Video Archives

Potential Clash Between Congress and White House

Court Battle Over Congressional Subpoena?

Written by Tom Church on March 7, 2019. Posted in TV Appearances.

TRANSCRIPT

Christi: Again, just to reiterate, this week, “The New York Times” reported President Trump ordered a security clearance for his son-in-law Jared Kushner. This is over the objections of other White House staffers. The Congressional reaction to that report was immediate. The Chairman of the House Oversight Committee says he wants to see White House documents on this decision by Monday. What comes next on the legal front? Constitutional attorney Page Pate with us now. So, let’s talk about that.

Page: Okay.

Christi: They’re saying they want to see the documentation. If the White House does not produce that by Monday, what is the consequence?

Page: Well, ultimately, we may end up in court. And I’ve always wondered when this is going to happen. Obviously, we now have a very aggressive Democratic-led Congress. They want to investigate a lot that’s been going on at the White House. They’re making requests. Eventually, they may have to issue subpoenas. But what happens when the White House says, “No, we’re not going to participate in this?”

Well, it’s complicated because, normally, when Congress wants to enforce a subpoena, they go to the Department of Justice and they get the cooperation of the Department of Justice to go to court and require the person who received that subpoena to respond to it. But are we gonna see that cooperation when it involves the White House? It’s going to end up in court to determine whether Congress really has the authority to get a lot of these documents and testimony that they’re requesting.

Christi: All right, I also wanna ask you about Paul Manafort, because we had Representative Gerry Connolly of the Oversight Committee saying, “It seems as though Paul Manafort, at this point, is fishing for a pardon.” Do you see elements of that?

Page: He’s been fishing for a pardon since day one, I think. I think that’s the reason he went to trial in Virginia. There was really no solid, legal defense to some of the tax fraud and bank fraud allegations that he was facing. He knew he was looking at a lot of time. But I think, always, he believed, at the end of the day, the President was gonna issue him a pardon. Now, why is it taking so long?

I think they’re concerned, potentially, about state criminal charges, and the President cannot pardon someone for state criminal charges, only federal charges. So perhaps Paul Manafort’s thinking, “I’m gonna get my sentence. I’m gonna do some time. But once that statute of limitations period runs, once the states can do no more to charge me,” then I think we’re gonna see a pardon.

Christi: What is that statute of limitations?

Page: It depends on the crime, but usually about five years. So we may see him sit for a couple of years in prison. But I do anticipate, eventually, we’ll see the President pardon him.

Christi: All righty. And then, the FBI, of course, says that releasing any information that is related to Comey, the Comey memos, which, you know, this is coming from a new court filing where CNN is trying to get those release, the FBI says, “Look, that’s gonna compromise the Mueller investigation.” Is there credence in that?

Page: It could be. I mean, we don’t know what’s in the memos and we don’t know exactly where Mueller is in his investigation. I mean, we’ve heard reports they’re about to issue their final report. It’s about to go to the Department of Justice, to the new Attorney General. But we don’t know. And that’s gonna really be interesting for me to see, other lawyers who are watching this, especially people that are concerned about transparency in government, how much of this investigation are we going to know about?

Congress is gonna try to get at it if we don’t hear it from the Department of Justice, but we’re gonna see this same issue pop up. Congress cannot compel the Department of Justice to provide them with this full memo. So…

Christi: Oh, we know Michael Cohen is gonna be talking again to the House Intelligence Committee this week. This will be the fourth meeting he has…

Page: Right.

Christi: …in a week’s time. Did you see any of, you know, his testimony…

Page: I did.

Christi: …this week?

Page: Absolutely, yeah.

Christi: So what was your takeaway?

Page: Well, I think he’s presented further evidence that the President and some of the people in his close circle may be involved in criminal conduct. We have known that the Southern District of New York, pursuing investigations that relate to people very close to the President, and individual one himself, which we now know is the President. I think there is clear evidence that there are campaign finance violations that occurred here. But perhaps the Southern District is saying, “Look, it’s Department of Justice policy we can’t prosecute a President.” So I don’t know how much more of an investigation they’re gonna pursue.

Christi: So I wanna ask you about that because, again, Representative Connolly said, I think it was on Wednesday or Thursday, he was talking about the optics of hearing from the family. Because, of course, now, the Committee wants to hear from Ivanka and Don Jr. And he was saying, you know, two subjects of the criminal probe in, of these people are in the Southern District of New York. And he says, “It may be better to let that play out before the Committee and talk to them afterwards.” What is your thought process on that?

Page: That makes sense. I think, normally…and they’ve done this so far. Congress is trying to keep their investigation on one track and not interfere with criminal investigations. Because at the end of the day, if they do anything, if Congress does anything to upset, interfere, I wouldn’t say obstruct, but in some way affect the criminal investigation before it’s completed, it could jeopardize that investigation.

Christi: Real quickly.

Page: Because these people don’t wanna talk publicly…

Christi: Right.

Page: …until they’ve resolved their criminal case.

Christi: But real quickly, because we have to go, but at the end of the day, how vulnerable is the President, based on what we know so far?

Page: I think very vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean anything’s gonna happen to him in the Office. I mean, we’ve heard people suggest that the Southern District is preparing this case to indict him once he leaves office. That’s possible. They could indict him, put it under seal, put it on pause. We won’t know until we know, which will probably be after he leaves Office.

Christi: All righty. Page Pate, always appreciate your insight. Thank you…

Page: Thank you, Christi.

Christi: …for being here. Phil.

Phil: All right, [inaudible 00:05:21]…

Michael Flynn Sentencing Report

Written by Tom Church on January 18, 2019. Posted in Federal Crimes, Federal Government Corruption.

TRANSCRIPT:

Jim: Joining us now, CNN legal analyst, Page Pate, and chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, Michael Isikoff. Michael, if I could begin with you. You, of course, have been following the Russia investigation from the very beginning here.

Focusing on Flynn for a moment, it was interesting, in mid-September, the last we had a special counsel filing on Flynn, Mueller made certain that nothing would be revealed then, prior to the midterms, which seemed to be an indicator that his cooperation has netted something that is politically important, possibly explosive. Now we’re past the midterms.

Does that lead you to believe, in this filing, we will learn something about what has been the outcome, really, of Flynn’s cooperation and how it fits into the broader picture here?

Michael: Right. Well, we’re certainly gonna learn a lot, because this will be the first time the special counsel will be presenting, in public, any reference to what they’ve learned from Michael Flynn. But I think we all, you know, it’s best to wait and not speculate here, because we…as far as we know, we have not seen any public cases, any indictments brought that would be tied to something Michael Flynn has told Mueller’s team.

And the mere fact that they are going ahead with this sentencing today, or filing the sentencing memo, the actual sentencing is next week, is an indication that whatever cooperation they were getting, they don’t need it anymore. They are prepared to tell the court and the public what they’ve learned. So, you know, it’s possible there are sealed proceedings we don’t know about that Flynn’s cooperation has led to.

It’s possible that Flynn has talked about his communications with the President himself, and that might feed into any obstruction report. Or, it may be that Flynn’s cooperation has not led to any indictments of others. You know, it’s, we should just wait and read this with a fine-tooth comb when we get it.

Poppy: We should, indeed. Hold that thought, because I want to get back to you in a moment, Michael, on your fascinating new reporting about where things stand. But, Page, just to respond to what Michael said regarding, you know, we just don’t know yet if Flynn gave anything substantial or useful to Mueller’s team. But if he didn’t, why was his sentence postponed four times?

Page: Right. Poppy, that wouldn’t make any sense at all. I’ve represented a lot of people who cooperate in federal criminal investigations, and the only reason you continue the sentencing date, if there’s active cooperation, is because that individual is helping you in connection with some investigation. Now, we know, at the very beginning, Michael Flynn’s lawyer said, “He has a story to tell and he wants to tell it.”

And he’s been telling that story over the last several months. Now, it is certainly possible that the memo that’s filed today, in advance of sentencing, could be under seal. I think if the investigation is still ongoing, they’re still using Flynn, they may not show all their cards right now. But if they do, then I suspect the investigation is wrapping up, at least as far as Michael Flynn is concerned.

Jim: You heard that there, Michael, Page saying he believes the investigation is wrapping up. As Poppy noted, you have a new piece out. You call this the clearest sign yet, using your words there, that Mueller’s long-running probe may be reaching its critical peak. And again, I take your caveat, well, because, as I always say, you know, Mueller’s investigation is like a black hole. You only know what’s going on there based on its effect on other bodies, right?

Michael: Right.

Jim: Because it’s such a tight, black box. But reading those signals, what leads you to believe that this is in the final stages?

Michael: Well, a number of things. I mean, first of all, the fact that this week, which is going to be quite a week, you know, we’re getting the sentencing memos on Flynn, on Michael Cohen, and there will also be a filing relating to Paul Manafort about what Mueller’s people believe he has lied to them about. Now, and, you know, perhaps the most significant part of what I reported last night was that Mueller’s people are saying that the Manafort filing will be public.

There may be some redacted portions. There may be a redacted addendum. But they do expect to making this public. So what that tells me is, you know, again, I go back to what I was saying about Flynn, all of these could have been put off by Mueller if he was still getting substantial cooperation in an ongoing matter. There was no… You know, sentencing, as I’m sure Page knows, can be put off indefinitely. Some people go years while they’re cooperating…

Page: That’s true.

Michael: …without having a…without getting sentenced. So the fact that Mueller is going to be making public filings on all these three major, high-profile defendants is an indication that whatever he’s learned from them, he’s learned, and he’s ready to move on. You know, that plus some other, you know, signals, smoke signals we’re getting that, you know, I quote one source saying that defense lawyers are being told they are tying up loose ends, that people on the Hill are being told that, at least on the obstruction phase, Mueller’s team is not objecting to calling of key witnesses. So I think all this points to an investigation that is in its fourth quarter, climactic end game.

Poppy: All right. Thank you, both.

Jim: Fourth quarter.

Poppy: Fourth quarter.

Jim: We’ll see.

Poppy: Just seems like it’s been a long game. Everyone read Michael Isikoff’s piece. It’s fascinating. Thank you, Michael and Page. We appreciate it.

Page: Thank you.

Paul Manafort Sentencing Hearing

Written by Tom Church on January 18, 2019. Posted in TV Appearances.

Attorney Page Pate, was asked by CNN to discuss the legal issues involved in the case of Paul Manafort and others as they relate to the investigation of the President of the United States.

In discussing the impact of lies that Paul Manafort allegedly told regarding the investigation, how much information the public may get about the lies, Page explains that “as far as being key, he is a material player in this entire investigation. He was very close to the President. He was a key part of the campaign. He stayed on, at least part of the way, dealing with the transition. He knows all the key players. And he knows folks on the Russian side. So I think, depending upon what the special counsel has learned during the course of the investigation, what they tell the judge today could be critical, not just to Paul Manafort but to Donald Trump… In Paul Manafort’s case, what the prosecutor has to do is lay out why he lied. And there’s no way to do that without putting in details that the special counsel has learned during his own, independent investigation.”

Page also explains that he believes Manafort expected to get a pardon from President Trump all along and says “I think the financial crimes that he committed, the bank fraud, the tax fraud, those were clear. And anyone in his position who didn’t think they were gonna get a pardon would have worked towards a plea agreement. But he went to trial, and he knew he was going to trial because he thought, at the end of the day, “I’m gonna get a pardon from Donald Trump.” And everything that Trump has said about Manafort, since the beginning, has been consistent with that belief and, I think, supported his opinion he’s going to get a pardon.”

When asked for his opinion on the status of the investigation into President Trump, Page responds that he thinks “it is going to end soon. I think all of the messages that we’ve seen and what’s been reported about the special counsel reaching out to defense lawyers, saying they’re tying up loose ends. We’re going to now see public filings containing details of the investigation. So I think we’re getting close. And then, it’s gonna fall to Bob Mueller. What do you do now? Do you issue your report publicly?…I mean, the regulations say it’s gotta go to whoever is supervising him. Was Rosenstein, as the Deputy Attorney General. It may now be William Barr, who’s just been nominated. Of course, he’s gotta be confirmed first. But that report’s gotta get sent to somebody, either Department of Justice, Congress, or the public.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Robyn: So [inaudible 00:00:00] break down some more of this. Page Pate joins me. Page, good to see you. Legal analyst and also a constitutional attorney. You heard Steven there, talking about the legal implications of this, but I really want to talk about Paul Manafort.

Page: Okay.

Robyn: How key is he here and how much do you think we’re gonna get in terms of what the “lies” were?

Page: Well, as far as being key, he is a material player in this entire investigation. He was very close to the President. He was a key part of the campaign. He stayed on, at least part of the way, dealing with the transition. He knows all the key players. And he knows folks on the Russian side. So I think, depending upon what the special counsel has learned during the course of the investigation, what they tell the judge today could be critical, not just to Paul Manafort but to Donald Trump.

Robyn: So what are they going to do? They’re gonna explain why the plea deal is off the table.

Page: Right. And this is very different than what we saw with Michael Flynn.

Robyn: Okay. Yeah, explain this to us.

Page: In Michael Flynn’s case, the prosecutor was just telling the judge that he’s provided substantial assistance. And the reason you do that, as a prosecutor, is because that then allows the judge to give him credit against his sentence for that cooperation. In Flynn’s case, maybe he doesn’t serve any time at all.

In Paul Manafort’s case, what the prosecutor has to do is lay out why he lied. And there’s no way to do that without putting in details that the special counsel has learned during his own, independent investigation.

Robyn: And, the fact is, they could also then back up why they know he lied.

Page: Exactly.

Robyn: So the corroborating evidence might be also presented.

Page: Exactly. This is what he said. We know it’s not true because we’ve determined this. And I think they’re gonna have to back it up in this pleading. That’s why I think this pleading, the Manafort pleading, is gonna be a lot more detailed than what we saw with Flynn.

Robyn: But we’ve spoken about this before. Manafort thinks he’s going to get a pardon. Is that…?

Page: Correct.

Robyn: Okay. So did he think he was gonna get a pardon all along?

Page: I think so.

Robyn: Do you think he went into this thinking, “Hey, I’m not really gonna give them all?”

Page: I think so.

Robyn: Do you?

Page: I think the financial crimes that he committed, the bank fraud, the tax fraud, those were clear. And anyone in his position who didn’t think they were gonna get a pardon would have worked towards a plea agreement. But he went to trial, and he knew he was going to trial because he thought, at the end of the day, “I’m gonna get a pardon from Donald Trump.” And everything that Trump has said about Manafort, since the beginning, has been consistent with that belief and, I think, supported his opinion he’s going to get a pardon.

Robyn: Let’s talk about Michael Cohen. Two separate filings.

Page: Yeah.

Robyn: What does that mean? And again, are we going to see anything? Are we gonna see these big, redacted pieces of paper with not much on them, like we saw with Flynn?

Page: Right. Cohen’s pleading, again, is more like Flynn than Manafort, because this is a sentencing submission. This is the prosecutor saying, “Mr. Cohen helped us and this is, in general terms, what he helped us with.” Maybe two investigations, maybe more. But I don’t think we’re gonna see a lot of details, because, well, really, two reasons. One, those investigations may be ongoing and the special counsel’s office, the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, they don’t wanna lay it all out on the table at this point.

The other reason is, and this is very real in a lot of cases, you don’t wanna expose your cooperator. You don’t wanna let people know what Michael Cohen has told you, because it could put him in danger, his family in danger. So I don’t think we’re gonna see a whole lot of detail in that pleading.

Robyn: So, as you look at all of this, there are a lot of loose ends to little bit of information we’ve been getting.

Page: Right.

Robyn: Shoes are dropping.

Page: Sure.

Robyn: How much of this investigation do we have a sense of, and do you think it’s gonna end soon? Particularly, with this new AG that’s coming in.

Page: I think it is going to end soon. I think all of the messages that we’ve seen and what’s been reported about the special counsel reaching out to defense lawyers, saying they’re tying up loose ends. We’re going to now see public filings containing details of the investigation. So I think we’re getting close. And then, it’s gonna fall to Bob Mueller. What do you do now? Do you issue your report publicly?

I mean, the regulations say it’s gotta go to whoever is supervising him. Was Rosenstein, as the Deputy Attorney General. It may now be William Barr, who’s just been nominated. Of course, he’s gotta be confirmed first. But that report’s gotta get sent to somebody, either Department of Justice, Congress, or the public.

Robyn: And then there’s Congress. And then there’s the political decision made by Congress. Just one last thing, the tweet today coming from President Trump. A lot of them, a lot of analysts say they looked like they were panicky kind of tweets. Either way, there is some information buried in all of that. And 87 pages is the key number there. What do we know about how they’re preparing for this?

Page: Well, we know there’s going to be a response. Apparently, if you believe…

Robyn: From the White House, yeah.

Page…the tweet, a lengthy response from the White House, from Trump’s lawyers. So I think they have a general idea of what’s coming. They’ve been talking to the special counsel’s office all during this process. They’ve filled out written questions. They’ve submitted them. I think, right now, there may be a question, do we need more written questions? Do we still need that in-person interview with the President? I think that’s the last piece of the puzzle here.

Robyn: Okay. Page Pate, always good for you to unpack things for us. Happy Friday. Thanks so much for speaking to us.

Page: Appreciate it.

Will Manafort Get a Pardon?

Written by Tom Church on January 18, 2019. Posted in Federal Fraud Charges.

TRANSCRIPT:

Robyn: CNN legal analyst Page Pate is here with me now to discuss all of this. Great to have you in the studio.

Page: Thank you.

Robyn: So, after all of this time with the Mueller investigation working on all of this with Paul Manafort, it appears that the President intends to pardon him anyway. Now, the President says he hasn’t had any discussions about this with Manafort and his team. Do you buy that

Page: I don’t buy that no discussions have occurred. Now, it may be the fact that the President has not personally talked to Manafort and said, “Look, I’m gonna pardon you. There’s nothing to worry about.” But I do think that message has been made clear to Manafort, probably by his lawyer, perhaps through Trump’s lawyers.

But I think the message has been sent from the President that, “If you hold tight, if you do not provide any evidence against me or anyone else in my White House or my inner circle, then I’m gonna take care of you at the end of the day. You do not have to worry about actually serving that sentence.”

Robyn: What impact does something like that have on the credibility of a President, given the reputation of someone like Paul Manafort?

Page: You know, we’ve never seen anything like this before, where the President has the ability to pardon someone who could be a witness against him in a potential criminal proceeding. Now, our constitution gives the President almost an unlimited right to pardon someone, whoever he wants for whatever reason.

But in this case, I think it’s tempting for the President to use that pardon power in an unconstitutional manner, in a, I guess you would say, corrupt persuasion, to try to use it to obstruct the criminal investigation, the Mueller investigation. And if that occurs, then I think Robert Mueller does have a strong argument that the President is obstructing justice.

Robyn: So, how do you think the Mueller investigation then would respond to that? And I did want to ask you, too, what sort of sentence do you think Paul Manafort will get? If it even matters now, if he’s gonna get a pardon anyway.

Page: Well, I don’t think he’s gonna have to serve it, at least not on the federal level. Given the amount of money that was involved in Paul Manafort’s case, all of the money that he was receiving from the Ukraine and the folks over there that he was servicing, the things that he was doing with that money, the money laundering convictions, the sentencing guidelines in federal court are gonna call for a lot of prison time.

But I do believe, and it may be after sentencing, but at some point, before he actually serves out that sentence, President Trump will likely pardon him. Now, what does that mean to the Mueller investigation going forward? As far as Trump is concerned, I don’t think you’re ever gonna see the special counsel try to indict President Trump. It’s just too unclear under our laws if that can even be possible.

But I think we’re gonna see, at some point, a report from the special counsel’s office that will suggest the conduct that the President is engaging in now and engaged in in the past could be obstruction of justice.

Robyn: Right. And in addition to this, so we are learning that President Trump gave in writing an explanation to Robert Mueller’s team that, to the best of his recollection, he was not told previously by Roger Stone about Wikileaks and he said he didn’t know about the meeting between his son, Don Jr., the campaign group that was with…meeting with that Russian lawyer. Again, your legal perspective on that.

Page: Well, we’re not surprised by his answer. I mean, that’s consistent with what he said before in the media, publicly. But I am interested, and I find it very significant, the language that he now uses. I mean, he’s never said, “To the best of my recollection.” I mean, his tweets, his public statements have always been crystal clear. “I didn’t do anything wrong. I didn’t know about it. No collusion. Witch hunt.”

But now, I think, with his lawyers’ input, he’s saying, “Well, to the best of my recollection.” And I think that does keep him from being later charged with making a false statement if the special counsel can prove what he’s saying is not accurate.

Robyn: And, I mean, that has been the problem for his legal team, hasn’t it? Because he can’t seem to keep the story straight.

Page: Absolutely. Even today, when he’s talking about the possibility of giving a pardon to Paul Manafort, at the very moment when it looks like Paul Manafort is going back into hot water because he’s refusing to cooperate.

Robyn: So, the best of my recollection is a line we should all remember, because that can save us, right?

Page: If you’re ever in trouble, absolutely.

Robyn: Okay. Page Pate, always a pleasure.

Page Pate on CNN Discussing Kavanugh Confirmation

Discussing Kavanaugh Confirmation

Written by Tom Church on September 11, 2018. Posted in TV Appearances.

Attorney Page Pate, who is recognized as a constitutional attorney and legal analyst, is often contacted by the media to discuss legal issues that appear in the news. In this case, CNN contacted Page to discuss the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh as the next Justice of the Supreme Court.

One of the biggest issues being raised in the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is abortion laws under Roe v. Wade and whether there is the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning those laws if there is a conservative majority on the Court. When asked for his thoughts on this, Page responds that “Settled law is settled for lower court judges. It is not at all settled for Supreme Court Justices. And since he wrote that, there’s now another vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. So, with a fifth vote, I think it is certain that a Justice Kavanaugh would look at the issue very differently than a Judge Kavanaugh. Because once you’re on that Supreme Court, you get to make the call.”

In discussing the importance of a nominee’s personal views on Roe v. Wade, Page comments that he thinks it is very important and “… if the Democratic Senators will bear down on this issue and say, “Look, you’re telling us your personal opinion does not weigh into your decisions. Well, that may be true while you’re a lower court judge. But now, you have to recognize, you have to acknowledge that once you’re on the Supreme Court, your personal opinions do make a difference, how you view the Constitution, how you view Roe vs. Wade, because you will then have a vote to change that precedent if you decide to exercise it.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Wolf: An hour after the hearing began, the Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley, made his opening remarks. So let’s discuss all of this critically important information. Gloria Borger, Eliana Johnson are still with us. Page Pate is joining us now as well, our legal analyst. Gloria, several of the Democrats on the committee, they backed Booker, saying they would also release some confidential emails despite the Senate rules.

Gloria: Committee confidential, as they’re called. And their reason for doing it is, obviously, they wanna raise questions. They wanna raise questions about…particularly about Roe vs. Wade, and whether or not Judge Kavanaugh believes that it is so-called settled law. And there is one line in this released email where he had written that, “I’m not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land, at the Supreme Court level, since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so.”

Well, that is true. And we also know that everybody talks about settled law, and everybody…and precedent, and everybody knows that precedent can be overturned if the Court wants to. But again, they were raising this to say, “Look, Roe is in danger and this is a bit of proof about why Kavanaugh, who is so important, replacing Kennedy here, could be a key vote in overturning Roe.”

Wolf: But, Page, and you’re a legal analyst. He was right. There are legal scholars who agree that Roe v. Wade could be, if there’s a majority in the Supreme Court, overturned.

Page: Oh, absolutely. Settled law is settled for lower court judges. It is not at all settled for Supreme Court Justices. And since he wrote that, there’s now another vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. So, with a fifth vote, I think it is certain that a Justice Kavanaugh would look at the issue very differently than a Judge Kavanaugh. Because once you’re on that Supreme Court, you get to make the call.

Wolf: You know, Eliana, I want to play a clip. This is the ranking Democrat, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Diane Feinstein, who said this on this sensitive issue of Roe v. Wade and Kavanaugh. Listen to this.

Judge Kavanaugh: So, thank you, Senator Feinstein. In that draft letter, it was referring to the views of legal scholars. And I think my comment in the email was that might be overstating the position of legal scholars. And so, it wasn’t a technically accurate description in the letter of what legal scholars thought. At that time…

Wolf: I’ve actually read these memos that were confidential, but now they’re out. They’ve been released by some of these Democratic Senators. The question is, on the sensitive issue of abortion rights for women in the United States, do you think any of this is gonna have an impact on two moderate Republican Senators, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, who are very important on this issue of Roe v. Wade, and may convince them, because of this disclosure of what he said, that they may vote against this confirmation?

Eliana: I don’t think this will be enough, but you’re exactly right. The ultimate goal in publicizing these emails is to suggest that Republicans and Kavanaugh have been hiding the ball about what his true views on Roe v. Wade are, and that if he is confirmed to the Court, he will be a vote to overturn this. I don’t think this email, which really is a factual statement about precedent and the views of legal scholars, will be enough to convince Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine that Kavanaugh…

It says nothing about what Kavanaugh’s personal views on the issue are or what he might do if he’s nominated and confirmed to the Court. So I don’t think it will be enough to get them to turn on their own party and to scuttle the nomination. If this is the worst thing Democrats have on him, I just don’t think it will be sufficient.

Wolf: Because it looks like he has the votes, especially…he needs 50 votes in the U.S. Senate. There are 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats, including the two Independents who vote with the Democrats. And there are at least three moderate Democrats…

Gloria: Right.

Wolf: …who may vote to confirm…

Gloria: In red states.

Wolf: …as well. So if it’s a simple majority, it looks like he hasn’t had a major blunder yet.

Gloria: Right.

Wolf: And it looks like he’s on his way.

Gloria: He hasn’t. And in this memo, you know, he didn’t state what his personal views were. And that’s sort of important. He didn’t say, you know, “I personally believe that this shouldn’t be considered settled law or shouldn’t be considered precedent.” He was sort of remarking on what legal scholars were saying. And so, I really…I, you know, I agree with Eliana. I don’t see it as sort of dispositive here, that it would really kinda kill the nomination.

Page: You know, I think this is very important, though. And if the Democratic Senators will bear down on this issue and say, “Look, you’re telling us your personal opinion does not weigh into your decisions. Well, that may be true while you’re a lower court judge. But now, you have to recognize, you have to acknowledge that once you’re on the Supreme Court, your personal opinions do make a difference, how you view the Constitution, how you view Roe vs. Wade, because you will then have a vote to change that precedent if you decide to exercise it.

Wolf: Let’s not forget, Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed, and it looks like he will be confirmed, could spend 30 or 40 years…

Page: Exactly.

Wolf: …he’s what, only 53 years old, on the U.S. Supreme Court and have a huge impact well beyond, you know, obviously, the Trump administration. Guys, stick around. There’s more. We’re…