Senate Democratic Leaders News Conference CSPAN July 10, 2018 9:51pm-10:16pm EDT
he's one of the premier talents in the country he has a long record people can examine what we would like to see about this extraordinary talent maybe we will see more than we have at the beginning as several colleagues pointed out it is clear is significant number didn't care who the nominee was all. now you've got an individual with extraordinary credentials and we will see what kind of an argument they make in the qualifications.
and he promised he would appoint a nominee who would undo the healthcare so many people depend on. she had two groups, the federalist society and the heritage foundation, one of which is dedicated to repealing roe v. wade and the other is dedicated to getting rid of health care for americans and he chose someone from the list. you can be sure the federalist society didn't allow anyone on the list who would maintain roe. you can be sure that the heritage foundation wouldn't allow anyone on the list who would maintain health care, particularly the ability of families with pre-existing conditions to continue to get healthcare and then why did he
choose him when all of these others would have met the criteria that is so offensive to so many americans. he chose the candidate he thought would best protect him from the investigations. he was probably the most extreme on the 25. he chose the nominee that he thought was the most extreme on that issue. not only did he say that a president should be subpoenaed, he said a president should be investigated. as the president above the law? and he went even further and made the incredulous statement if the president deemed the law to be unconstitutional, he
shouldn't follow it. that would be bad if anyone were president. but with donald trump who has shown so little respect for the rule of law, for the balance of power, for the dispersion of power is extremely dangerous. we believe the number one issue in america is healthcare and the ability for people to get good healthcare at prices they can afford. the nomination with a dagger through the heart through the beliefs of most americans have and that is a belief that most have said there are many issues out there. there's the rights of labor unions, there's the rights of people that want to protect the environment, the rights of the community all at risk but at the
top of the list is healthcare. and this nominee will make the ability of americans to afford decent health care so much worse. senator klobuchar. >> thank you so much senator. it's to do the people's business. over the next few months we will be looking at all the records and the 300 physicians. we will be looking at all of the records from when the nominee was in the white house. that is obvious. but i think ou of her other jobs just as important and that is the job to make the case to the american people. that this is an incredibly important decision on the supreme court. the supreme court in recent decades decided who can marry
who. they decided where you can work and they decided if and how you can vote and the cases that are coming before them are equally as important. we know the administration has argued down in texas that the ban on insurance companies taking people off of the insurance just because they are sick and just as with pre-existing condition or because of their medical history is working its way up to the supreme court. and when you look at the record of the nominee, you see a few things. you see that there is a pattern of decisions that are very conservative. you look at the decision regarding the immigrant at the border. border. you've read thyou read the lange position. you look at the decision that was made on some consumer issues like finding that the consumer protection agency was unconstitutional which later the supreme court disagreed with him. you look at the decision
recently where he dissented and said that they couldn't even do anything to regulate net neutrality and the rights of the cable company should be protected. the court came in and said he was wrong. so that is going to be our job to look at the record, but i think the most important thing people look at that americans don't care about the court we heard some of you asked this question over the last few days. they care about the right to reproductive freedom and those are the cases that we are going to be making to the american people. and i would say one last thing for too many nomination hearings we have been hearing how people can't comment ocan comment on ag because it might come before the court. that's true but when something is settled and they seem to comment on it. the justice asked a question
about the griswold case. we have many nominees before the committee who were willing to say where they stand on dred scott or brown v. board of education. roe v. wade is 45-years-old and its time in nomineit's time in e they stand on that case. >> over the past year and a half, donald trump and his administration have led a concerted effort to undermine the country's health-care system and repeal the affordable care act. the two organizations that mimic the nominees to the federalist society and the heritage foundation are to repeal the affordable care for health care in our country and to undo roe v. wade said the next justice will play a key role either in reaffirming the strengthening healthcare law in the affordable care act and i want to focus on that most definitely undermining of weakening it.
and that is one of the most important things at stake in this nominee because we all know that healthcare is very important to every single person in this country regardless of age or political orientation or healthcare is important. as mentioned right now there is a lawsuit brought by the state of texas and usually with the government is supposed to do and the attorney general's office is supposed to do is defend the law that has been passed by congress. the affordable care act is a law passed by congress. so, unlike what they are supposed to do, this administration has said we are going to side with the state of texas to undo the protections for people with pre-existing conditions. these could be people with a medical record. record. one out of four people in the country have a pre-existing condition. i'm looking at all of you. one out of four of you were maybe more than that have a
pre-existing condition. for thso the fact that this laws going to go all the way to the same court regardless of how the district court rules, the next nominee who gets confirmed is going to be making a decision. .. >> that is the direction he is going. a little over a year ago i saw somebody and i was diagnosed with kidney cancer. thankfully i had insurance. i could focus on my care as opposed to how i was going to afford the care i needed. i now join the millions of people in our country with pre-existing conditions. diabetes, asthma, cancer. i would say that if a texas case prevails of the supreme court,
people with the condition of mine would either not get coverage or it will be so expensive humans will not have a so, the two organizations that have advance judge kevin i know where they stand. and those who sit on the committee have to listen and they can't even tell us if they will abide by several cases such as role as his way. they just hide behind this idea that they could come before as they were going to support the president. that is total bs. when you are on the supreme court you set precedents. that's what they did last week when they ended a 40 year precedent when they are did i
union. this next nominee, judge kavanaugh is going to do exactly what heritage foundation and the federalist society expect him to do, especially in healthcare. is going to affect all of us. >> if you think about the fact pattern, this is a moment in history that should be alarming to us all. this is not a partisan moment. it is a moment for our country if we are going to allow this to continue. this is a fact pattern i want to walk through. first and foremost this nation was attacked by the russians. it was concluded by all of our intelligence communities including the senate bipartisan intelligence community.
they confirm that we are not only attacked but the gravity of this important of us getting it to the bottom of this. we were indeed attacked, he was involved with the campaign that was under investigation and he recused himself and set up a special prosecutor. over the last month they had brought over 70 charges that affect over 20 individuals or organizations, five people have pled guilty and one person was criminally sentence. that is clear, not up for debate. now, we have a president who would see some 20 twentysomething people surrounding him in his campaign and presidency who now have an ongoing investigation, the president is a subject of investigation. many elements can now go before the supreme court. the elements are everything to
can a president be criminally indicted? can a president pardon himself? cannot president and an investigation? admits all of these issues and more coming from the supreme court, we have a president who is picking a judge who would fit in the balance of such a decision. the judge she has picked, judge kavanaugh was the only person amidst all of these individuals on his much talked about list, the only person who clearly stated he will give you immunity, i will be your shield. these are things that judge kavanaugh has written. a sitting president should never be criminally indicted. the president take what should have absolute discretion about whether and when he can be independently investigated. also to decide who does the
investigating. something else he has written is the president and attorney general rather than a court should define and monitor independent counsel jurisdiction. finally, he has written any special prosecutor should be removable by the president. this is astonishing to me that you now have the president, the thousands of judges he could have pick for, he chose the one person that is written that should have immunity from investigation and any kind of prosecution that might result. this to me is astonishing. not only that it should not be allowed. the president should not be above the law. the president it should not be beyond criminal investigation. the president of the united states should not be able to pick the judge that will preside over questions involving the
investigation. none of the american citizens believe any subject to an investigation that person should not be able to pick the judge. it is common sense. here we are now, allowing a process to go forward that might have a president decide what the outcome of this investigation could ultimately be. that should not happen. the senate should not move forward with this confirmation. they should not go forward with advising this individual until this prosecution and criminal investigation is done. if we do go forward, every republican and democrat should join together and insisting that kavanaugh recuse himself or any matter regarding the president that would come before the supreme court. this is not a partisan issue.
we could walk back and look at this fact pattern and everyone would agree it is absurd. that anyone his subject of a criminal investigation should be able to choose their judge ultimately might have to decide what happens. >> senator booker will go vote and then come back and join us. [inaudible] >> when the president met with president she and kim jong-un, they took him to the cleaners it seems. they got what they wanted and we did not get much of what we wanted. it is even worse for him to meet with a very clever, out for himself man like president putin alone. i am very much afraid what he would give away without advisors to keep them in check. >> [inaudible question]
>> the bottom line is, we are focusing on both issues and others. that has been clear all morning. as for what will happen, i believe if we can convince the american people that judge kava noel on the court would lead to the repeal of the affordable care act of protections with pre-existing conditions, and repeal women's right for reproductive rights, we will get a majority in the senate to vote him down. >> this morning you said that democrats left access and have a
paper trail, can you expand on what that would involve? >> we want the same standard that we afforded the republicans when they asked for a large amount of paper trail from elena kagan. there were 170,000 pages turned over by the archives. this is a vital appointment. it could affect america for a generation. we want to see all of the documentation before we vote. we are asking the same expansive but necessary production of documents that we afforded the republicans and kagan was the nominee, be done here with kavanaugh as the nominee. >> is that in terms of the time. >> the sooner the better. were not trying to delay, we just think it's important. someone is trying to delay, but it is not me. we just think it is important to have these, the sooner the
better. >> how far could you take this? is there a point where democrats might boycott the hearing altogether? >> look, the procedural ways that are available to us in the minority are not that large. there is no way that we can prevent the senate from meeting. there has been some discussion about that but it would not happen. if we did they could unanimously consent all kinds of things you would not want it to see. as for the committee, we believe we should be there and asked very tough questions of the nominee. if we did not show up, grassley and other chairs have just said, we are going to vote without them there. >> in the end, this is about getting the republicans to look at this.
we know we have a number of them when everyone thought we were going to lose the affordable care act and it was going to be repealed we made the case to the american people. we got three republicans to vote with us. it is the same scenario. it's not just about the two women, there are plenty of guys over there to. >> there are others who might be susceptible to vote with us. and, the substances the way to in this. american people care about their rights taken away, whether they be civil rights, labor rights, healthcare rights, women's right to choose, that's what we're focusing on. >> [inaudible question] >> again, our focus is on the substance. we think that the nominee would be so devastating and what he
would put in place and turn the clock back decades that is our main focus, not who comes with them. we do feel as senator kopitar said he has to answer questions. the old dodge of saying very decisive has been thrown out the window because justice roberts, justice alito and justice gorsuch the minute they got on the court they did not. thank you everybody. >> if you do not think ruth bader ginsburg answered questions, watch the movie. >> brett kavanaugh of the united
states court of appeals for the district of columbia's president trumps nominee for the supreme court. follow the confirmation process c-span as he meets with key senators on capitol hill followed by senate confirmation hearings and the boat. watch and c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> wednesday in the c-span networks, the house returns at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning our life on c-span. i knew they take up legislation sponsored by don young. on c-span two they continue work on a number of judicial and executive nominations on the schedule this week. at 10:00 a.m. officials briefed lawmakers on the u.s. interest in latin america and the caribbean. that's five on c-span three. in the afternoon, the acting administrator, andrew wheeler addresses agency staff at the washington headquarters in the senate finance committee looks
at page leave. c-span's "washington journal", live every day with news and policy issues that impact too. coming up on wednesday morning, former senate judiciary general counsel on the process of concerning the supreme court nomination. then we talk about the russian investigation and former fbi agent peter structs upcoming testimony. florida republican congressman, francis rooney had president trumps meeting in brussels. watch live at 7:00 a.m. join the discussion. >> the senate democratic policy and communications committee held