflecting the views of the constituents of west virginia. now that he has done this and now that there is time between right now and tomorrow's vote, you are going to see the establish -- the activist wing of the democratic party, progressives really pile on joe manchin to try to figure out a way to get him in line with the
rest of the democrats. he will have to decide who he wants to appease more, the people of west virginia or the extreme parts of the democratic party. i think that's really the choice that he is going to have to make in the next less than 24 hours at this point. >> sandra: ed, you go back to the opening arguments that we heard from leaders in the senate ahead of this vote taking place a short time ago. chuck grassley lashing out at the left wing groups that he said have tried to take down president trump's nominee as nothing short of monstrous. dianne feinstein of california said a man filled with anger and aggression. he is unfit for the supreme court, brett kavanaugh. these are some of the words that were thrown out there before this vote took place. >> i go back to june 28th of this year right when all this opened up and president trump was going to have the nomination, the beginning of july. chris matthews was on msnbc and i checked it. this is the time for vengeance.
that's what the left has done. before the sexual assault claims at the first hearings when they were talking substance, interruptions, constant delays, screaming. let's go to restaurants and go after senators. and so why did chris matthews say that? he said democrats should do to trump what mcconnell did to garland. this is all about tit-for-tat. when i heard chuck schumer say right before the vote give us another conservative, mr. president, there is another one without sexual assault allegations, we could maybe support. no, chuck schumer within minutes of the nomination on july 9th said i will oppose judge kavanaugh with everything i have. the democrats have been opposed from the first. >> bill: david stand by. it's three minutes past the hour of 11 in the new york. if you're just joining us we have just watched a significant step in the confirmation process of brett kavanaugh which may prove in the end his
path to being confirmed as the 114th u.s. supreme court justice. the vote was 51-49 and now we await a critical moment later today, 3:00 eastern time this afternoon, susan collins who advanced the motion a moment ago will decide whether or not she is an up or down vote on brett kavanaugh. >> sandra: we'll hear from her at 3:00 p.m. murcowski was a no. the four undecideds that we were waiting to hear from. the president just tweeting out at the conclusion of this vote very proud of the u.s. senate for voting yes to advance the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh. team coverage with analysis from chris wallace in a moment. first john roberts is at the white house. first we go to mike emanuel on capitol hill. mike, what a morning. >> good morning to you. that's about as dramatic as things get on the united states senate floor. no technology other than the microphone. you heard the individual senators in their voices say
either yay or nay. three of the four we were watching said yes. we'll chase them around to see whether collins, flake and manchin will be yes on final confirmation. we'll listen carefully to colin's floor speech and maybe flake and manchin will take to the floor. murcowski was a wild card. a lot of people said they didn't know where she stood. they felt she could be either a yes or no. those close to the nomination say that they were encouraged that basically susan collins, jeff flake said they needed to see certain information. they spent a lot of time in the secure location looking at this f.b.i. report about the allegations against judge brett kavanaugh and so those close to the nomination, those close to mitch mcconnell and chairman chuck grassley say they're encouraged that basically what these senators have requested has been provided to them. they aren't speaking for how they will finally vote but they are hopeful with all the
information they've requested and all the information they've received that they will be yes on confirmation tomorrow and you could hear a lot of the emotion this morning from majority leader mitch mcconnell and chairman chuck grassley. those close to them saying they've left it all on the field. >> sandra: more emotions will be flowing as the 30-hour window is open and we'll hear more from the senators. >> bill: brett kavanaugh and wife ashley. his two daughters. they have figured prominently in the public specter of what we've watched for the past two weeks plus. brett kavanaugh late yesterday an op-ed in the "wall street journal" that some have considered his closing argument to be confirmed at the u.s. supreme court. in that he admitted that perhaps he got a little too emotional during his hearing but said he was defending his honor, his name and speaking ong behalf of his wife, kids and two parents, his mother and
father in that hearing room yesterday, one week ago thursday. john roberts has more from the west wing. >> give you a little more of brett kavanaugh's op-ed. the white house attempt to win over enough senators to get it across the finish line. i spoke with a source in the administration about the vote that just took place to say what about murcowski. do you think you can get her back? i was told no, they probably won't be able to convince murcowski to vote for judge kavanaugh after voting no for the cloture vote. they do think they will be able to hang onto joe manchin and believe that he will -- he is in a tight race in west virginia though he leads by nine points. they believe that manchin will vote for judge kavanaugh. they also think that flake and collins are on board as well. so with senator steve daines of montana out in montana tomorrow for the wedding of his daughter
that means they have 50 votes. they could go 50-49. it gives them a win. if they need to bring senator daines back and keep the vote open they'll do that as well. part of the concern with kavanaugh over the last seven days has been his temperament and tone during that hearing last week. judge kavanaugh tried to address it today in the "wall street journal" op-ed that you mentioned off the top which you said my testimony reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused. i might have been too emotional at times and i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand i was there as a son, husband and dad. going forward you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person i've been for my entire 28-year legal career, hard working, even keeled, independent and dedicated to the constitution and the public good. we don't know if that has helped senator collins and
senator flake be more comfortable with voting for him. the way the white house believes they have the vote right now they lose murcowski and gain manchin and get him across the finish line. >> bill: and keep collins. >> yeah. >> bill: john roberts, thank you from the north lawn. >> sandra: let's bring in "fox news sunday" anchor chris wallace. he joins us now. i'm sure you've been watching every minute. your thoughts. >> first of all, how extraordinarily dramatic it is to see that kind of a roll call when you don't know what the outcome is going to be and it's on an issue of such importance of ending the filibuster for a supreme court nomination, keeping the nomination alive and to see all -- anybody who has come to washington as a tourist and sat in the senate gallery usually it's empty and there are a couple of senators kind of walking around but to see all 100 senators in their chairs at their desks, all of them voting in a roll call where you didn't know how it
would turn out is dramatic. point one. point two, it seems to me that this nomination is still on a razor's edge because as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, it doesn't always follow -- i think murcowski is gone. i don't see how somebody votes no on ending debate and then votes yes on the nomination. but people do sometimes vote yes to end the debate and then vote no on the actual nomination. and so this really does come down to a couple of key votes. for instance, let's say that collins were to announce today at 3:00 p.m. that she is going to vote no on the actual nomination tomorrow. then you have manchin, still get to 50, yes, daines has to fly back from montana but that raises the question about manchin. everybody thought manchin might well vote for kavanaugh if his vote weren't needed. if he weren't the key vote to put it over the top. but if collins votes no manchin is the difference between
success or failure here. if he votes no, then the nomination is gone. so seems to me this is still on a razor's edge. >> bill: we're hearing joe manchin is about to put out a statement. you think about what his political calculus is. he has an 8-point lead over patrick morrissey the current attorney general in west virginia. what i referenced 10 minutes ago is the movement in the north dakota poll. you know politicians pay attention to these numbers. he has to be looking at that. >> it's interesting. i met with a republican senator yesterday and i asked him why heidi heitkamp of north dakota would vote no because she announced yesterday she was going to vote no on kavanaugh, an unpopular vote in a state that favors donald trump so heavily. she is down by 12 points. some people suggest maybe she voted no because that's her
conscience. one hopes that's the decision. but this republican senator suggested to me maybe she understands she won't win anyway, the race is lost and decided she wants to vote where her supporters are because it's not going to make a difference in her election. that's a different situation from joe manchin. this is clearly going to be a very key political calculation in addition to a calculation of what his principles are and what he believes when it comes to brett kavanaugh. >> sandra: what do you brought these three undecided senators to a yes? i say at least today in this procedural vote? we'll see what happens tomorrow in the statements about to be made and come out on behalf of some of them. what got them to that point do you think? you had the president in that campaign rally. you had the "wall street journal" op-ed written by judge kavanaugh said i said a few things i should not have. do you think there was any one thing that helped push some of those senators to a yes?
>> yes, i do. i think it's the f.b.i. investigation. and i think that with this one week extended f.b.i. background check and you heard the democrats, a lot of complaints it wasn't thorough. they didn't talk to everybody they could have. didn't pursue the leads. the fact they did a one-week investigation, talked to nine witnesses, got a written statement from a 10th. they did pursue people on both the ramirez charge, the yale charge as well as the christine blasey ford charge and there was no corroboration from either of the female accusers. so i think that was -- it was interesting yesterday after susan collins said look, i think this is a thorough investigation. late yesterday afternoon she went into the scif, the security compartmental secure area with one copy of the report and she spent two hours reading it. i think in the end that gave both her and flake and probably manchin who also spent time
yesterday and this morning in the scif reading it satisfaction that there is not something out there. obviously people are always going to complain. you could have done more in an investigation, but the fact that this came back with a clean bill of healthy think was probably the deciding factor. >> sandra: chris wallace, thank you very much. be sure to tune into "fox news sunday" this weekend. chris will be joined by senate judiciary committee member lindsey graham along with ronna mcdaniel that's happening sunday at 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern on fox news. >> bill: definitely check it out. where are we now? the numbers are in. brett kavanaugh moving on to the final phase of his confirmation battle. the senate voted to end debate 51-49 final tally at the moment. a number of things to watch including the clock. by rules the senate has about 30 hours to debate this but we should know more within moments when joe manchin delivers his statement. we're waiting for that and susan collins a few hours from
now. we'll take a break. our coverage continues in a moment here on "america's newsroom." i'd like to take a moment to address my fellow veterans, because i know so many of you have served our country honorably. one of the benefits that we as a country give you as a veteran is the eligibility for a va loan for up to 100% of your home's value. if you need cash for your family, call newday usa. with automatic authority from the va, we can say yes when banks say no. give us a call. call now: 1-855-376-1361.
cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me now. i'm still clear. how sexy are these elbows? get clear skin that can last. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.
what we witnessed here in the last three months. >> bill: that was chuck grassley two hours ago. we're going back to our a-team. what joe manchin's calculation is now. he is about to put out a statement. >> manchin is telling reporters in the capitol he will put out a statement soon. it could say i'll decide tomorrow or yes tomorrow. he was yes to move it forward and john roberts got excellent reporting saying the white house is confident he will be yes as well tomorrow for the final vote. that gives some cushion. you could lose a collins if manchin is there. a lot of people calculating manchin doesn't want to be the deciding vote. he wants to be the 51st vote. >> bill: what if kavanaugh's nomination is defeated, capri? you're looking at an election 4 1/2 weeks from now. what's the effect of that? >> i think there be two levels
of impact. one on the individual member level. so for example if joe manchin votes no he could lose west virginia. on the flip side there are republicans that have been banking on this for happening, the reason why they voted for republicans across the board in 2016 because they assumed with one party control they will be able to get conservative nominees on the supreme court. if the republicans fail, that may have an impact directly on lisa murcowski or others that may vote against. however, it may actually either depress the republican vote so they don't show up in a mid-term election or on the flip side fire them up. >> bill: in mississippi and minnesota as well. >> what happened yesterday the democrats knocked themselves off target. their target from the upcoming elections was donald trump. they had him as their reason for democrats to go out and vote. they shifted that now to
kavanaugh. that might change between now and the election but the fact is that yesterday was a watershed moment. the f.b.i. came out with its report no corroborating evidence against kavanaugh. that was the defining vote for a lot of americans. i think people had a lot of pushback from their own constituents. i suspect that's one reason why manchin voted yes today was because he was hearing so much. even though he is ahead by eight points in west virginia. it could change. we saw what happened with heitkamp. the democrats from red states are worried now and the democrats have no one but themselves to blame. >> bill: get a load of this to see how these lines can get crossed. marsha blackburn is in a race for u.s. senate in tennessee against bredesen the governor there. our fox polling saw she had a lead. he just put out a statement saying he would vote yes on kavanaugh and you think about these guys -- these men and women fighting for their
political lives. the currents are starting to cross. >> bredesen doesn't have a vote yet but under pressure to pick sides on kavanaugh. here is a democrat in, as you say, a neck and neck race in trump country in tennessee and he is saying i would vote for kavanaugh. that adds to the pressure on a joe manchin in west virginia and adds pressure to a joe donnelly who voted no here in indiana to move forward on this. you would expect he would be no on final passage. he may still think he can win voting no on kavanaugh. there are republican voters out there. >> it's not just kavanaugh. it's the politics of personal destruction. that has met a watershed moment yesterday. a lot of americans don't want to do that. it's that movement that's as much in focus now as kavanaugh himself. >> bill: bredesen's statements. presidents have the right to appoint justices that share their values. elections have their consequences. >> sandra: not wrong. thank you very much for the
a-team. hope you hang on with us as the news continues to change throughout the hour. the vote is complete, the procedural vote. they voted 51-49 to advance kavanaugh to the final confirmation vote after the 30-hour window that's open for senators to take to the floor. we should see a vote tomorrow afternoon possibly at the earliest. up next we'll talk to a former assistant attorney general who has known brett kavanaugh for more than 20 years and get her take on where this battle heads next.
emotion as he testified before congress and how this process has played out and how it has deeply affected him professionally and personally and his family. >> right. i think that was so important for him to do. he has been criticized for that one day out of his entire life where he might have lost his cool a little bit. and that's not who he is. he is measured, he is sincere, he is a good judge. he is a good friend and an honest man and i think that came across in the op-ed that he -- that was published. >> sandra: he writes about his emotion last thursday. i was very emotional, more so than i ever have been. i might have been too emotional at times. i know my tone was sharp, he writes. i said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand i was there as a son, husband, and dad. i testified with five people foremost in my mind, my mom, my dad, my wife and most of all my daughters. now we're all left wondering
what his fate is as we await this final confirmation vote tomorrow. what are your expectations? >> well, i think everyone will be watching what susan collins does. i know she will make a statement soon. usually what happens is the cloture vote is a pretty good prediction of how people will end up but that's not always the case. i am hopeful that senator collins will go back and look at his record and not just these allegations that have come up and come to the decision that he would be the kind of justice we want on the court. >> sandra: he clearly tried to steer the conversation back to his record as a judge in that op-ed as well. he wrote i revere the constitution. i believe that an independent and impartial judiciary. if confirmed to serve on the supreme court i'll keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the constitution of the united states and the american rule of law. as i write that we're told that
there are protests happening outside of some of these senators' offices that were undecided and ultimately voted yes in the procedural vote such as jeff flake and protestors are filling up outside of his office. your thoughts this morning. >> you know, that's people's right. i'm hoping and hopeful that after this vote perhaps we can go back to normal. people will give him a chance if he is confirmed and see how he rules as a justice, how he handles himself. and i think that if he is confirmed, people will come to understand that this was the right thing to do. >> sandra: all right. thank you very much for your time this morning on a big news morning. we'll continue following all this. >> bill: this battle over judge kavanaugh is shaping up in all sorts of ways and certainly shape up the mid-terms as well. in a moment we'll talk to missouri senate candidate josh hawley. he has called over the past few weeks the senate a circus and
>> we were informed that juvenile jokes in his high school year book were sinister, secret references. all the keystone cops were on the case. keystone cops were on the case, madam president. and senate democrats cheered them on. >> sandra: that was senate majority leader mitch mcconnell moments before republicans cleared a major hurdle in the fight to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. lawmakers voting a short time ago to advance his supreme court nomination. kristin fisher is live on
capitol hill in the middle of all it. >> sandra, this is really it. we're finally in the homestretch. what you can expect to see over the next few hours are several speeches on the senate floor. these senators really want a chance to explain their vote because as senate majority leader machine mcconnell said it's one of the most important votes they'll likely make and one of the most important speeches we can expect to hear today is from susan collins from maine. one of the critical swing votes throughout this process. she just voted yes on cloture but remember, she could change her mind before the big confirmation vote tomorrow. it would be very rare, but stranger things have happened and other potential speeches to watch for today would be speeches from senators jeff flake and senator joe manchin from west virginia. they both just voted yes on cloture. then, of course, senator lisa murcowski who stunned everyone by voting no. we don't know for sure those senators will speak. the only ones we know for
certain is susan collins at 3:00 p.m. >> sandra: kristin fisher on capitol hill. >> bill: want to repeat what john roberts reported from the white house. he believes they do have the votes for confirmation but the clock is running. there will be a vote on brett kavanaugh's nomination no sooner than 4:52p.m. saturday afternoon. josh hawley, the attorney general from missouri and taking on claire mccaskill. what is your expectation from your spot there in missouri? >> i'm looking forward to the confirmation of judge kavanaugh. something that the people of my state voted for, bill, when they entrusted president trump voting for him by 20 points just because they trusted him to put pro-constitution judges on the bench. to see senator mccaskill vote no this morning to advance the nomination is extremely disappointing but i have to say typical. she has been part of the smear campaign from the beginning. >> bill: we had a poll we put out two days ago.
your race could not be tighter. it is 43/43 as of now, which in contrast to a little less than a month ago she had a lead of 3 points. what do you think is moving in that campaign in missouri as it reflects on the news of the day? >> well, i think that the judge kavanaugh confirmation process has made a huge difference. people are seeing the lengths these liberal democrats are willing to go to. claire mccaskill is willing to go to in order to seize power and in order, bill, to overturn the results of the 2016 election. that's ultimately what this is about. it's about denying the people's choice in 2016, the democrats are willing to do anything to accomplish that including claire mccaskill. >> bill: you jumped on this issue. you put oh spot out in the past couple of weeks and it went like this. >> the constitution gives the u.s. senate the responsibility of confirming justices to the supreme court but the people in our senate today created a
circus, liberals like claire mccaskill and chuck schumer don't want the truth. they only want power. >> bill: claire mccaskill is a no vote. what if brett kavanaugh's nomination is defeated this weekend? what would be the impact on voters there in missouri? >> i think voters would be extremely angry. they're furious at this process and furious it was turned into a circus. it is a disgrace to the united states senate, the behavior of these senate democrats. deliberately turning this process into a circus to smear judge kavanaugh, to harm dr. ford. they don't care about the truth or care about drr ford. they just want power. the people are angry and want something done in november. >> bill: we'll follow your race very closely here. it is one to watch now in about 4 1/2 weeks. it's coming very soon. josh hawley, thanks for that in missouri. we're watching the floor of the
senate. saw john cornyn on the floor at the microphone now delivering some impassioned words. just want to drop in and pick up what his message is now. >> i don't believe this is our fate. i don't believe we're condemned to work in a senate and live in a country where this kind of activity is condoned or ignored. i actually think by defeating judge kavanaugh's nomination, we would be signaling that this is somehow the new normal. we would be setting a precedent that yeah, that kind of stuff works, so let's try it again. and i'm not just saying one party or the other. the day after judge kavanaugh was nominated i said we'll defend the record of judge kavanaugh, a thoughtful public servant against deliberate
attempts to denigrate him. i stand by that statement and we have defended him. but not just defended him, but defended the constitution. fundamental notions of fairness and fair play that are reflected in our commitment to due process of law and the rights of somebody accused of a crime, which judge kavanaugh has been accused of on multiple occasions. even as the mud has been slung on all of us, even as insults have been hurled against this nominee and his family has faced ridicule over atrocious exploits that never even happened, at least i think we can be proud of the fact we tried to defend the constitution, this institution of the senate and push back
with everything we have against mob rule. unfortunately, the first -- >> bill: a series of speeches that we expect on the floor of the senate. want to give you a flavor as we move throughout the day, republicans and democrats what they have to say. >> sandra: the cloture clock will officially expire tomorrow afternoon, saturday at 4:52 p.m. according to the official time keepers, if the minority burns all 30 hours, which is the max they can go with these speeches on the floor, post cloture on the kavanaugh nomination the clock will expire at that time. so they are expected to burn through this afternoon, this evening, overnight, and into saturday afternoon. so the vote is expected to be tomorrow sometime between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. eastern time. >> bill: two things we're waiting on. joe manchin will come out with a statement. we don't know what's in the statement. as soon as we know we'll pass it to you.
susan collins at 3:00 eastern time. 3:21 minutes from now will be on the floor of the senate and announce her vote up or down on brett kavanaugh. >> sandra: on the final vote. she decided to vote yes this morning but as everyone has been noting, the senators can vote differently tomorrow in that final confirmation vote. a lot is still unexpected. we're one step closer. senators voting to end the debate and advance to a final floor vote tomorrow afternoon. we don't know what some of those key undecided voters plan to do tomorrow. that's the big question. what we can expect when we come back. to look at me now, you don't see psoriasis.
you see clear skin. cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to.
serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford? let's take a ride with some actual customers and find out. - well, tell me about your experience when you switched to the hartford. - when i switched to the hartford, i'm sitting there thinking, "man, i should have "turned 50 years ago." they saved me a bunch of money. you can't beat that. - what blows me away about the hartford is their lifetime renewability benefit. now this is their promise not to drop you even if you have an accident. - i know when i'm driving, i'm covered. - [narrator] drivers 50 and over can save hundreds of dollars when they switch to the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford and get other incredible benefits like lifetime renewability. not an aarp member? the hartford can help you join in minutes. call the hartford to request your free quote at...
or go to... there is a chance that's the last time. 300 miles per hour, that's where i feel normal. i might be crazy but i'm not stupid. having an annuity tells me retirement is protected. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org >> sandra: just about an hour ago three out of four of those key senators voted yes to advance the kavanaugh nomination but a yes today does not necessarily mean a yes tomorrow. attorney tim o'brien has covered the supreme court for two decades and joins us now. tim.
what did you think of this morning and how things played out? >> well, sandra, it's been an amazing experience. i've seen so many of these. i think it was senator john kennedy who characterized the hearings as an intergalactic freak show. never seen anything like this. i'm one who always believed the opposition party needs to conduct a searching inquiry. better they be over the top for a lifetime post on the supreme court get a free ride. this is more than anybody could have expected. it was ugly and i think both sides bear some of the blame. >> sandra: one of the interesting points you've been making through this process if ultimately brett kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court, there is a big question, you say, as to whether or not he will have to recuse himself from a wide range of cases following the comments that he made during his confirmation process. >> well, this recent outburst
during the confirmation hearing when he was defending himself raised a lot of questions not so much with me but with professor lawrence tribe at harvard, a great authority who i respect greatly and turn to often, and most recently senator jean-paul stevens who said that's an indication of a bias. i don't think that's going to be a factor. i think once the dust settles he will be able to decide these cases fairly. he did have a broadside at the senate democrats generally but he won't have to recuse himself in my view as often as justice kagan did as a former solicitor general. one issue he has staked out a position on that will be controversial should it get to the supreme court. whether a sitting president can be indicted for criminal offenses. he has written extensively on that that it's a bad idea and congress should take some measure, enact some legislation where a president could defer any criminal prosecution but never staked out a position constitution nallly. i don't think he has a position
on that. so on that question and so many others he will participate, i have no doubt. >> sandra: from what you have heard from those who know him best who have worked with him who have been by his side, who know and understand his work and how he goes about things, what is it that you hear the most about brett kavanaugh? >> we have many mutual friends. i have a pleasure of meeting him once. i don't know him personally. but my friends say he is a thoughtful judge. i know judges on the court of appeals where he sits who have the highest regard for him, liberal and conservative. no doubt he will be a thoughtful and good judge but a conservative judge and give the court a conservative tilt the likes of which it hasn't had in over 50 years. that's the problem for liberals. >> sandra: what do you expect will happen tomorrow? we're having this discussion in the context that he is ultimately confirmed. that is not a given at this point. what do you expect? >> well, it will be very interesting to see what susan collins says. i know the hometown newspapers
have been very hard on judge kavanaugh and have urged her to vote against. if she votes against the pressure will turn on west virginia senator manchin. that could turn the tide around against kavanaugh. i think at this point the betting has to be, however, that he will be confirmed. it will be a new world of the court, a new world for liberals who have to take their case to some other forum. many cases, not all of them. the state legislatures rather than supreme court. judge kavanaugh being a fifth vote to overruhl roe versus wade. i don't see a fourth or third vote. roe versus wade is good. a new conservative court might allow states to impose greater restrictions which could have an adverse effect on someone, poor women, women in abusive relationships who can't go from state to state. >> sandra: heading into the vote this morning joe manchin told reporters he was still undecided. he voted yes. he was asked what is the one thing weighing on his decision.
i believe his answer was everything. what ultimately do you think as we wait for these senators to go in and make their final vote in the confirmation vote tomorrow. what is it that those undecideds or were undecideds, what is it they're weighing most? >> it might have the depth of the f.b.i. inquiry. in some respects is quite appropriate and depending how you look at these allegations was insufficient. i think his demeanor in the most recent appearance could be a factor. he acknowledged he was intemperent, his op-ed may -- than his appearance before senators. i think that's a factor. i just -- what is going through the senator manchin's mind and senator collins' mind we won't know for a few hours or until tomorrow. i can't guess.
you are correct, this is not a done deal. there are still votes to be counted. >> sandra: tom dupree had this to say. >> the challenge for those on the left opposing judge kavanaugh is that his track record over his 28 years in public service doesn't give them a huge amount of stuff to shoot at. he has been widely acclaimed even been people who are his opponents who someone who takes the law and constitution very seriously. when you try to find ways to attack judge kavanaugh on his jurisprudence and approach to the law and constitution i think the democrats have come up empty. >> sandra: interesting stuff there. ultimately he said i think the democrats have come up empty. final word to you. >> i agree with everything he said. he is sincere, honest, interprets the constitution as he thinks it should be. unfortunately it is not the way many others interpret the constitution. >> sandra: tim o'brien, thank you very much. great to get your perspective. >> bill: a couple things we don't know. we don't know why murcowski
voted no today whether she is listening to the hearing and testimony of dr. ford from a week ago or whether or not there is a case that apparently brett kavanaugh was involved in that dealt with the rights of native americans in hawaii and there is a question whether or not kavanaugh was -- could have a say that would affect native americans in her native alaska. in addition to that murcowski was defeated and then she was won her senate seat as a write-in candidate. she has a strong, independent streak in the state of alaska. what her reasoning is we don't know. she voted no to advance the motion today but we wait for an explanation from that. as we wait for joe manchin. >> sandra: this is interesting. we've only heard one tweet from the president said the vote happened. very proud of the senate for voting yes and the white house are very confident that they have the votes to confirm judge brett kavanaugh coming from
mercedes schlapp at the white house. >> bill: the senate has approved the motion today 51-49. we await the next move. quick time-out here, back in a moment right after this. have served our country honorably. one of the benefits that we as a country give you as a veteran is the eligibility for a va loan for up to 100% of your home's value. if you need cash for your family, call newday usa. with automatic authority from the va, we can say yes when banks say no. give us a call. call now: 1-855-376-1361.
i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in i literally say, ahh. meet the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. this bed hugs my body. i'm now a morning person. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. hello bed of my dreams. order online. we'll build it, box it and ship it to your door for you to enjoy. sleep on it to up to 100 nights and love it or you get a full refund. returns are free and easy. i love my leesa. today is
gonna be great. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our fall mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. >> bill: dick durbin is now at the microphone and we'll continue to bring you a lot of their reaction. as we close out our three hours here tim o'brien is trying to figure out why murcowski is a no vote. we don't have an answer. if you think about susan collins spending 90 minutes in the scif yesterday. a friend of dr. ford named in her hearing came out and suggested that she was pressured by those on the left to change her story. and if that is in the f.b.i. report, you don't know how that
plays with someone who sees that perhaps for the first time, tim. >> no, insofar as senator murcowski is concerned i understand a group of women who say they were victims of sexual predators and abuse did show up at her office and came down from alaska. 20-some women to explain their plight, how difficult it was to come forward. and they said she was very receptive. they might have made the difference. i also think dr. ford could have helped her case a great deal had she released her therapist notes. you have a memory and some people say we do think something happened here but we don't know that it was brett kavanaugh who was the perpetrator. releasing those notes that were private and intimate and didn't with a to do that. that could have helped. one of the things that really hurts the democrats' case in all of this and her case is the fact that there was no contemporaneous record when this incident allegedly occurred. you can't blame her for not reporting it but had it been
reported it would have been easier to get to the bottom of it. >> bill: thank you for hanging out with us. supreme court watcher extraordinaire in washington, d.c., we're coming up on the noon hour, sandra, and we got a few things in the offing, right? >> sandra: an update coming from the white house per our reporting at fox news channel. one senior white house official tells fox they feel very good about keeping the three at this point. another senior white house official says they will hold onto the three. they will certainly try. and that is the latest from the white house because otherwise the president said he was proud of the senate for passing this along for the final confirmation vote tomorrow. we haven't heard from him otherwise. >> bill: it feels razor tight. too close to call. back in a moment.
at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay
higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free.
>> sandra: that is it for us. what a morning this was. your final thoughts, bill hemmer? a >> bill: we will find out tomorrow, won't we? four: 52 will be the final moment. listen, i think it is -- too close to call. >> sandra: it is too close. >> bill: you're going to venture a guess, are you? >> sandra: no, i'm not. i will leave that to these folks. spew 25 starts now. >> harris: fox news alert, brand-new reaction from capitol hill after the senate a short time ago voted 51-49 to end the debate on spring court nominee brett kavanaugh. advancing his nomination. and now, the moment of truth for kavanaugh as the final vote is set for tomorrow evening pay less than 30 hours from now. this is outnumbered, i melissa francis. here today is harris faulkner, fox news can your bitter lisa boothe, host of kennedy on the fox business network, kennedy, and joining us on the couch, jake maccoby, former chief speechwriter. for former attorney general loretta lynch, and former policy advisor to the hillary clinton
Uploaded by TV Archive on