tv Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner FOX News September 6, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT
advice on what may happen if a particular arguments were presented it to the supreme court on the merits. he looked regulations. as i understand it, correct me if i'm wrong, if i understood it correctly, the government was considering making a series of arguments before the supreme court and you did what a good lawyer should do when advancing an argument to the court. you counted to five. you identified five supreme court justices who you believed would not accept the government's argument in defense of those d.o.t. regulations. is that right? >> that's correct, under the precedent that existed at the time. >> and yet at the time, the supreme court of the united states had already granted review of the case,
meaning the supreme court like most appellate courts is in charge with very few exceptions remaining today. of its own docket, the 10,000 or so cases that want to go to the supreme court each year that will be reviewed by the court. the court had already been granted review in that case, is that right? as i read these emails, i read your argument does saying number one, you cannot count to five here because i'm identifying, i've identified that the justices can embrace these arguments in defense of these department of transportation regulations. but the court has already granted, so what to do? as i understand the emails, you recommended a course of action that would allow the government to make its case in a way that would allow the court to decide that perhaps it shouldn't have
granted review on the case. on my correct so far? >> that's correct, senator. >> what is that called when the court decides it shouldn't have granted a case? >> dismissing as improperly granted. >> you came up with the strategy for having the court dig oh court that had already been granted. you didn't want the government to have to endure that. did they accept your arguments? >> the supreme court did, yes. >> the government, the bush administration followed your advice and wrote the arguments as you had prescribed, thus prompting a dig. as a result, the regulations stood up, isn't that right? >> i believe that's so.
>> they stood where they otherwise would have fallen. >> that's right. >> here again i have a hard time seeing this as anything other than something that helps you, not just with republicans but helps you with democrats. you saw a problem with the argument the government was making, you identified that problem, you offered a remedy, that remedy was embraced. the court did exactly as you wanted it to do and as a result the regulations stood, the regulation that senator booker is concerned about, wanting to make sure was not under attack unfairly was in fact preserved. i have a hard time seeing why that shouldn't make him want to devote more for you. i think senator booker really should vote for you, i will have that conversation with him later. okay, one additional response to last night's round of questions.
at the end of a grueling day, my friend and colleague senator harris from california asked you whether you'd spoken to anyone at the law firm about the mueller investigation. she implored you to be sure about your answer, which i suppose is good advice in any context. it can sound somewhat ominous. the issue with this question is kasowitz is a law firm that includes 350 lawyers in nine u.s. cities. i'm guessing not even mr. kasowitz himself, who started the firm can even name every single attorney. could you name every attorney that works at that firm? >> no. >> can you rule out the possibility that you may have close friends, former law clerks, former law school
classmates who might work at that firm at some point? >> i don't know who works at that firm other than a few people i'm aware of. i did not know senator lieberman worked at the firm. >> can you name the nine cities were of this firm has offices? >> no. >> my colleague's question may be a very direct question but it's something i think in this circumstance is unfair. if you can't identify the people she has in mind or you don't even know who works there. let me ask you something that may get at her underlying concern in a way i think is fair, i think each of my colleagues when they have concerns and questions, they deserve to have their concerns addressed, let me ask you in a way i think is fair. have you made any promises or guarantees to anyone about how you would vote on any case that might come before you if you are
confirmed in the supreme court of the united states? >> no. >> have you had any improper conversation with anyone about the mueller investigation? >> no. >> let's talk a little bit about executive power. it is the president of the united states absolutely immune from any and all legal action, whether civil or criminal? >> senator, the foundation of our constitution was that, as hamilton explained, the presidency would not be a monarchy and it specified all the ways that under the constitution the president is not above the law, no one is above the law. in the united states of america. the president is subject to the
law, the supreme court precedent in cases such as clinton versus jones, united states versus richard nixon, established those principles, in the official capacity, so the president has authority under the constitution, the executive power under the constitution, the president as established by the frameworks of the constitution is not above the law, no one is above the law in the united states of america. >> a practical matter, who investigates the president? >> as a practical matter, traditionally, as i've written about, when there is an allegation of wrongdoing by someone in the executive branch, as to whom there might be a conflict of interest of an ordinary justice department process took place, there has
been traditionally the appointment by the attorney general of a special counsel that's gone back for hundred years or so of that kind of outside counsel appointment, we saw that in watergate but we've seen it lots of other times where special councils have been appointed for particular matters where there is otherwise a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest of some kind. >> now, i've had colleagues who have worried about your view that morrison was wrongly decided. your view, just to be clear is that morrison applies only in a special context no longer relevant here, is that right? >> that's correct. >> what context is that? >> the independent counsel statute which is distinct, it had a lot of features to it, and that statute was viewed by the
congress when we consider day in 1999 as being unrestrained, unaccountable, impermissible and the statue was not renewed, the morrison case was about a one-off statute that no longer exists. >> that's what you can talk about it. >> that's why i have talked about it. >> these are the remains of a once existing but no longer -- it's a dinosaur, in legal terms. what about your opinion on phh, it's really limited to independent agencies. >> the federal energy regulatory commission, the securities and exchange commission, a full range of independent agencies, the 1935 president of the supreme court established that those are permissible. traditionally they've been
multimember bodies and that was a problem i thought in the consumer financial protection case. i would up with a remedy, still allow that agency to continue operating and performing its consumer functions. >> harris: i'm harris faulkner, this is "outnumbered overtime." we've been watching the live confirmation hearing of supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. at times in the several hours we've been covering this on fox news today, it has been contentious. at the heart of that contention has been a new jersey senator, cory booker. saying he would capitulate or surrender to senate rule of being expelled from the senate by releasing some information he is calling confidential. some emails by brett kavanaugh. the situation has moved forward quite a bit and we want to catch you up, we are all over the hearing. we will dip in and out over the next couple of minutes but let's
beget to the news that's being made on this. shannon bream joins me now, shannon, you've been covering the hearings on capitol hill. particularly interesting, this battle among senators today, was it real what we saw with cory booker and others? >> that's what were digging into. you saw him this morning, i'll take the consequences, i'll take the punishment, i'm knowingly violating policy but i think these document need to be out there. senator cornyn asked him to reconsider. there was a lot of heat about this, cory booker later saying bring it on, i welcome that. he referred to senator cornyn who was a bully with a lot of talk and no action, there've been some developments since then. committee staffers now say that all these documents were cleared for release by 4:00 a.m. this
morning and they tell us the senators were notified before speaking this morning. i've reached out directly to senator booker's office to say when did he know that these documents were cleared before he made such a big show of saying i'm going to throw myself on the sword essentially. is it possible he didn't know the documents were cleared before he made these statements? he said he did not know until after that exchange. we will get let you know if we get an answer, it may have been a dustup that was more smoke and not fire. >> melissa: "spartacus" is where kurt douglass and many famous actors stood up and said they would be him in that moment of life taking. he was a gladiator, he'd been taken into custody at that point and everybody stood up and said they were spartacus, willing to take the death knell for him.
a very interesting jump the shark moment for cory booker if it turns out these documents had been cleared to be made public. and were not marked confidential at the time that he shared them. we are still gathering facts, weaving the story along. we have now talked about all sorts of topics. you know where the hot spots are. is there any place where brett kavanaugh has had a challenge? >> it's interesting because last night there were documents, one mentioned by senator booker and other things mentioned by senator harris. a lot of people think the two of them are trying to get attention for 2020, they are relatively junior senator's here but she alluded to a couple things that left some open questions. both of them planted the seeds of mystery last night and we watched to see whether they would actually bloom today. the thing that seemed to confuse folks working on this nomination
that maybe they don't know everything, maybe they do and there's nothing to it. we found out what he was after because we've seen these emails. most folks across the board say there's nothing objectionable here. we wait to see what we get from senator harris. you may be able to hear behind me another round of protesters. >> harris: the protesters have been yelling "clear the docs, release files." i have judge andrew napolitano with me now, you actually are in favor of releasing the files, releasing the documents from brett kavanaugh's history. why? >> i think there's an impression on the part of the public that unreleased documents show something the party that controls them wants to hide. i don't think judge kavanaugh has anything to hide. it's the white house's decision. i don't know what's in there but i'm in favor of releasing them and if they want to question judge kavanaugh about than they
ought to be able to do so. >> harris: it's all win politically for democrats assuming they still have time to read all the documents. >> the system must be fair and it must be perceived as being fair. the democratic claim that a hundred thousand documents written up about this man when he was a young lawyer, by president bush who has personally signed off on these documents, that's a legitimate beast. i myself want to see in those documents. he's going to be signed off on by the committee and probably going to be confirmed by the senate but there will be that impression that there was something in those documents they wanted to hide. >> harris: is this something the judge himself can weigh in on? >> no, we are dealing with a statute which says the president under whose office the documents
were prepared and to the president who is in office at the time the documents are demanded, must both agree. if either one says no the documents don't come out. george w. bush said release them all, president trump said here is 100,000 we are going to keep secret. >> harris: we are watching something happen on capitol hill, some instructions being given here. we heard quite a few protesters, shannon bream was talking about that moments ago and you see the judge has gathered his belongings there. we are watching very closely to see if they take another break here. judge andrew napolitano along with us, dipping in and out of this today. thank you very much for your expertise. let's now bring in republican senator john thune, chairman of the g.o.p. conference. great to have you. we are about to have a little more time than we thought we would because as i was
observing, they are in fact after some outburst there, after a protester outburst they are going to take a break. you and i have a little more time. let's catch up with the action today and start with this. you work across the aisle with senator cory booker of new jersey. what did you make of his so called surrender to senate rules? he's allowed himself to come if it's necessary to be expelled. we learned that documents have perhaps been cleared for us to see. >> i think the point of all of this is, clearly he is running for president. you've got to appeal to the far left end of the far left right now is in a rage over judge kavanaugh and the fact that this president would have the opportunity to nominate him and get them confirmed and the supreme court. it's all about the emotion on the left, all about these
candidates already, some of the senate doing everything they can to appeal to that far left base. it's unfortunate because it really detracts from what should be a process that is befitting of a nominee of the supreme court. >> harris: i wrote down what you said, clearly he's running for president and that would make it purely political. let's do one more quick question on this and i want to move on and talk about the government shutdown potentially looming at the end of the month. judge kavanaugh is said to have not made any major missteps. ra there any challenges you've seen and what does that mean for the overall picture? it certainly looks like 100% he will be confirmed. >> at this point he's acquitted himself extremely well in the hearings as we've expected they would. he's incredibly intelligent and studied and obviously articulate and i think that came across and the american people had an
opportunity to see that. it's unfortunate the democrats tried to create the circus atmosphere around these hearings and are doing everything they can to delay what will ultimately be an affirmative vote on his confirmation. i expect it to happen, it's a question of timing and hopefully it will happen before october 1st when the new court is ceded for this year. >> harris: we are headed towards and another inevitable t with government shutdown, it's so interesting you get together and every few months or so, they can has some new ingredients now and that's what the president has talked about. if it happens, it happens. if it's about border security i willing to do anything. that's the president of the united states. to speak all right. we met with him yesterday on this subject, he obviously is interested in how we wind down the fiscal year, we have defined
the government by then and talk for priorities for the calendar year. he's incredibly passionate and he believes the american people support him and i think they do. he is willing to do whatever it takes to get that done. we tried to convince him, advised him that shutting down the government doesn't accomplish that objective but in the end we want to work with him however we can to try to get the wall built because it is an important part of border security and an important part of keeping citizens in this country safe. >> harris: as big as the issue of illegal immigration has been this summer in particular, the president doubling down on something we know is so important to him. we will cover the news as it's happened, we are happy to have you on the program today. thank you for your time. the senate judiciary committee has taken a break as you saw. we will bring it to you live
...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. come hok., babe. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is! each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer.
this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today.
>> harris: they are in a 30 minute or so break on capitol hill. when that resumes, of course, we are following the situation. we will take you back live, it's been pretty fiery today. we are following other big stories, concerns of russian interference as people go to vote, two top tech executives have appeared before a senate committee. sheryl sandberg and jack dorsey testifying about their company's response to the ongoing threats online. a later hearing in the house became much more contentious as dorsey faced questions about twitter suppressing conservative content. let's start off with that, "suppression of conservative content." it's been a lightning rod point because if you do it to anybody
it's not fair. >> it's not fair because if you look at social media today, 67% of adults get their news from social media. it has become the town square. what we've found in so many different places, remember what happened to the conservatives when they were a shadow band? first twitter said they did not do it, now jack admitted it did happen with their algorithm and it happened not based upon what those individuals were doing on twitter but who followed them and they never explained it. bringing them before us in getting transparency changes twitter's actions. >> harris: is it too strong to call it censorship? >> i don't think so. take a perspective here. if you google the california republican party two weeks before the primary election, it said our ideology was "nazi-ism
"nazi-ism." facebook didn't let those go forward because they said to youtube rated them similar to what they would rate pornograph pornography, that's what they said in the beginning. after we made these issues come forward, we've had senior engineers at facebook who are conservative bring a group together because they feel it's a mob mentality where they are being intimidated because of their own personal views. >> harris: i want to cut this very basic because that's what i tend to be on these issues. if these companies cannot protect the quality and fairness among americans and their politics, how are they going to be part of a solution protecting us from russian or any other interference? >> that's why we are having these hearings. what jack dorsey said about twitter, he's trying to build a platform for fairness but who creates those standards? they have a group called the
twitter trust and safety council made up of 48 groups, only one group in their is even partly middle-of-the-road. where are they getting this fairness from? especially from their employees if they have a different view. remember what jack dorsey did, he aided chick-fil-a and apologize for doing that. if this is going to be the town square it needs to be fair for speech from everyone. >> harris: i often question and wonder just how much overestimation some of these companies have when they think they know who actually is in the town square. we'll move on. tax cuts and jobs creation. are you going to try to get that done before the midterm elections? >> we are going to get that done this month. your viewers know how great this tax bill has been for america. think of this, in the last 49 years unemployment has only been
below 4% eight months. three of those eight months for this year. it's one of the best economies we've ever seen. because of the senate rules some of the items were not made permanent. so we are going to make those individual rates with a hardworking taxpayer permanent and we will vote on that this month and move that to the senate. >> harris: one economic and not necessarily political but economic critics say this could hurt some taxpayers in those higher end states, out on long island, this is an issue that hits republicans in those areas. what do you say? >> remember what nancy pelosi said, that the tax bill would be armageddon. when the people got more of what they earned, it was crumbs. the jobless claim is at a 49 year low. if you happen to be -- just a high school degree, this is the best economy you've had.
african-american, hispanic wome women, the best economy you've had from unemployment. when people get fearful, what we found, the results of outweighed the resistance. i know the democrats want to resist us all the time but these results are bar none some of the best we've ever seen based upon what we've done here in this house. >> harris: house majority leader kevin mccarthy joining us on the program today, thank you. another fox news alert, growing speculation over the identity of a senior white house official responsible for an unnamed op-ed in "the new york times," painting picture of a so-called resistance within the trump administration. mike pence, mike pompeo, and james mattis all saying it is not them. chief white house correspondent john roberts on the story now. >> good afternoon to you, an effort underway at the white house to try to ferret out who was behind that op-ed published anonymously at
"the new york times" yesterday. sarah huckabee sanders taking the media to task for trying to do the same thing. saying "the media's obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great americans who work for our country. if you want to know who this gutless loser is, call the opinion desk at the failing "new york times" and ask them, they are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act, we stand united together and fully support our president. in the op-ed the writer claims to be part of an internal resistance trying to save the country from president trump's "misguided impulses" and insists he and other like-minded administration officials don't want the administration to fail. effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more about these successes have become despite, not because of the president's leadership style which is petty
and ineffective. the president showing how serious he is about the saying "treason?" asked about the op-ed at a law enforcement event, the president ticked off a long list of accomplishments he says his administration has achieved, then he ripped to "the new york times" and the anonymous author, listen here. >> nobody has ever done in less than a two year period what we've done. when you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration, whose probably here for all the wrong reasons. if the failing "new york times" has an anonymous editorial -- can you believe it? anonymous. a gutless editorial, we are doing a great job. >> a lot of speculation as to who this person is, a lot of people taking use of a word in the op-ed that was used a few times by vice president mike pence including in a couple of speeches.
his team to come out and say it wasn't him, saying "the vice president puts his name on his beds. "the new york times" should be ashamed and so should be the person who wrote the ideological and gutless op-ed, our office is above such an amateur act. some people also thinking the writer of the op-ed was smart enough to incorporate language used by other people to try to throw people off the trail as they try to decipher who this person may be. we don't even know if they are part of the white house staff, they could come from any agency in the administration. >> harris: home of the brave. perhaps that person will step up and say who he or she is. not anonymous, just unnamed because you can bet the times nose. john roberts, thank you very much. just a short time ago, melania trump firing back, telling the unnamed writer of that op-ed that they are "sabotaging our country." let's bring in the former special assessment assistant to
president trump. perfect to get you on on this day. let's start with the former vice president saying it's not him. >> it's absolutely not him, is deputy chief of staff says he puts his name on his beds. they often talk about how the vice presidents staff conducts themselves in the white house and also around washington, d.c.. it's foolish and completely false to speculate anyone associated with the vice president doing this. >> harris: is there a need from a media relations or public relations point with the white house to circle the wagons or do you make your statement and move on? you got the first lady now chiming in on this, too. >> i think to a certain extent you quickly push back, let people know it wasn't you or your staff, and then you move on which is what the president is going to do. i'll tell you, i traveled with him last week to indiana and had a great deal of opportunity to speak with him and he was
focused on the task at hand, on china and canada, nafta, rebuilding our military and the midterm elections. he's not focused on these kinds of things and while there is speculation, it's a fun parlor game in washington, d.c. i can tell you did, just about everybody in this city will say they are a senior advisor to something if he can get them published, on television, or whatever their ends might be. we don't even know who this person is. >> harris: let's talk about the timing of this, you have the body bob woodward book coming out, the audio between the president and bob woodward, even though he didn't actually talk to the president. where do you put this kind of universe, things leaking, people talking. >> it needs to stop and the staff needs to stop leaking on each other and stop talking about behind the scenes negotiations with the president or policy decisions because it's
distracting. >> harris: why is it happening? you've been inside the circle, you know these people. >> this city does leak a lot, that's true of all administrations, people want to be seen as more important, knowledgeable, in the room. what we are seeing now is undercutting trust between staff members as people have to worry about whether they are being recorded or going to be written about in an anonymous op-ed. those things damage of the staff's ability to work together. the president is going to move on and get the job done but the staff starts worrying about that and that's my longer concern. that's why i hope whoever this person is, resigned. these jobs are a privilege and an honor in any administration. the moment you think you can't serve the president, get out of there and let somebody do so who can support this administration. >> harris: mark lauder had a little bit for everybody there, i caught that.
we had the money in our account. now, if only getting these things unpacked was just as quick and easy. (vo) check your rate at welcometotheclub.com. >> harris: a group of 12 or more g.o.p. congressmen and trump allies are calling on the president to declassify interviews with doj agent bruce ohr at the center of the special counsel's russia investigation. president trump tweeting "soon maybe declassification will find additional corruption." let's bring in congressman lee zeldin from new york. you just wrapped up the news conference about the issue about 2 minutes ago.
>> it's great to be with you. >> harris: good to have you. it's interesting to hear the president offered to weigh in on this, how does that move things forward? >> i think it's important for the president to declassify and release this information and it's important to look at it as three different buckets. one would be the fisa applications, we want the rest of the fisa applications to be released, specifically the last one, asking for pages 10-12, 17-34 and related footnotes. bucket three, all the documents provided with evidence as it relates to carter page and others. the fisa application is going to show just how much information was omitted.
the bruce ohr 302 and the other documents, that's all on top of what we already know, it wasn't by the doj and fbi in order to secure this. >> harris: it's the end of the summer, people are tuning back in trying to figure out what things have changed. the big change in all of this is the fisa application for carter page, who was looked at very closely, some people call it spying. it was looked at very closely, and those of the documents that put the allowance if you will for that spying to happen. you now want all of that fisa application process to be made public, even carter page has said he wants that now. there bruce ohr situation, let's drill down on that a little bit. what are you looking for specifically?
>> 302's are going to include all sorts of information that should have been provided and wasn't provided. it's also going to include other information with regards to what was happening behind the scenes. bruce ohr was the fourth ranking person at the doj, the dossier, christopher steele, all sorts of information was getting to the doj and fbi through bruce ohr and a lot of that information wasn't provided. that information we know already wasn't provided as well as the funding source of hillary clinton and the dnc. in that process of getting a spying warrant on in american cities citizen, carter page isn't represented in the court. there is a responsibility of the government to vet the dossier and information, and provide the information, not only the best
information in support of their case but also the best information against their case. >> harris: i want to grab another topic if we can really quickly, we have kevin mccarthy on a few minutes ago talking about the second phase, you are in a particularly sensitive area on long island where the taxes are high already. i'm wondering how this fits in for those of you who are in those situations. it's been a topic before. >> i love the conversation of having tax cuts, the american people needed and i believe this should be an opportunity to make government operate more efficiency, i can give you all sorts of different ways to save money. reducing the corporate tax rate rates, the regulations have been rolled back, we are seeing last week we had less jobless claims than we've seen at any point over the course of the last 49 years, the economic numbers are good. if we want to find ways to provide more tax relief, that's
great. i would just advocate for us to do it as smart as possible and one of the best ways to do that wouldn't be to raise taxes on anyone on the personal income side when you can find ways to make government operate more efficiently. it's a good debate to have, i just want us to do it as responsibly as possible. >> harris: congressman lee zeldin, great to see you today. we are awaiting the confirmation hearing for judge kavanaugh to start again, learning new details after one democratic senator said he would risk getting kicked out of the senate to release documents on the nominee. he said he was willing to break the rules and suffer the consequences. we are learning may be no rules were broken, maybe that wasn't actually real. power panel weighs in, stay close. ♪motorcycle revving ♪ motorcycle revving ♪
billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. - (phone ringing)a phones offers - big button,ecialized phones... and volume-enhanced phones.,
>> hi, everyone, i'm dana perino. we are following the brett kavanaugh hearings very closely. karl rove is on deck with his thoughts on the anonymous op-ed author on "the daily briefing." >> harris: we come in with the fox news alert, we are awaiting the confirmation hearing for brett brett kavanaugh to resume. earlier today, cory booker caused an uproar after announcing plans to release documents related to judge kavanaugh. senator booker claim to the information was not cleared for release, marked confidential. he said he was running the risk of getting kicked out of the senate. we are hearing reports that documents were in fact cleared for release, not confidential. all that drama may have been for nothing, or political as we
heard earlier this hour. let's bring in our power panel now. attorney and spokeswoman for the judicial crisis network, campaigned in favor of judge kavanaugh's confirmation. chief counsel to democrat dianne feinstein and worked on the nominations, great to have you both. it neil pointer, i want to start with you. let's hear quickly from senator cornyn of texas. watch this. >> the irony after senator booker said he was going to release the document anyway, i learned it had already been worked out that this was going to be released to the public. all this drama this morning, apparently was for nothing. it's unfortunate.
>> harris: it was because booker is running for president, what do you say? >> i think senator booker was bringing attention to a problem with his hearing, very unusual republican cover up of judge kavanaugh's record. more than 90% of his documents are being concealed. this document was demanded to be treated as confidential by the republicans yesterday. it doesn't really take away from the fundamental point that judge kavanaugh's record is being covered up. >> harris: judge andrew napolitano was on earlie earlier, he said why not just release these documents? he thinks they're probably not, have a small delay and move on to the almost inevitable confirmation of kavanaugh. >> when senator booker was out there talking about a document about engaging in civil disobedience to make sure it was
released, this is the most information any nomination process has had. over 500,000 documents have been released, more than the past five supreme court nominations total. when you look at the supreme court justice elena kagan, none of those papers were released for her supreme court nomination and she hadn't served as a judge before. that was documentation most likely to show her judicial philosophy. judge napolitano knows this, any communications that go on between the president and his advisors, that's very important that he feels like he gets good advice from his advisors and there are real national security and advice reasons why he would not want these documents to be revealed. he's written over 300 opinions and if you want to understand about judge kavanaugh's judicial
philosophy, that's where you should look and that's available completely to all americans. >> harris: likely there wouldn't be enough time, because it might be just a small delay to get all the documents. i will give you the last word on that. they might not be able to read them. >> the time issue is a false issue, the republicans are engaging in a rush to judgment, as though they are afraid they might lose the majority and a couple of months or something. this is being rushed through very fast. they were happy to leave the supreme court seat open for a year when president obama got to make the choice. they should take a few more weeks, go through the normal process with the national archives, not the phony process they came up with. get the documents so the american people can see them and make an informed decision on a nomination. >> harris: i'm going to step in, great to see you today.
and may be signs of an imbalance of good bacteria. phillips' colon health caps have this unique combination of probiotics to help replenish good bacteria. get four-in-one symptom defense. also try our delicious new probiotic gummies. i'start at the new carfax.comar. show me minivans with no reported accidents. boom. love it. [struggles] show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com.
>> inside that quick commercial break, the supreme court hearing of brett kavanaugh has begun again on capitol hill, thank you for watching our coverage on "outnumbered," i'm harris, here is dana. >> dana: fox news alert, day three of confirmation hearings of brett kavanaugh kicking off with bang all out battle over documents takes center stage. hello, i'm dana perino, this is "the daily briefing with dana perino." democratic senators releasing confidential e-mail from kavanaugh time in the bush white house over objection of republican, a move violation of senate rules highlighting a fierce partisan divide over the whole nomination process. shannon bream is on capitol hill and can give us more information about this, where are the e-mails ever actually not supposed to be