Skip to main content

tv   Countdown to the Closing Bell With Liz Claman  FOX Business  October 5, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm EDT

3:00 pm
energized and it probably stays that way. trish: it might have actually been sort of the little boost the republican party needed to invent vise th incentivize them to get out there. susan li is sitting in for liz claman as we await an historic announcement, what is senator collins going to do? susan: let's go to breaking news. looking at live pictures of the floor of the u.s. senate, virginia democratic senator tim kaine just said he will not be voting for brett kavanaugh. not a surprise there. we are awaiting for maine republican senator susan collins. she is scheduled to announce her decision which way she will vote on the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. collins' vote crucial to kavanaugh's future. she's one of two undecided senators and if she votes no, it is unclear if there are enough votes to push kavanaugh into the highest court in the land. there were four senate holdouts but in the last few hours, republican senators jeff flake, lisa murkowski have gone public.
3:01 pm
flake is a yes, murkowski is a no. collins and democratic senator joe manchin are the last remaining holdouts. collins will be the 50th vote if all the democrats go ahead and vote no along party lines. the republicans hold a 51-49 advantage in the senate. it only takes a simple majority for kavanaugh's nomination to advance and vice president mike pence can cast the deciding vote in the case of a 50-50 tie. as soon as senator collins begins her speech we will go back to the senate floor live. while we keep an eye out for collins, markets are tumbling on this friday. the ten-year treasury yield hitting a new seven-year high as the unemployment rate hits its lo lowest level in almost 49 years. investors taking it as a sign the federal reserve will stick to its plan to gradually hike interest rates. the dow off its lows at the moment, down as much as 325 points in the session. meantime, let's take a look at
3:02 pm
individual movers. we have been tracking wholesale retailer costco, falling despite better than expected earnings reported after the bell yesterday. some analysts say the earnings quality were a little bit lower than normal for the steady performer costco. the retailer saying it does expect to find material weakness in its financial reporting. shares are down close to 6% and on pace for their worst day since february 2018. meantime, shares of ge are being fueled by the new ceo appointment on monday when larry culp agreed to take the helm of the 126-year-old company. while many challenges lie ahead, the new gig is set to pay him around $300 million. the four-year agreement in the contract has him receiving a $2.5 million base salary and bonus of up to $3.75 million a year. $3.75 million a year. of course, he will really rake it in if he is able to
3:03 pm
dramatically increase ge's stock price. take a look at shares. back around $13. up 4.3%, their biggest weekly gain since march 2009. soour cameras are fixed on e senate floor as we await republican senator susan collins to announce her vote on supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. let's get to edward lawrence live on capitol hill. edward? reporter: i am outside susan collins, the senator from maine's office right now. there's a lot of people in the hallway. take a look at what's going on. there are protesters on both sides, for and against judge brett kavanaugh. we know susan collins today had lunch with senator mitch mcconnell. she any minute now will make her decision and let us all know exactly which way she's going to vote, yes or no on the final confirmation. collins is seen as one of the swing confirmation votes.
3:04 pm
she voted yes in the procedural vote. senator jeff flake also voted yes. he says he is not going to change the vote. >> [ inaudible ] i'm glad we had a better process. reporter: senator lisa murkowski is leaning no which puts senator joe manchin in play. he voted to move the process along, but has expressed that he doesn't want to be the vote that gets them to 50, pushing this nomination over the top. other democrats questioned kavanaugh's temperament today. >> this behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence that is unbecoming someone seeking to be elevated to the united states supreme court. reporter: right now, it's all about the numbers. behind the scenes you have the white house reaching out to
3:05 pm
senator joe donnelly who voted no but they believe could vote yes. he's in a republican state. former president george w. bushebush also lobbying republicans on behalf of kavanaugh. both sides are against that 30-hour clock. under 30 hours. the final vote could start as early as 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. susan: indications are susan collins is going to vote along party lines, right? reporter: at this point, we don't know. she has a very tough decision to make. she's been one of those swing senators there. she did vote yes in the procedural vote but again, we don't know exactly how she's going to vote in the final confirmation and that's the reason these folks are all here for and against, trying to get her vote to go yes or no depending on which way they would like to go. susan: but the other holdout we talked about, murkowski is definitely a no at this point. flake looks like it's a yes. reporter: exactly. that's what we are seeing. we are seeing lisa murkowski leaning to a no.
3:06 pm
republicans are going to reach out to her. there was a lunch today, as i said, with senator mitch mcconnell. collins was there along with other republicans, trying to solidify the republican vote on this, but murkowski at this point looks like she's leaning no. however, senator joe manchin, if they do get to that 50 number, if republicans get to 50, he looks like he could be 51. susan: okay. thank you so much. we will check in later on. edward lawrence on capitol hill. with so much in flux this hour as we await republican senator susan collins' announcement at any moment, let's bring in former senator george allen who participated in key votes for justice john roberts and also sam alito's nomination to the supreme court. what's your call at this point, senator? >> what susan collins says will be really important. i actually voted for judge kavanaugh to the d.c. court of appeals. folks need to be sensitive to some of these senators' views. lisa murkowski, who i have a great deal of admiration and
3:07 pm
respect for, one, with the write-in vote -- susan: senator, i have to cut you off right there. we will go straight to the senate floor. susan collins speaking. looks like protesters interrupting her opening statement at this point. we are awaiting susan collins, announcing her decision in terms of how she's going to vote in the confirmation of judge brett kavanaugh in that crucial vote to send him to the supreme court. we want to listen in quickly. [ chanting ] >> as a reminder to our guests, expressions of approval and disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. the senator for maine. >> mr. president, the five previous times that i have come to the floor to explain my vote
3:08 pm
on the nomination of a justice to the united states supreme court, i have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion, but today, we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter level political campaign than a solemn occasion. the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9th. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even
3:09 pm
bother to fill in the judge's name on his prewritten press release. they simply wrote that they opposed donald trump's nomination of xx to the supreme court of the united states. a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even kno known. since that time, we have seen special interest groups with their followers, whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record.
3:10 pm
over the top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. our supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. one can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to
3:11 pm
decide what the constitution's advice and consent duty means. informed by alexander hamilton's federalist 76, i have interpreted this to mean that the president has broad discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. i have always imposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but i fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in
3:12 pm
deciding the cases that come before them. i have never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating supreme court nominations. as a result, i voted in favor of justices roberts and alito, who were nominated by president bush. justices sotomayor and kagan, who were nominated by president obama. and justice gorsuch, who was nominated by president trump. so i began my evaluation of judge kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many
3:13 pm
speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. i met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearing. i spoke with people who knew him personally such as condoleezza rice and many others, and i have talked with judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour, to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents, both
3:14 pm
advocates and many opponents regarding judge kavanaugh. one concern that i frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care act's vital protections for people with pre-existing conditions. i disagree with this contention. in a dissent in skye v holder, judge kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the aca on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. many experts have said that his dissent informed justice roberts' opinion upholding the aca at the supreme court. furthermore, judge kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of
3:15 pm
seperability is narrow. when part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause and surgically as possible, while allowing the overall law to remain intact. this was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. in his dissent, judge kavanaugh argued for quote, severing any problematic portion while leaving the remainder intact, end quote. given the current challenges to the aca, proponents including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of
3:16 pm
approach. another assertion that i have heard often is that judge kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. the basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. first, judge kavanaugh has written that he believes that congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. mr. president, i believe opponents miss the mark on this issue. the fact that judge kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection current currently. second, there are some who argue
3:17 pm
that given the current special counsel investigation, president trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. that argument ignores our recent history. president clinton in 1993 nominated justice ginsburg after the whitewater investigation was already under way, and she was confirmed 96-3. the next year, just three months after independent counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. he was confirmed 87-9. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the
3:18 pm
united states versus nixon, three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, youngstown steel versus sawyer and the united states versus nixon are three of the four greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress serves as a check on presidential power. and i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education.
3:19 pm
one of kavanaugh's decisions illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in hamdunn versus the united states, a case that challenges the bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of osama bin laden. this conviction was very important to the bush administration but judge kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the d.c. circuit by president bush, and had worked in president bush's white house, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. as he explained during the hearing, quote, we don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. we base decisions on the law,
3:20 pm
end quote. others i have met with have expressed concerns that justice kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry, yet judge kavanaugh described a decision which legalized same gender marriages as an important landmark precedent. he also cited justice kennedy's recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court's majority, stating that quote, the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the supreme court, end quote. others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control.
3:21 pm
in one case, judge kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objection. although his critics frequently overlook this point, judge kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that there was not a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. in fact, he wrote that the supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control. there has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that
3:22 pm
judge kavanaugh would seek to overturn roe v wade, protecting this right is important to me. to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in article iii of our constitution itself. he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. in other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration. it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary
3:23 pm
circumstances. the judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. there are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the supreme court could rightly overturn a precedent. the most famous example was when the supreme court in brown versus the board of education overruled plessy versus ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality. but someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply
3:24 pm
inconsistent with the law. those are judge kavanaugh's phrases. as the judge asserted to me a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution give the concept of stair decisis greater weight such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because the judge might want to on a whim. in short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. noting that roe v wade was decided 40 years -- 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later,
3:25 pm
in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contracepti contraception. griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describing griswold as settled law, judge kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, meyer and
3:26 pm
pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. when i asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. opponents frequently cite then-candidate donald trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roe. the republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. during this time, republican
3:27 pm
presidents have appointed justices o'connor, suter and kennedy to the supreme court. these are the very three justices, republican presidents appointed justices, who authored the casey decision which reaffirmed roe. furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justices' nominations. incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan "stop suter or women will die." just two years later, the justice co-authored the casey opinion reaffirming a woman's right to choose. suffice it to say prominent advocacy organizations have been
3:28 pm
wrong. these same interest groups have speculated that judge kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative idiologues despite his record of judicial independence. i asked the judge point-blank whether he had made any commitment or pledges to anyone at the white house, to the federalist society, to any outside group, on how he would decide cases. he unequivocally assured me that he had not. judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. the american bar association gave him its highest possible rating.
3:29 pm
they conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. his integrity, judicial temperament and competence met the highest standards. lisa black, who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other woman in history, testified quote, by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are in variably thoughtful and fair. miss black, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of justice ginsburg and is in her own words, an unapologetic defender
3:30 pm
of a woman's right to choose, says judge kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought. she says judge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and merrick garland voted the same way in 93% of the cases they heard together. indeed, chief judge garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions authored by judge kavanaugh, dissenting only once. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's
3:31 pm
record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the senate's advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine blasey ford. the confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubt be resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of
3:32 pm
misconduct a presumption of innocence. in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. mr. president, i understand both viewpoints. this debate is complicated further by the fact that the senate confirmation process is not a trial, but certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and i cannot abandon them. in evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting
3:33 pm
though it may be. we must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. the presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record. i worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward. some of the allegations levied against judge kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. i am thinking in particular not
3:34 pm
of the allegations raised by professor ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager, judge kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. this outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. that such an allegation can find its way into the supreme court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our american consciousness. mr. president, i listened carefully to christine blasey
3:35 pm
ford's testimony before the judiciary committee. i found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. i believed that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her li life. nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. none of the individuals professor ford says were at the party have any recollection at all of that night. judge kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under
3:36 pm
penalty of perjury. mark judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. p.j. smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. professor ford's lifelong friend, leland keyser, indicated that under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party and miss keyser went further. she indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know brett kavanaugh. in addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. for instance, since these
3:37 pm
allegations have become public, professor ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say i was at the party that night. furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. and professor ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask
3:38 pm
why she left, is she okay. not even her closest friend, miss keyser. mr. president, the constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. it leaves that decision up to each senator. this is not a criminal trial, and i do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. the facts presented do not mean that professor ford was not sexually assaulted that night,
3:39 pm
or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. therefore, i do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent judge kavanaugh from serving on the court. let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. to the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the
3:40 pm
pervasiveness of this terrible problem. i have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless judge kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault, deserves to be heard and treated with respect. the #metoo movement is real. it matters. it is needed and it is long overdue. we know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. on average, an estimated 211,000
3:41 pm
rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. we must listen to survivors and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. we owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come. since the hearing, i have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. many were total strangers who told me their heartwrenching stories for the first time in their lives. some were friends that i had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, i had no idea that they had been the
3:42 pm
victims of sexual attacks. i am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and i hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. to them, i pledge to do all that i can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. over the past few weeks, i have been emphatic that the senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. i called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both professor ford and judge
3:43 pm
kavanaugh. i also pushed forward and supported the fbi's supplemental background investigation. this was the right thing to do. christine ford never sought the spotlight. she indicated that she was terrified to appear before the senate judiciary committee and she has shunned attention since then. she seemed completely unaware of chairman grassley's offer to allow her to testify confidentially in california. watching her, mr. president, i could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her wellbeing.
3:44 pm
professor ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. she testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released, and yet here we are. we are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially. now, one theory i heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague senator feinstein leaked professor ford's letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. i want to state this very clearly. i know senator dianne feinstein extremely well, and i believe
3:45 pm
that she would never do that. i knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. she is a person of integrity and i stand by her. i have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated professor ford unfairly. nothing could be further from the truth. chairman grassley along with his excellent staff treated professor ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. that is the way the senator from iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service. but the fact remains, mr. president, someone leaked this letter against professor ford's
3:46 pm
express wishes. i suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. to that leaker, who i hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. you have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her, and you have sacrificed her wellbeing in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. my only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it
3:47 pm
will cause the senate and indeed, all americans, to reconsider how we evaluate supreme court nominees. if that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded professor ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences. mr. president, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. we live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the senate and among the public
3:48 pm
clearly demonstrates. it is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. it is a case of people bearing extreme ill will towards those who disagree with them. in our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as americans. when some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms decide to link us to websites that only re-enforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. this would have alarmed the drafters of our constitution who were acutely aware that
3:49 pm
different values and interests could prevent americans from becoming and remaining a single people. indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from that. it is particularly worrisome that the supreme court, the institution that most americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of
3:50 pm
the problem through a political le lens. mr. president, we have heard a lot of charges and countercharges about judge kavanaugh, but if those who have known him best have attested he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that brett kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the supreme court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our
3:51 pm
judiciary and our highest court is restored. mr. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. thank you, mr. president. susan: okay. there you have it. the maine senator, susan collins, says she will vote for supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. she's effectively the 50th vote for the nominee. if senator joe manchin of west virginia does not decide to vote with the republicans, vice president mike pence will be able to break that tie, the 50-50 tie. at this point, i want to bring in former senator george allen to discuss more. that was a long defense that senator susan collins put on in kavanaugh's favor, basically, to get to the supreme court. what did you make of it? >> i thought it was an outstanding speech. i served with susan collins, i
3:52 pm
know she's very conscientious. it was a long speech but she covered every base. what she was focused on was not judge kavanaugh's high school yearbook, the best and most probative evidence of what kind of justice he would be is the 12 years he served on the d.c. court of appeals. i voted for him, as i said earlier, when i was in the senate. it's a brave political stand as well. maine is not a, you know, strong republican state. but she covered all the things that people care about. she addressed some of the concerns and the most important thing is he's going to be a fair judge who is going to give equal justice and equal opportunity to all americans. i think her speech truly was outstanding in addressing all of the concerns, all of the allegations, the credibility thereof, and the republican senators ought to carry her out on their shoulders. susan: senator, stay there. let's head to capitol hill where edward lawrence is standing by listening in to susan collins'
3:53 pm
speech and what's been the reaction? reporter: well, very interesting reaction. first of all, we were outside senator susan collins' office in the dirksen building. the u.s. capitol police cleared the entire floor as she was finishing up her speech. i have never seen them push everyone out of the entire building on the fourth floor there. we are now in the hart building outside senator joe manchin's office here, waiting to see if the senator is going to come out or not. now, the protesters, ten of them were arrested because they did not move when the capitol police officer said they should. protesters who were obviously against judge brett kavanaugh, were not very happy with the speech or outcome of the speech from senator susan collins but you heard her lay out inch by inch, line by line, why she believes that brett kavanaugh would be a good fit for the supreme court. she first laid out how the democrats behaved atrociously. senator grassley said monstrously, in this. then she laid out how the accusations against judge brett kavanaugh just, in her mind, did not have merit with judge brett
3:54 pm
kavanaugh. not saying they didn't happen, that christine ford wasn't attacked, just saying she didn't believe or see evidence that it was actually brett kavanaugh who was involved in that. so she made a lengthy speech about this and at the end, came up with a conclusion that she believes her voters or constituents will accept but it looks like she's a yes note tomorrow. susan: okay. let's get back to senator george allen. so effectively, senator susan collins is the 50th vote. do we have the confirmation of brett kavanaugh? >> if everything stays the same at 50-50, vice president pence will cast the tie-breaking vote. there still is hope that joe manchin, a democrat of west virginia, will vote as well so it will be 51. senator murkowski looks like she might be against it but she cares a lot about the rights and sovereignty of alaskan tribes so that's a big issue in alaska and throughout indian country across the country.
3:55 pm
that's another issue that's not as big an issue in maine. i think if you look -- susan: okay. >> -- at this speech, i think it covers what anybody who is a moderate fair-looking person will look at, i think senator collins did an outstanding closing statement. susan: we just have breaking news. looks like a red state democrat, joe manchin, has confirmed he will also vote in favor of brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. looks like we have reached past the majority vote to confirm brett kavanaugh to the highest court in the land. your reaction? >> that's a great reaction. the vice president doesn't have to cast the tie-breaking vote. you would late to hahate to hav nomination decided that way. good for senator danes, he can go to lhis daughter's wedding. giving away his daughter's hand in marriage. i did that last fall and it's a very special occasion. what i hope for for our country is in the future, we don't go
3:56 pm
through this sort of character assassination. it's going to be very hard to get people to want to run these gauntlets if this is the way it's going to be. susan: it's a mob process and media meddling at this point. what does this mean for the midterms? does this galvanize republicans at the polls? >> i'm hearing that. the democrats have been fired up anyway. i think we are getting anecdotal evidence and i hear it from b barbara comstock there are more republicans all of a sudden saying this really does matter as far as judges and tax cuts and productive energy policy and reining in regulations. there's a lot of optimism on the economy among manufacturers. their biggest concerns are finding people that can fill those jobs. there's a lot of positive stuff out there. i think that this is maybe letting people know there's a big choice, big difference on taxes, on judges and regulations, energy policy and other things, to make sure that
3:57 pm
more americans have opportunities for employment and safety. susan: high drama indeed. thank you so much. that's george allen, former senator of virginia, joining us. let's get back to the markets. we do have a big sell-down. looks like we sliced the bottom by half. the closing bell rings in three minutes. we are way off the lows. at one point we were down 325 so let's take a look at how markets are set to close the first week of october, also the fourth quarter as well. look at the declines across the board. we were on pace for the worst week for the nasdaq since march 23rd, on pace for the worst week for the s&p 500 since june 29th. two weeks down now, so let's talk threads as we head toward the closing bell. mark hamrick and paul detrick and gary evans, you know, let's start with you, paul, since you
3:58 pm
are in studio. what do you make of the news for the supreme court nominee and how does that impact markets, if at all? >> i think in the end, it probably won't make any difference. i think it's already baked into the markets. i think just a week or so ago we were hitting record highs with both the dow and the s&p, and now there's a pull-back. every analyst and every economist expected that. but what's important here is that the bond and stock markets are now normalizing. you know, even just a month or so ago, 45% of the performance of the s&p 500 came out of five stocks. susan: mark, what about the sell-down today? part of the process? >> absolutely. you can't have such an increase in the yield of the ten-year treasury without having equities adjust. the federal reserve has unleashed all this with its normalization process. it wants to get back to a more
3:59 pm
normal environment. we are ten years past the financial crisis and yet we are still normalizing and we are not there yet. susan: gary, your read on the markets' down week? >> i'm sorry? susan: gary, your read on the markets' down week? >> my review of the markets is exactly that. you can't continue going up. there's got to be stabilization. there's no question this downdraft we had today was just a minor adjustment. susan: yeah. okay. everybody, thank you so much. i know we have had a very busy hour since we were listening into senator susan collins of maine. her decision in terms of how she was going to vote for brett kavanaugh and his nomination to the supreme court. as we count down to the closing bell, we are down 193 points, way off session lows. we were down 325 at one point. the dow and s&p 500 looks like it will be two weeks in a row lower. the nasdaq really bore the brunt of the selling today. the nasdaq on pace for the worst
4:00 pm
week since march 23rd. here you go. looks like ten-year yields really impact investor sentiment, at seven-year highs and the closing bell on this friday as we are looking at a down market. have a great weekend. david and melissa on "after the bell." david: high dram a on capitol hill. stocks drop for the second day in a row as rates hit a fresh seven-year high. the dow ending the day down about 180 points, off session lows. the s&p 500 is closing in the red and once again, the tech-heavy nasdaq, the biggest loser, is down again more than 1%. hi, everybody. happy friday. i'm david asman. melissa: i'm melissa frances. here's what else we are covering in this very busy hour ahead. huge developments on capitol hill coming just in the last couple of minutes. senator susan collins of maine, a very crucial swing vote in the


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on