U.S. Senate Sens. Schumer Mc Connell on Kavanaugh Nomination CSPAN October 1, 2018 6:41pm-7:12pm EDT
move to demand the fbi investigate credible allegations of sexual misconduct by the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. it was the right thing to do. to doctor ford and the judge kavanaugh.av for too long republicans have rushed the process forward and likely would progress to a final vote if not by the prudent bipartisan efforts to demand a full fbiat investigation. what's important now is for the fbi investigation to be serious, impartial and thorough. to vet out the facts and do so quickly. that means interviewing all witnesses and accepting corroborating accounts when they come forward.ns also following up on any leads
from the process of the investigation the fbi has ample resources within the one week period requested by the judiciary committee. everybody is asking to be done within that week. there is concern the white house has placed severe constraints on the investigation and i am told today the president try to dodge that responsibility with the white house said theow senate is somehow responsible for the scope of the investigation. let me be clear the senate has no control over the scope of an fbi investigation of this sort. only the white house. a few hours ago, was glad to hear president trump said he would like to see doctor ford and judge kavanaugh interviewed as part of the fbi investigation and they should
be able to interview anyone appropriate. we have to make sure those comments reflect what the white house has officially told the fbi. democratic senators led by ranking member feinstein have asked the white house what parameters it is giving to the fbi but we have not yet received a reply. so we need an additional document from the white house and for the public so the whole country knows the scope and it should outline the investigatio investigation. we ask the president come if you are truly giving the fbi the ability to follow the facts wherever they lead, show us what white house cancel monash council has instructed the fbi because before his off-the-cuff comments in the rose garden there were rumors the majority staff of the
judiciary committeeee were drawing up limited interview information for the fbi to circumscribe the investigation. partisan staffers should not put any constraints over this investigation. democratic staffers and the republican majority then on the phone with teeeleven and it is that same partisan staff to block those documents in a purely partisan way when this had always been done in a b bipartisan way so on that republican side to dictate long - - dictate the terms of this investigation and ultimately president trump knows and they know that the buck stops with the white house.
now the president said he wants a full investigation, , we assume that will happen. but we want to make sure that counsel tells the fbi just that. t the american people deserve to what is the scope of the investigation. because this investigation must be done in a manner to have confidence in its findings. for or against judge cap not going to the supreme court it only benefits the c country if the investigation is regarded as fair, clear and not constrained particularly bipartisan means. and for that reason we hope the fbi will be available to
brief the senate on the results of the investigation before the final floor vote democrats are not interested in delay for the sake of delay. this can all be completed quickly but it must be done right. mister president we are a society based on the rule of law it is crucial the american people have faith in the judiciary, especially the supreme court. our job as senators is to decide if someone has intelligence or the temperamental and independence and credibility to earn the title of justice for a lifetime. character matters deeply. anyone who watched the judiciary committee hearing on thursday should have s serious if not disqualifying facts of his credibility and independence quality we should expect of any supreme court justice.
to address the nominees independence that after doctor ford's courageous detailed testimony to the committee judge kavanaugh embarked on a partisan scheme for a conspiratorial plot to destroy his nomination he even had the temerity to label the recent allegationss as a revenge of the clintons as a bogeyman of partisan republican republicans. and that was from his prepared opening statements. when questioned, judge kavanaugh rudely interrupting and dismissing questions in a way i have never seen tolerated from a witness. he answered --dash asked democratic member if she had everhe blacked out from drinking
and offensive question by a nominee who was there to answer questions not debate them. very nasty questions. it is quite clear from thursday's testimony judge kavanaugh answers deep resentments that is not the type of justice we need on the supreme court. i must say this is not the first time i thought that judge kavanaugh was to partisan when he came forward in 2004 and 2006 i noted he was involved in every majorar legal partisan fight in the bush and clinton eras e with torture to signing statements to mandating - - mandating miranda. i wondered then as i do today if we should promote a loyal partisan warrior to a position that calls for independence
and judicious in his. frankly, judge kavanaugh's testimony was a stunning display of part one - - partisanship to solidify my skepticism about objectivity and independence. i understand these issues are emotional and his character was questioned but rather than provide sincere and measure testimony in his defense which would have been far more effective he revealed his worldview was skewed by a very partisan lens. and what was the most important question on about his credibility president trump has suggested it doesn't matter what somebody did 36 years ago in high school. whatever view you take of that notion, i believe given the seriousness of what doctor
ford said, it should matter. that is a question of the credibility that weighs on us today on his behavior right now. it is not what he did as a 16 or 17 -year-old but what he said as a 53 -year-old nominee to the court.. the harsh fact of the matter is we have mounting evidence that judge kavanaugh is not credible. he has assembled the policy on torture with controversial judges and grand jury proceedingshe thursday's hearing provided fresh examples of his difficult relationship with the truth. judge kavanaugh gave answers about his yearbook h page supposedly drinking games and high school behavior that simply defies credulity. he said he'd never drink so much that he forgot events.
characterization that does not titrack with multiple descriptionsla of college classmates. so the 64000-dollar question is judge kavanaugh credible. will he say anything or deny anything? this lead about anything to the supreme court? does he have the integrity and independence and credibility to do the job? does he deserve the promotion of a lifetime for a lifetime? these are very serious questions about his state of today notho he is who he was in 1982. that should weigh on the conscience.
and in my experience at judge kavanaugh 2004, 2006 and throughout this process i have been left with the impression that judge kavanaugh would dissemble and prevaricate about everything from the momentous to the mundane or whatever it takes to cast his light. now with the bravest of allegations in the sincere testimony of a courageous woman i believe the senate should consider the issue of credibility to be front and center in deciding whether judge kavanaugh deserves a seat on the bench as in a lifetime appointment to the most important court in the land. i yield the floor