Levin: Democrats and the judicial confirmation process

This is a rush transcript from "Life, Liberty & Levin," September 23, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARK LEVIN, HOST: Hello, America. I'm Mark Levin. This is "Life, Liberty & Levin" a special edition. We're going to go through the 30-year history of the Democratic Party's effort to destroy the judicial confirmation process and address its latest victim. I said victim. Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

So we're going to start right away. It started in 1987 on the floor of the United States Senate by Ted Kennedy. Go.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Bork subsequently retracted, the most Neanderthal of these views on the Civil Rights and First Amendment, but his mindset is no less ominous today.

Robert Bork's America is land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight rage, and school children could not be taught about evolution. Writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is and is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet, in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be. The damage that President Reagan ...


LEVIN: That's enough. That's enough from Mr. Chappaquiddick. The attack, the smear, the character assassination against Judge Robert Bork, one of the smartest lawyers ever, one of the greatest professors ever. A tremendous circuit court judge just smeared on the floor of the United States Senate.

This began the process for Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy and others. Many of whom are still around, serving in the Senate, unleashed this unprecedented historically unprecedented attack on a nominee, and they weren't done. A few years later, after the hearings were done in the Clarence Thomas case, they struck again with Anita Hill and here's what Clarence Thomas had to say about that at the time, go.


CLARENCE THOMAS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal, sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.


LEVIN: Let's stop right there. Notice, America, the Democrats today keep talking about old white men who dared to raise questions, that is Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about the latest accuser. Well, there's Clarence Thomas, he's no old white man. He's a young African-American, 1991 during his confirmation, questioned by old liberal white men. Set up, to be smeared and destroyed. Go ahead.


THOMAS: And I think more important point, I think that this today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this sleaze, this dirt, was searched for by staffers of members of this committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and this body validated it and displayed it at primetime over our entire nation. How would any member on this committee, any person in this room or any person in this country would like sleaze said about him or her in this fashion?


LEVIN: All right, and he went onto call it a high-tech lynching which is exactly what it is. There was a piece by the late great columnist Robert Novak, we'll call those first two Exhibit 1 and 2, here's Exhibit 3. And it was at CNN and he wrote, "Washington, the Democratic filibuster against judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has little to do with the 41-year-old Honduran immigrant." What does this have to do with anything? Well, this is a piece written in 2003. That was 1991.

He continues, "It is part of the grand design to talk to death a succession of conservative judges selected by George Bush." So this is subsequent to Bork and Thomas. Democrats are intent on keeping the Senate from voting on any appellate nominations that do not meet the party's specifications. The extraordinary design without precedent in two centuries of judicial nominations was launched January 30th, 2003 in the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Present were Assistant Leader Harry Reid and six Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, would all pledge to secrecy the faithful decision was made to filibuster Estrada's nomination," and you will know why in a moment

And, "That was only the beginning. One judiciary committee member there was Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Senate's liberal lion. In private conversations with Daschle and in Democratic caucuses, Kennedy has pressed a plan to prevent President Bush from putting his ideological stamp on the Federal bench. As Republicans return this week from recess, they had no immediate response to this threat. Internal Senate sources depict a Senate minority on an audacious mission, rare use of the filibuster to keep a judicial nominee off the bench is only of the tip of the iceberg. Multiple filibusters generate the first full scale effort in American history to prevent a President from picking the Federal judges he wants."

"At the January 30 meeting at Daschle's office, the eight senators agreeing to filibuster the Estrada nomination did not discuss his merits or demerits as a nominee for the District of Columbia Appeals Court, second in importance only to the US Supreme Court. Rather, the objections to Estrada were political and procedural. His confirmation, they agreed, would set a precedent that appellate nominees need not answer detailed questions and will make it hard to stop him as a possible future Supreme Court nominee."

"The senators talked about slowing down a Bush assembly line of conservative nominees and cited support from an energized Democratic base." Well, let's take a look at some of these internal memos that were publicly released. You heard Patrick Leahy, the senator from Vermont going on and on a few weeks ago. "They stole our memos. They stole our memos."

What happened was the Democrats and the Republicans put these - they are data on the same site, and the Republicans saw it. Now, I didn't steal anything, but these are in "Men In Black," my first book as they were publicly made at the time. The reason they are furious about the public revelation of the memos is because it shows the sleazy, outrageous activity of the Democrats in the Senate and on the Senate Judiciary Committee to try and destroy the reputations and careers of nominees who are not progressives, who are constitutional originalists.

Now, keep in mind, that's what's going on here. As I've said before, progressivism and constitutionalism do not work together because the progressive model is to destroy the constitutional model. And for the left, the Supreme Court isn't a court, it's any many ways a politburo, and they insist on controlling the politburo. Why? Woodrow Wilson tells us why, one of the first so-called progressive intellects. What did he say? He said, "We must control the courts and they shall control the future society. In effect, they must rewrite the Constitution." That's what's going on here.

The Democrats don't mind a quote of three maybe four constitutionalists on the court, but that's it. That's their holy grail. They will destroy anybody, any human being who dares to say that I will uphold the Constitution, because that is what they don't want. Here are some of the internal memos. You can see June 21, 2002, to Senator Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Cantwell, and it's a strategy of judges.

In addition, you can see timing of hearings, the consensus is to make Priscilla Owen, who was a nominee to a circuit court, the big fight to July 18th. And they go through Miguel Estrada will be difficult to defeat given the sparseness of his record.

Next, another one, July 18th. Priscilla Owen again, Miguel Estrada again, they have a real hate on for Estrada. You are about to find out why in a moment. Senator Leahy took the important first step of asking for a memoranda that Estrada produced working at the Solicitor General's office. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has refused to turn over the memos.

That has been the historic position of the Department of Justice, because the Solicitor's Office is the office that advocates on behalf of the Federal government its work product, its attorney product. It's not turned over to the United States Senate during a confirmation process.

Next, you can see again April 17, 2007, Elaine - Elaine Jones, would like the committee to hold off. Now first of all, before we go on, look who's in these meetings, Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in 2002. She's in there, as well as a bunch of other left-wing groups. These left- wing groups are controlling the judicial nomination process for the Democrats.

Kennedy, Leahy, Daschle, the rest of them, meeting with these groups, taking orders from these groups, conspiring with these groups, organizing with these groups in the shadows, where the American people can't see them.

Next. Meeting with Civil Rights leaders, that is left-wing groups to discuss judicial nomination strategy. June 5, 2002, to discuss all these nominees from George Bush. Next. Meeting with Civil Rights leaders, again, November 6. This goes back to 2001. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year when presumably the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent. Who are the groups? Again, you have people from the American Way: Ralph Nays, Kate Michaelton, Naral, Nayanar, and Alliance for Justice, Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Leslie Poe, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Association of University of Women and it goes on and on. Hard core left-wing groups.

Next. Here we have another meeting. This was November 7, 2001. Check it out. They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous because he has a minimal paper trail. He is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. In other words, you've got to kill off this guy because he's Latino, he's smart, he's in the Solicitor's Office at the Department of Justice, he doesn't have a long paper trail that we can use against him, and if he gets on the DC Circuit, he may wind up on the Supreme Court as the first Latino Supreme Court justice. Incredible.

Next. Kennedy. Kennedy. Kennedy behind the whole thing. Biden, Leahy, Durbin and the rest. Next. Again, you can see who is in attendance. Daschle, Reid, and what are they focused on? Feinstein, Schumer, Edwards, Durbin, Leahy, Estrada, they've got to kill off Estrada, the first Latino that might be on the Supreme Court.

Next. Well, you get the picture and that's what these memos show. They show that the Democratic Party has hijacked the judicial nomination process over the last 30 years. That their left-wing groups have hijacked the judicial nomination process from the American people, and they may let a justice through here who's nominated by a Republican, but the fact of the matter is, they are going to crush anybody who they believe might change the balance of power.

What are we talking about here? We're talking about Republican presidents like Donald Trump who are nominating people who want to follow the Constitution, people who want to adhere to the Constitution. Now the left talks about judicial precedent. You've got to follow judicial precedent. They don't mean it. If there's judicial precedent, they don't agree with, they blow it off. But if they're right, judicial precedent Dredd Scott, the slavery case, did they think that judicial precedence should have been followed? Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal. Do they think that judicial precedence should have been followed?

Korematsu the FDR case, Japanese-Americans, internment camps, do they think that judicial precedent should have been followed? Brown v. Board of Education, reversed; Plessy versus Ferguson. They embraced Brown versus Board of Education as do I, but if they hadn't applied the Constitution, that court, we'd still have Plessy versus Ferguson. I've got a lot more.

But first I want to remind you, check us out on Levin TV at crtv.com/mark, crtv.com/mark. Three to four times a week. You can catch my show there and we hope you'll join us and all the other wonderful hosts there or call us at 844-LEVIN-TV. 844-LEVIN-TV. We'll be right back.

Now, the Democrats and their surrogates in the media are fond of saying that the President shouldn't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court in the last year, right, of their presidency. Unless of course they're Barack Obama. You see, the rules change with the Democrats. Filibuster, don't filibuster, do filibuster. Don't nominate in the last year of a President, do nominate in the last year of a President, don't nominate in the last year of a President. It just depends on who the President is.

So their principles are very negotiable because they have none. Exhibit 5. Go.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush would consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.


LEVIN: But it looks like Joe Biden, now Vice President at the time, and his boss, President Obama, took a different position when Obama was President. This is from CBS News, March 16, 2016, Exhibit 6. Go.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I asked that they confirm Merrick Garland now to the Supreme Court so that he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the American people this fall. He is the right man for the job.


LEVIN: So Antonin Scalia, unfortunately passes away and they want to put their guy in. Few years before, they said no, you can't do that. Bush can't do that at the end of his term. Only Obama can do that, you see? But it gets even worse, Chuck Schumer, remember his name on all those memos. All those memos. He is the Svengali behind the whole thing, even today. Here's what he had to say this June - June 27, 2018. Let's check it out on C-SPAN 2. Go.


CHUCK SCHUMER, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016; not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year.


LEVIN: Now stop. That's not what they did. That's not what they did. First of all, it's not the last year of President Trump's even first term. They didn't set the rule that you don't consider a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a President's term, the Democrats set that rule. then they broke the rule and then they set the rule again, and if Schumer is right, which he never is, that would mean that the only time you could consider a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States is basically every other year.

Now that's preposterous. Nobody agrees with that. Now, let's take a look at this, a piece by Marc Thiessen, back in - let's see, July. "The Democrats' big mistake, was using the nuclear option to pack the Federal circuit courts with liberal judges." Because that's what they did under Obama. "After Democrats won control, the Senate and the White House, they set about trying to fill court vacancies particularly in the DC Court of Appeals with judges so left wing, they knew they couldn't meet the 60-vote filibuster standard."

"When Republicans following the precedent Democrats had set, filibustered some of President Obama's nominees, the Democrats, again, broke precedent and eliminated the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominees." Now, remember those memos I showed you earlier, they were filibustering Circuit Court nominees and then they eliminated the filibuster for Circuit Court nominees to ram through as many of their judges as they could under Obama.

"The short-term game of going nuclear was immense. Obama flipped most of the Circuit Courts from conservative to liberal majorities including the DC circuit." They did more than that on the DC circuit, the second most powerful court in America. They add two more seats. They not only stuffed the courts with leftists, they added two more seats so they could stuff it further with leftists.

"The Democrats' mistake also was to filibuster Neil Gorsuch after Republicans had won back the Senate, they refused to confirm Obama's choice of Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, citing as precedent the promise made in 2007 by Schumer that Democrats would not confirm a Supreme Court Justice during President George W. Bush's final year in office." And you heard Biden take that position.

"When trump was elected and appointed Gorsuch to fill Scalia's seat, apoplectic Democrats made a fatal error. Instead of keeping their powder dry until Anthony Kennedy resigned, they filibustered Gorsuch's nomination. The decision to block such an obviously qualified nominee free tradition- bound Republicans to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and confirm him with a simple majority," which is why they're jumping up and down now.

Their own back and forth, back and forth, ends justifies the means strategies have bitten them. "Democrats recusing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of hypocrisy moving forward with a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, but McConnell never said he would not confirm nominees before midterm elections in the second year of a presidency. Three sitting justices were confirmed in midterm election years -- Elainea Kagan, August 2010. An Obama appointee. Samuel Alito, January 2006, a Bush appointee, and Stephen Breyer, August 1994, a Clinton appointee, as were retired Justices David Souter and Scalia."

"Trump is going to do exactly what Presidents Obama, Bill Clinton and both Bushes did before him." So there is another big lie by the Democrats going back and forth on the filibuster, going back and forth on the issue whether a President should nominate somebody to the Supreme Court in the last year of his term, then in the year before a midterm election and so forth. We are laying out the case for how the Democrats have hijacked the judicial confirmation process. They have destroyed the judicial confirmation process, and why? Because they want to stack the courts. Every circuit court and the Supreme Court with progressive statists because they want issues nationalized. They believe in autocracy. They believe in the centralization of government.

They could talk about people all they want. They can talk about women all they want. They can talk about old white men all they want. What they really want is power, and to maintain their power, and all roads for them lead through the Supreme Court. Justice Woodrow Wilson said they should! I'll be right back.

LAUREN GREEN, CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS: Live from "America's News Headquarters," I'm Lauren Green. New accusations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. According to "The New Yorker," Senate Democrats are investigating an incident from Kavanaugh's college years. Deborah Rodriguez, a former Yale classmate reportedly claims he exposed himself and violated her during a drunken dormitory party, and Stormy Daniels lawyer, Michael Avenatti revealing in a tweet that he's representing yet another accuser. He says he will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both Kavanaugh and the White House dismissed the allegations saying it's part of a smear campaign.

However, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein is now calling for postponement of Kavanaugh's nomination, as well as an FBI investigation. I'm Lauren Green, now back to "Life, Liberty & Levin."

LEVIN: Welcome back America. As we walk through the desecration of the judicial nomination process, thanks to the Democrats, who have burned down over 200 years of tradition. You know, originally, there were very few hearings for Supreme Court nominees.

Early in our history, right up through the 1800s into the 1900s. They began in earnest after really the 1960s, you can even look and you can see that many Supreme Court justices were confirmed on voice votes. That is not even roll call votes. But I'm not sure I actually support that sort of thing, but now they've turned into these circuses.

The Republicans have not turned these into circuses. I mean, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she got confirmed with over 90 votes. The Republicans didn't try to filibuster, they didn't look into her background, they didn't question any wrongdoing and so forth? Kagan got well over 60 votes and she was a well-known Bill Clinton hack, in my humble opinion. They didn't go after these people.

Stephen Breyer, longtime staffer for Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Did they destroy him? Did they trash him? This is a one-way street, and it's about damn time the Republicans stand up to it. We don't to need to listen to lectures by the leftists about the rule of law, for the most part, they don't believe in the rule of law. I am showing you they don't believe in the rules. We don't need to listen to leftists about women's rights. Last time I checked, we're all borne of women, including white males.

And you know what? I love my mother, I love my wife, I love my daughter and I love my granddaughter, and I don't need to hear from leftists about what women believe. I hear from my own women in my own life what women believe.

We can continue to go on here, but the fact of the matter is the left tries to generalize these hearings to try and make you believe that they stand for minorities, that they stand for women, that they stand for equal rights.

Let me tell you something, they stand for a post constitutional America. They stand for a big centralized government. They stand for an all- powerful Supreme Court and will never, ever willingly let go. Obama's judges leave liberal imprint on US law. This was a Reuter's piece since he was leaving office. "Of the 13 appeals courts ..." 13 appeals courts under the Supreme Court, " ... nine, nine now have a majority of Democratic appointees compared with one when Obama took office, according to research carried out by Russell Wheeler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington."

"In addition to appointing two Supreme Court justices and dozens of district court judges, Obama appointments now make up 55 of the current 168 appeals court judges according to the judiciary. Obama's current total of 323 district and appeals courts appointments, most of them district court judges, is similar to the tallies achieved by only recent two-term presidents."

The difference is he's put hard core ideologues in the Federal judiciary. And this is what they are protecting. "The Federal appeals court in Washington, DC ..." which we've been talking about, " ... is another where the balance of power has been flipped. Often known in legal circle as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the Federal government, the US Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia was dominated by conservatives 6-3 when Obama took office. Now it's dominated by leftists 7-4," 6-3, 7-4. 6-3 is nine, 7-4 is 11. Remember what I said? They added two judges.

It is the greatest power grab by the Democrats on the court since FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. It's even greater because FDR failed. And you know what happened when FDR tried to pack the United States Supreme Court? His own Vice President who had been Speaker of the House sometime before worked behind his back to block it because even then, during the outrageous 1930s and 40s when the Democrats controlled virtually everything. Even then, there was at least a scintilla of respect for the constitutional order so they would not permit FDR to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

But, of course, anything goes now with what the Senate Judiciary Committee does. I want to point out a couple of other things here, too. Let's move onto Kavanaugh. I have a little list in my hands here. It's a list of 25 individuals who President Trump said should he be elected, would consider for the Supreme Court of the United States. It was originally 21 and he added four. You know who's name is on here among them? Brett Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh, so it was known for a long time that Brett Kavanaugh might well be one of the individuals the President of the United States chooses to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. It's been known.

So anybody who was concerned about Brett Kavanaugh has actually had several years to raise those concerns, haven't they? Several years to raise those concerns, but they didn't raise those concerns in several years. Why is that? Well, we have a new accuser, Dr. Ford, a professor.

Luckily, her name isn't Juanita Broaddrick or they wouldn't care. Luckily, her name isn't Paula Jones or they wouldn't care. Luckily, her name isn't Kathleen Willey or they wouldn't care. Luckily her name is not Mary Jo Kopechne, or they wouldn't care. No, no, no. Suddenly, they care.

So we have a hearing in the United States Senate, the hearing is completed. One of the senators on the committee who happens to be the leading Democrat on the committee, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat has information that she does not reveal during the hearing, that she does not reveal during the visiting period where Kavanaugh meets the United States senator, she keeps it in her back pocket. She doesn't want it - that information to be known during the hearing process.

She doesn't want it to be tested during the hearing process, so she sits on it and she waits, and what exactly was she waiting for? And what exactly did the accuser accuse the nominee, Mr. Kavanaugh of? We're going to get into this in a moment.

Just remember, every week night you can watch me on Levin TV, almost every week night by going to crtv.com/mark, crtv.com/mark. Join our wonderful community over there or give us a call at 844-LEVIN-TV, 844-LEVIN-TV. We'll be right back.

Let's take a look at the latest attack on the judicial confirmation process and the latest character assassination by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh.

Now, July 6, 2018, the accuser, Ford, contacts the "Washington Post" through a tip line, when it became clear that Kavanaugh was on the short list of possible SCOTUS nominees. Fact is he's been on the list for some time. July 30, 2018, she sends a letter to her local congresswoman, and then that congresswoman sends it to Dianne Feinstein. Early August, the accuser Ford engages a known left-wing Democrat activist lawyer Debra Katz, and she's been known for work on sexual harassment cases and so forth, and she has Ford take a polygraph in her office.

Late August, Ford decided not to come forward, calculating that doing would - she said, upend and probably hurt her life and why suffer through that kind of annihilation, she's reportedly said. September 12, "The Intercept" reports that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman allegedly while they were in high school. That Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democrat colleagues, I don't believe that for two seconds.

Feinstein released a statement that was ambiguous but already began the smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh. September 13, the FBI redacted Ford's name and sent the letter to the White House to be included in the Kavanaugh background file, and keep in mind, Kavanaugh has had background checks six times and this never came up, and they're absolutely clean. Absolutely clean. So it never came up.

Now, September 14th, "The New Yorker" reported the letter's contents, but did not reveal Ford's identity. September 16th, accuser Ford came forward to the "Washington Post" after multiple outlets reported on the letter. This is somebody who doesn't want to be public but has an affinity for talking to the media. September 17th, speaking to CBS News, morning news, Ford's attorney, Debra Katz said Ford hopes to help the committee get a more complete picture of her allegations. "My client will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the Senate Judiciary Committee has the full story."

September 18th, the FBI needs to conduct the investigation. September 17th, Schumer demands that the FBI get involved. September 18th, Ford demands that the FBI get involved. Now, their position is well, it doesn't have to be the FBI. We need a formal investigation. You know who the accuser's real lawyer is, right? it's Chuck Schumer. I showed you those memos earlier, they're orchestrating the whole thing.

Have you noticed every Democrat says virtually the same thing. They get before the cameras and they say virtually the same thing and it's always political and the accuser is always right, and they believe the accuser and remember, this jury of Democrats already said that they would vote against Kavanaugh. So the Democrats timed this thing. Then they want to know why the Republicans are in a rush. But, of course, the fact that the accuser withheld the supposed information for decades, and withheld it right up to really essentially a few months ago, that's not allowed to be questioned.

And now, the accuser, Ford and her lawyer, are insisting that the elements that they require for her to appear before the Committee be accepted before she will appear before the Committee. She will not come on Monday. She insists that Kavanaugh not be in the same room. She insists on a fair system that's set up. I have never seen anything like this, where an accuser, without any other information, gets to tell the United States Senate how the hearing is going to be conducted, for a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Let me tell you a little secret here. The victim here is Brett Kavanaugh. The victim here is the Kavanaugh family, his wife and his little girls. The victim here, the Kavanaugh parents, his mother and his father, to have to be put through this. This is an absolute disgrace what's been done at the last-minute and the Democrats don't care. They didn't care withBork, they didn't care with Clarence Thomas, they didn't care with Estrada, it's all about power and holding the court. And I'm going explain to you soon why it is an absolute disgrace beyond what you've already heard. We'll be right back.

Welcome back. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a judge for 12 years, six background checks, all kinds of media examination. Left-wing groups in the shadows trying to find reasons to destroy him. Found nothing. An accuser comes forward after the hearings are over. She doesn't know where the event she claims took place, she doesn't know when the events exactly took place. She doesn't know if there's corroborating witnesses or really any sort. The information is really almost completely lacking.

And yet we are to believe the accuser, otherwise you hate women. Nobody hates women. We hate what the Democrats are doing to our country and what they're doing to the judicial process. That's what we hate.

Even before there's been a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Kavanaugh, they send him to the Senate floor, they're already talking about impeaching him. They're already talking about impeaching him. This guy, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a trust baby, he's a senator from Rhode Island. I want you to listen what he has to say on CNN. This is Exhibit 13. We've already done 12 exhibits. Go.


SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, US SENATOR, RHODE ISLAND, DEMOCRAT: First of all, there's a factual dispute here, which is that she said that young Kavanaugh molested and assaulted her and he says that he didn't. There was a witness in the room who has never been subjected to a proper investigative effort of any kind. He has not been interviewed. He has never said anything ...


LEVIN: Let's stop, nor has she, nor has she and she's the accuser. Go ahead.


WHITEHOUSE: There was supposedly other boys. There is a whole investigative process that can and should take place, and you know what? This is such bad practice that even if they were to ram this guy through, as soon as Democrats get gavels, we're going to want to get to the bottom of this. You can't ignore a crime victim's claim that something happened refuting ...


LEVIN: Hold on, hold on. How do we know she's a crime victim? The guy just said we don't have information, we don't have testimony. We need an investigation. Now she's a crime victim. This is a former US Attorney. It just shows you what hacks these people are. So now she's a crime victim. Who says so? He says so. But even if they ram this guy through, what are they going to do, go ahead.


WHITEHOUSE: Investigate, throw her up into the stand without the least bit of support for her, without the least bit of effort to corroborate what she says and then walk away ...


LEVIN: There was plenty of time to talk to her during the hearing process. Feinstein could have come forward, her lawyers could have come forward, she could have come forward. They didn't. Because this was a timed hit job. Go ahead.


WHITEHOUSE: If you've behaved at all properly, there isn't a prosecutor or a victim advocate.


LEVIN: That's enough. Yes, right, good. Democrats, let's impeach. demandprogress.org, let's take a look at that, Exhibit 14, please. Tell Democrats, impeach Kavanaugh. So there's their genius at work. We even have an op-ed, of course, in the "New York Times" by a supposed law professor from the University of Alabama, going, "The case for impeaching Kavanaugh, if the Democrats win the house this fall, they can investigate the charges against him should he be confirmed."

So here we have already an impeachment process set up. Kavanaugh is prepared to testify. He said, "I'll be there Monday, I'm going to defend my character, I'm going to defend my name, I'm going to defend my family." The accuser, "Well, I don't want Monday, maybe Thursday, if it's Thursday, I don't want him in the stands. I don't want this." This is a democrat- run circus. I'll be right back.

This is a star chamber Soviet style spectacle that the Democrats have created and I want you to put yourself in Mr. Kavanaugh's shoes, not Dr. Ford's. Mr. Kavanaugh is the victim.

Now, Anita Hill wrote an op-ed and she said that it's up to Kavanaugh to demonstrate that he is innocent. This turns our entire notion of justice on its head. Nobody can prove their innocence under circumstances like this. Look at your Bill of Rights and the Federal Constitution. So many of them are there to protect the accused. Due process, the right to a jury trial, warrants, probable cause, the right not to testify against yourself. Look at the litigation process where the accuser and the accused are deposed, you have discovery, you have interrogatories. If it gets to a trial, you have cross examination. You are required to have an objective judge, objective jury.

Democrats want to confer more justice rights on terrorists and mass murderers than they do on constitutionalists who dare to be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. We shouldn't put up with this. Judge Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The accuser, the accuser, by her conduct and waiting this late, by working with the media, by working with Schumer and the Democrats. It is she that is required to prove her case, but, not now. She is too late.

You Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you vote this coming week, you vote and you confirm this man to the United States Supreme Court and you make it abundantly clear to the Democrats you will not tolerate this anymore. That court belongs to the American people. That Senate belongs to the American people, not these left-wing groups and not these Democrat senators.

Join us next week on "Life, Liberty & Levin."

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.