Podcast appearances and mentions of renae merle

Today on Post Reports, Renae Merle reports on why the expiration of rent relief will trigger a wave of evictions in at-risk communities. Dino Grandoni explains the fight to keep the lights on in households across the country. And, Teddy Amenabar on how to read your coronavirus test results. Read more:Evictions are likely to skyrocket as jobs remain scarce. Black renters will be hard hit. And landlords are pushing back on a federal moratorium.Congress faces pressure as states lift electricity shut-off bans during the coronavirus crisis. From swabs to antibodies: How to understand your coronavirus test results.Subscribe to The Washington Post: https://postreports.com/offer

Our guest this week is personal finance columnist and author Michelle Singletary. Singletary writes the nationally syndicated column "The Color of Money," which appears in The Washington Post, as well as in dozens of other newspapers nationwide. She's also the author of three personal finance books. The most recent was called The 21-Day Financial Fast: Your Path to Financial Peace and Freedom. Singletary is a frequent guest on TV and radio, and she was host of her own national television program, "Singletary Says," on TV One. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland at College Park. She has received the Distinguished Alumni Award from Johns Hopkins University, where she earned a master's degree in business and management.BackgroundMichelle Singletary's bio and Washington Post columns Michelle Singletary's website Michelle Singletary's books Financial Impact of Pandemic"Michelle Singletary Answers Viewer Questions About Pandemic Finances," PBS NewsHour, April 30, 2020. "What Coronavirus Fears Could Mean for Personal Finance," by Audie Cornish and Michelle Singletary, NPR, March 9, 2020. "Didn't Get Your Stimulus Payment? Here's How to Find It," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 2, 2020. Get My Payment, IRS.gov. "IRS Stimulus Checks Are Going to Dead People, While Needy Go Without," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, April 21, 2020. "Stimulus Prepaid Debit Card Is Causing a Lot of Confusion," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 1, 2020. "No, the IRS Should Not Try to Claw Back $1.4 Billion Sent to Dead People," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 26, 2020. "The IRS Just Made It Easier to Take Out a Loan or Withdraw Money From Your Retirement Account," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 23, 2020. “Trust Me: You Need to Start Saving Now So You Can Fly Last-Minute to Be There for Someone You Love When the Time Comes," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2019. "Rent, Mortgage, Car Loans, Utilities and Child Support. The Other Bills Can Wait," By Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, April 4, 2020. Racial Wealth Gap"The Racial Wealth Gap in America," by Michelle Singletary, Alanna McCargo, and Michael Neal, The Washington Post, June 18, 2020. "Coronavirus Could Widen Black Wealth Gap," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 13, 2020.  "The Black-White Economic Divide Is as Wide as It Was in 1968," by Heather Long and Andrew Van Dam, The Washington Post, June 4, 2020. "75 Must-Know Statistics About Race, Income, and Wealth," by Christine Benz, Morningstar.com, June 8, 2020. "Income and Wealth Inequality in America: 1949-2016," by Moritz Kuhn, Moritz Schularick, and Ulrike I. Steins, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, June 14, 2018. "New Data Suggest COVID-19 is Widening Housing Disparities by Race and Income," by Solomon Greene and Alanna McCargo, Urban Institute, June 2, 2020. Diversity in Financial Services"Wall Street Says It Cares About Diversity. But Most Big Banks Won't Share Complete Workforce Data," by Renae Merle and Jena McGregor, The Washington Post, Dec. 6, 2019. "Diversity and Inclusion: Holding America's Large Banks Accountable," U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, February 2020. "Six Charts That Illustrate the Financial Advice Industry's Lack of Diversity," by John Kador, WealthManagement.com, July 19, 2017. "Three Reasons You Don't See People of Color in the Financial Services Industry—and How to Fix It," by Alessandra Malito, MarketWatch, June 23, 2020. Paying for College "Community College Should Be a First Choice, Not a Last Resort," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, July 16, 2019. "The Worst Thing You Can Do for Your College-Bound Teen Is Saddle Them With Student Debt," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2019. "How to Pay for College During a Pandemic," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, May 16, 2020. Budgeting"Here's One Way to Stop Living Paycheck to Paycheck," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2019. "It's Still Crucial to Budget, Even When Your Money Meets Your Needs," by Michelle Singletary, The Washington Post, June 25, 2019. "When Family and Friends in Your Social Network Lack Good Financial Judgment, Do You Butt In or Butt Out?" by Michelle Singletary, Deseret News, Oct. 23, 2019. 

On Wednesday’s First Light, the latest projections show there could be 100,000 to 240,000 deaths in the U.S. even if social distancing guidelines are maintained. New science around the coronavirus has caused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue new guidance on who qualifies as a close contact.  Michael talks to reporter Renae Merle about strategies for managing your mortgage during the pandemic.

A "thank you" bonus episode featuring information on a congressional resignation, a long list of future congressional quitters, dizzy spells, and a disappearing airline. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Articles/Documents Article: U.S. Government Plans to Collect DNA From Detained Immigrants by Caitlin Dickerson, The New York Times, October 2, 2019 Article: Facebook Leak Reveals Zuckerberg's Plans for Brain-Controlled AR & VR in Wake of Elon Musk's Neuralink Development by Adario Strange, AR Business, October 1, 2019 Article: Expected to plead guilty, GOP lawmaker resigns from U.S. House by Jamie Dupree, Cox Washington Bureau, AJC, September 30, 2019 Article: Republican Rep. Chris Collins resigns House seat ahead of guilty plea to insider-trading charges by Renae Merle and Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, September 30, 2019 Article: The 2020 Congressional-Retirement Tracker by Russell Berman, The Atlantic, September 30, 2019 Article: Another GOP lawmaker decides against 2020 re-election by Jamie Dupree, Cox Washington Bureau, AJC, September 30, 2019 Article: Trump's takeover of GOP forces many House Republicans to head for the exits by Rachael Bade, The Washington Post, September 22, 2019 Article: Walmart’s New Intelligent Retail Lab Shows a Glimpse into the Future of Retail, IRL by Matt Smith, Walmart Newsroom, April 25, 2019 Article: Amazon is hiring a former FDA official to work on its secretive health tech business by Christina Farr, CNBC, March 16, 2018 Additional Reading Document: Shokin Statement Company Vision & FAQs: Haven Healthcare YouTube Video: Alibaba's "New Retail" Explained March 30, 2018 YouTube Video: Google's The Selfish Ledger (leaked internal video) May 17, 2018 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Divided government! The 2018 midterm elections are over and we know what the 116th Congress is going to look like: The Republican Party will continue to control the Senate and the Democratic Party will control the House of Representatives. In this episode, we discuss the likely ramifications of a divided Congress, some of the interesting results of individual Congressional races, and the opportunities available for Republicans to get their last wishes rammed into law before their complete Congressional control ends in January. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD179: Hearing: Who's Tracking the Immigrant Kids? CD166: I Spy a Shutdown CD149: Fossil Fuel Foxes CD143: Trump's Law Enforcers CD089: Secrets of the CRomnibus (2015 Budget) CD087: Run for Congress with Chris Clemmons Additional Reading Article: Trump's appointment of the acting Attorney General is unconstitutional by Neal K. Katyal and George T. Conway III, The New York Times, November 8, 2018. Article: DoD is sending 7,000 troops to the border. Here's every unit going. by Tara Copp, Military Times, November 8, 2018. Article: It's not over: Days after election, these races are still undecided by Brian Naylor, NPR, November 8, 2018. Article: Rep. Duncan Hunter keeps seat despite charges by Julie Watson, WBTV, November 8, 2018. Article: Trump warns Dems over potential investigations: 'Two can play that game!' by Brett Samuels, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: Top Dems quickly announce leadership intentions by Mike Lillis, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: Nevada voters approve automatic voter registration by Aris Folley, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: Connecticut elects first black congresswoman by Jessie Hellmann, The Hill, November 11, 2018. Article: Jeff Sessions pushed out after a year of attacks from Trump by Erick Tucker and Michael Balsamo, AP News, November 7, 2018. Article: Ayanna Pressley officially Massachusetts' 1st black congresswoman by William J. Kole, Boston Globe, November 7, 2018. Article: Don Young holds on to House seat in Alaska by Miranda Green, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter wins reelection despite criminal charges by Juliegrace Brufke, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: Florida U.S. Senate race between Rick Scott, Bill Nelson could be heading for recount by Mark Skoneki, Steven Lemongello, and Gray Rohrer, The Orlando Sentinel, November 7, 2018. Article: Democrat Colin Allred grabs Dallas-area U.S. House seat from GOP's Pete Sessions by Gromer Jeffers Jr., Dallas News, November 7, 2018. Article: The investigations Trump will face now that Democrats control the House by Adam Davidson, The New Yorker, November 7, 2018. Article: With midterms over, lame-duck congress now turns to avoiding a shutdown by Eric Katz, Government Executive, November 7, 2018. Article: Next chairman of Ways and Means Committee plans to demand Trump's tax return by Justin Wise, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: The private business of for-profit prisons in the US by AYŞE NUR DOK, TRT World, November 7, 2018. Article: Newly empowered, House Democrats plan to launch immediate investigations of Trump, but leaders are wary of impeachment by Karoun Demirjian, Tom Hamburger, and Gabriel Pogrund, The Washington Post, November 7, 2018. Article: Top Judiciary Dem: Trump is about to 'learn he's not above the law' by Aris Folley, The Hill, November 7, 2018. Article: GOP Rep. Chris Collins, charged with insider trading, is projected to win re-election in New York by Dan Mangan, CNBC, November 7, 2018. Article: Former NFL players Anthony Gonzalez, Colin Allred elected to Congress by Curtis Crabtree, NBC Sports, November 6, 2018. Article: Cramer ousts Heitkamp in critical North Dakota Senate race by Max Greenwood, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Blackburn keeps Tennessee seat in GOP hands by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Dem Lauren Underwood unseats Randy Hultgren in Illinois by Brett Samuels, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Hawley defeats McCaskill in tight Missouri Senate race by Jordain Carney, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Pence's brother wins Indiana House race by Megan Keller, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: GOP Rep. Chris Collins wins reelection in NY despite insider trading charges by Michael Burke, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Dem Colin Allredy topples Sessions in key Texas House seat by Lisa Hagen, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Graham lauds GOP Senate Results: 'Conservative judicial train is going to keep running!' by Megan Keller, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Coffman loses GOP seat in Colorado by Mike Lillis, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Mitt Romney wins Senate race in Utah by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Rashida Tlaib becomes first Palestinian-American woman to win congressional seat by Emily Birnbaum, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Haaland becomes one of first Native American women elected to Congress by Morgan Gstalter, The Hill, November 6, 2018. Article: Sharice Davids makes history: Kansas' 1st gay rep, 1st Native American woman in Congress by Bryan Lowry and Katy Bergen, The Kansas City Star, November 6, 2018. Article: Ryan Zinke and the murky interior of Trumpworld by Timothy L. O'Brien, Bloomberg, November 1, 2018. Article: Sources: Justice Department investigating Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke by Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Lauren Fox, and Gregory Wallace, CNN Politics, October 31, 2018. Article: Probe of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke sent to U.S. prosecutors by Ari Natter and Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Bloomberg, October 30, 2018. Article: Lieu vows aggressive investigations of Trump if Dems retake House by Julia Manchester, The Hill, October 29, 2018. Blog: Budget reconciliation is the key to building the border wall by Rep. Bradley Byrne, The Hill, October 17, 2018. Article: $35M private immigration detention center proposted for Ionia by Paul Egan, Detroit Free Press, October 16, 2018. Article: House will investigate Trump's attacks on democracy if Dems win, Cummings says by Julia Manchester, The Hill, October 1, 2018. Article: Ryan Zinke to the oil and gas industry: "Our government should work for you" by Umair Irfan, Vox, September 22, 2018. Article: Rep. Duncan Hunter and his wife indicted in use of campaign funds for personal expenses by Laura Jarrett and Maeve Reston, CNN Politics, August 21, 2018. Article: Why Rep. Chris Collins's insider trading arrest is a huge deal - and also totally unsurprising by Tara Golshan, Vox, August 9, 2018. Article: 2 Texas congressman bought shares in drug firm at heart of Rep. Chris Collins' insider trading case by Rachel Cohrs, Dallas News, August 9, 2018. Article: This company is at the center of insider trading charges against Rep. Collins by Katherine Ross, The Street, August 9, 2018. Article: Rep. Chris Collins charged with insider trading, federal prosecutors announce by Renae Merle and Mike DeBonis, The Washington Post, August 8, 2018. Article: Indicted Rep. Chris Collins shows why members of Congress should not trade stocks by Josh Barro, Business Insider, August 8, 2018. Article: Scandals pile up for interior chief Ryan Zinke by Chris D'Angelo, Huffpost, July 23, 2018. Article: Interior watchdog opens probe of land deal linking Zinke, Halliburton chairman by Ben Lefebvre, Politico, July 18, 2018. Article: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's conduct attracts unprecedented scrutiny from government investigators by Greg Zimmerman, Medium, June 5, 2018. Article: A timeline of scandals and ethical shortfalls at Ryan Zinke's Interior Department by Evlondo Cooper and Ted MacDonald, Media Matters for America, May 7, 2018. Article: Profiting from enforcement: The role of private prisons in U.S. immigration detention by Livia Luan, Migration Policy Institute, May 2, 2018. Article: Liberal watchdog group sues Trump, alleging he violated constitutional ban by David A. Fahrenthold and Jonathan O'Connell, The Washington Post, January 23, 2017. Article: GOP congressman, overwhelmed by constituents concerned about ACA repeal, sneaks out of event early by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, January 15, 2017. Article: Congressman defends 'Citibank' provision in spending bill by Jim Acosta, CNN Politics, December 16, 2014. Article: Wall Street's omnibus triumph, and others by Russ Choma, Open Secrets News, December 12, 2014. Article: Why Citi may soon regret its big victory on Capitol Hill by Rob Blackwell, American Banker, December 11, 2014. Article: How Wall St. got its way by Dave Clarke, Kate Davidson, and Jon Prior, Politico, December 11, 2014. Resources ACLU Talking Points: 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill Overview: H.R. 992 (113th): Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act Live News: CNN Election Night in the US Company Announcement: BAKKEN Binding Expansion Open Season, Energy Transfer Letter: Resignation Letter of Jeff Sessions OpenSecrets: Rep. Kevin Cramer - North Dakota District 1 OpenSecrets: Rep. Kevin Yoder, Kansas District 03 Wikipedia: Chris Collins (American Politician) Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Interview: Schiff responds to threat from President Trump, CNN Politics, November 8, 2018. News Conference: Minority Leader Pelosi on 2018 Election Results, C-SPAN, November 7, 2018. 19:30 Representative Nancy Pelosi: In any event, next week we look forward to welcoming our new class of freshmen. We will celebrate their diversity, the freshness of their thinking, and the rest. And they will immediately be incorporated into our building consensus and how we go forward in a very open, transparent, bipartisan, unifying Congress. Any questions? 21:10 Representative Nancy Pelosi: In appropriations and in many of the other committee—all of the other committees—we have a responsibility for oversight. And, hopefully, in the course of asking for information, we can just make the request and the information will come in. We’re concerned about what’s happening at EPA, for example, to degrading the air we breathe and the water we drink despite what the president said today. So, that’s only one example. 27:30 Unknown Speaker: Follow up on what the president said this morning. He made clear that if Democrats launch investigations, that any hopes for bipartisanship is off. Do you have any concerns that these investigations could jeopardize your opportunities to legislate? Representative Nancy Pelosi: We do not intend to abandon or relinquish our responsibility as Article I, the first branch of government, and our responsibilities for accountability, for oversight, and the rest. This doesn’t mean we go looking for a fight, but it means that if we see a need to go forward, we will. But that will be the work of our committees. Every committee has oversight responsibility. Congresswoman Eshoo’s on Energy and Commerce, and that’s a big oversight committee, as some of you probably are aware. But, specifically, to some of the concerns that the president may have, the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, the—well, there’re a number of committees that—depending on how we go down that path—the Financial Services committee, did I say Intelligence? Oh, Homeland Security Committee, because, of course, we are shamed as a nation by a policy that takes babies out of the arms of their mothers, that builds tents, and all the rest to house people, and there’s separation of families. So we want to look into that, and we would hope that we can do so by simply having oversight. If, in fact, requires a subpoena—I hope not, but—so be it. News Conference: President Trump on 2018 Election Results, C-SPAN, November 7, 2018. 23:00 President Donald Trump: Their whole agenda has been to try not giving me anything for the wall. I really believe politically they’re hurting themselves. I actually think politically that’s a good thing for me, but I want to get the wall up because we need to— Unknown Speaker: So no shut-down scenario— President Trump: I don’t know. I can’t tell you that. Unknown Speaker: —for the, for the mid, for the lame duck. President Trump: No, I can’t commit to that, but it’s possible. News Conference: Democrat Richard Neal says he plans to seek Trump tax returns, APNews, YouTube, November 7, 2018. Hearing: Unaccompanied Immigrant Children, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, C-SPAN, August 16, 2018. 1:14:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: This is about the fourth or fifth time I’ve been on this dais, and no one seems to be worried about the fact that you all get to wash your hands of these children. You want to talk about catch and release? You’re catching these children and then you’re releasing them and everyone goes like this. Not my problem. I think the thing that really stuck out to me in the report that the committee issued was the finding—and this was finding number 14—HHS has a plan to notify state governments before placing unaccompanied children previously held in secure facilities, but HHS has failed to implement that plan. HHS explained it cannot implement the plan because it cannot determine who to notify in state government. Well, let me just tell you, Commander, I will make an offer to you today: I think my staff can get you a list of agencies and phone numbers before close of business tomorrow. Would that be helpful? Commander Jonathan White: I’ll be glad to convey that, but I think it does address—I think there are very real questions, but— Sen. McCaskill: No, they’re not. White: —widely appro— Sen. McCaskill: No. They’re not. Every state has a child-welfare agency. In Missouri, it’s the Missouri Department of Social Services, the Children’s Division, and they’re responsible for foster care, for child placement, for monitoring child detention centers, they are responsible for the welfare of children who have been separated from their families. And they have contacts in every corner of my state. There’s a hotline that they administer. There is all kinds of ways that they can communicate with school systems, with local governments, with all the people that are working as foster parents. There is a huge network in every single state, because you know what the states do? They take the responsibility for having children in their care seriously. 1:54:30 Senator Heidi Heitkamp: One facility provider basically, if my rough math is right, 11,000 children have been assigned to Southwest Key over a number of facilities, not one facility, but they’re obviously a large provider. The reports coming out of Dallas say that they basically, in a half-year period, have a contract that’s worth a half a billion dollars that they’re being paid, which, if you do the rough math, that’s about $45,000 per child. I think that we should have some pretty high expectations at $45,000 per child. So I would love a list of all the contractors that you currently have, the number of complaints, and the severity of the complaints, in each one of those cases, what disciplinary action has been, and how you’re cooperating consistently with state authorities, who usually are the licensing authorities, and I understand that. Audio Recording: Nunes on secret tape: Kavanaugh vote, then Rosenstein impeachment, MSNBC, July 30, 2018. Hearing: Wartime Contracting, Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, C-SPAN, July 16,2013. 3:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: I learned just this week that the Defense Department spent millions to construct a building in Afghanistan that has never been used. This facility was built despite the fact that the forward commander said they neither needed nor wanted this facility, in May 2010, almost a full year before construction began. We now have a brand-new state-of-the-art building that cost the taxpayers 34 million to build. The worst part is that all indications are, we’re going to tear it down. We can’t even give it away to the Afghanistan government for free because they don’t want a building that they will have to spend millions to rewire because it was built to U.S. electrical code. I also recently learned that more than 13 million may have been wasted on a USAID agricultural development contract with a company called Chemonics. The waste alone is bad enough, but the Special Inspector General also found that the contractor failed to cooperate with the audit. Frankly, that’s just unacceptable. Hearing: Wartime Contracting, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, C-SPAN, September 21, 2011. 46:30 Senator Claire McCaskill: I want to talk about something that I mentioned—and you mentioned in your report, but I think it’s something we need to flesh out for this committee—and that’s contractors being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Heartbreaking incident in Iraq, that I'm sure you all are aware of, where the negligence of one of our contractors killed one of our soldiers. And in trying to find justice for that family, the contractor avoided the jurisdiction of the United States, and the most insulting thing about it was he then got another—that company then got another contract with our government. After they had used the fact that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of our country as a way to avoid justice for this man’s family, we then decided we should sign up again with them. Community Suggestions Super Typhoon Yutu Relief Campaign See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

It's done. Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice. Most of the media coverage of his confirmation centered on the sexual assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford but that's only one part of the story. In this episode, learn about the procedural tricks employed by Senate Republicans and the George W. Bush administration to place Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and hear highlights from over 40 hours of Brett Kavanaugh's policy-oriented confirmation hearings that most of the country didn't see. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD117: Authorization for Limitless War Additional Reading Blog: Why the ACLU opposes Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court by Susan N. Herman, ACLU, October 3, 2018. Article: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, September 16, 2018. Records: Records, papers, decisions: Kavanaugh records and the Presidential Records Act, related author Meghan M. Stuessy, FAS.org, August 27, 2018. Report: ACLU report on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, ACLU, August 15, 2018. Article: Brett Kavanaugh ruled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structurally unconstitutional by Manuela Tobias, Politifact, July 25, 2018. Article: There's no conspiracy between Trump and Kennedy. There's just the swamp by David Litt, The Washington Post, July 3, 2018. Article: Donald Trump made Justice Kennedy an offer he couldn't refuse by Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair, June 29, 2018. Article: Inside the White House's quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening by Adam Liptak and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, June 28, 2018. Article: Here's what is known about the surprising choice to lead the CFPB by Francine McKenna, Market Watch, June 18, 2018. Article: The clock is running out on Mick Mulvaney by Renae Merle, The Washington Post, June 12, 2018. Article: Official cause of death for Antonin Scalia released by David Warren, Dallas News, February 2016. Article: George W. Bush's bizarre bathroom self-portraits laid bare by audacious hack by Sam Byford, The Verge, February 8, 2013. Resources Case Information: Carpenter v. United States Executive Order: Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: 2004 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, April 27, 2004. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 1:14:14 Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): Judges, if you’re confirmed, are not accountable to the public. You never stand for election again. You hold your office for life. Many of your decisions are unreviewable ultimately, and it leaves the American people subject to decisions in an anti-democratic forum unless that judge restrains him or herself and enforces the law as written or the Constitution as declared by the people of the United States. 1:24:15 Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): The question is secrecy in government, and this administration has shown more secrecy than any administration I’ve served with, from the Ford administration forward. You were the author, one of the first indicators of this increase in secrecy, Executive Order 13233, that drastically changed the Presidential Records Act. It gave former presidents, their representatives, and even the incumbent president, virtual veto power over what records of theirs would be released, posed a higher burden on researchers petitioning for access to what had been releasable papers in the past. After the order was issued, a number of historians, public interest organizations, opposed the change. The Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform approved a bill to reverse this. A lawsuit to overturn it was filed by Public Citizen, American Historical Association, Organization of American Historians, and a number of others. Why did you favor an increase in the secrecy of presidential records? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, with respect to President Bush's Executive Order, I think I want to clarify how you described it. It was an order that merely set forth the procedures for assertion of privilege by a former president, and let me explain what that means. The Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. GSA in 1977, opinion by Justice Brennan, had concluded that a former president still maintains a privilege over his records, even after he leaves office. This was somewhat unusual because there was an argument in the case that those are government records. But the Court concluded that both the current president and the former president have the right to assert privilege to prevent the release of presidential records. That’s obviously a complicated situation. The issue was coming to a head for the first time because there’s a 12-year period of repose, so 12 years after President Reagan left office was when this President Bush came into office, and there was a need to establish procedures. How’s this going to work, two different presidents asserting privilege or having the right to review? No one really had a good idea how this was going to work. The goal of the Order was merely to set forth procedures. It specifically says in Section 9 of the Order that it’s not designed in any way to suggest whether a former president or a current president should or should not assert privilege over his records. You’re quite right, Senator Leahy, that there was initial concern by historians about the Order. I think it was—I like to think it was based on a misunderstanding, and Judge Gonzales and I undertook to meet every 6 months or so with a large group of historians, first to discuss the Order and explain it, and then after that, to discuss any problems they were having with the Order, and to help improve it, if they suggested ways for improvement. I think those meetings, I think the historians who’ve come to see us, have found them useful, and I think we helped to explain what we had in mind and what the president's Order meant in terms of the procedure. So, that’s my explanation of that Order. Hearing: 2006 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2006. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 58:44 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Kavanaugh’s parents. I’ve known them for a long time. Ed Kavanaugh, for many years, he headed up the major trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association, and he is deservedly admired by many in this town. And his mother served with distinction as a state court judge in Maryland for many, many years. 1:47:15 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Of course, as you know, I met you a number of years ago when I was Attorney General of Texas and had the honor to represent my state in an argument before the United States Supreme Court, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which involved a question of whether school children could voluntarily offer a prayer or an inspirational saying before school football games in Texas. And as you know, the Court ultimately ruled against that voluntary student prayer in the case. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, said that the Court's ruling exhibited hostility to all things religious in public life. And I’m very concerned about that because I do believe that the founders thought that the posture of the government with regard to religious expression should be one of neutrality, not hostility. I realize as a lower court judge you’re going to be bound by the Supreme Court's precedents, but I wonder if you would address the issue of religious liberty and religious speech insofar as how you believe in your position as a circuit court judge, how you would approach those issues. Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, if I were confirmed to be a D.C. Circuit judge, I would of course follow the precedent of the Santa Fe case. That case addressed a question that had been left open in the Lee v. Weisman case in 1992. In that case, there was a school-sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony where the government was actually involved, and one of the questions that was left open was, what happens if a student or a private speaker participates in a school event as a private speaker? And in the Santa Fe case, I think the Court concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it could be attributed to the school and so was a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the overall area represents a tension the Supreme Court has attempted to resolve throughout the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the Establishment Clause lines that the Court has set out for many years now. I know that the Court in recent years has made clear in a number of cases that private religious speech, religious people, religious organizations cannot be, or should not be, discriminated against and that treating religious speech, religious people, religious organizations equally—in other words, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations—is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. In past years there had been some suggestion that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations could sometimes be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the Court's really gone to a principle of equality of treatment does not ordinarily violate the Establishment Clause—again, equality of treatment of religious speech, religious people, religious organizations; equality in the public square. That's been something we've seen over the last, I'd say, decade or a little more. 2:04:00 Former Senator Sam Brownback (KS): But just give me your view of the Constitution as a document itself. Is this a—can you put yourself in a category? Do you have a view that it’s established as a living document, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution itself? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, I believe very much in interpreting text as it’s written and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. I believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policymaking role of the legislative branch in our constitutional democracy. I believe very much, as a prospective inferior court judge, were I to be confirmed, in following the Supreme Court precedent strictly and absolutely. Once as a lower court judge, I think that’s very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent, and so that’s something that I think’s very important. In terms of the independence of the judiciary, I think that’s something that’s the hallmark of our judiciary, the hallmark of our system, that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. I think that’s central to my understanding of the proper judicial role. Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. 12:55 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of— Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —Brett Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —to serve as Associate Justice— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized for a question before we proceed? Unknown Speaker: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley: —of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed. The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order. Sen. Harris: —42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Sen. Grassley: You’re out of order. I’ll proceed. Sen. Harris: We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman, of this hearing. Sen. Grassley: I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: We have not been given an opportunity to have a— Sen. Grassley: —to his wife, Ashley— Sen. Harris: —meaningful hearing on the nominee. Sen. Grassley: —his two daughters, their extended family and friends— Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman— Sen. Grassley: —Judge Kavanaugh’s many law clerks— Sen. Hirono: —we received 42,000 documents that we haven’t been able— Sen. Grassley: —and everyone else joining us today. Sen. Hirono: —to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed. Sen. Grassley: I know this is an exciting day for all of you here, and you’re rightly proud of the judge. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): Mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: The American people— Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: —get to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we have been denied—we have been denied real access to the documents we need to advise— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order is called for. Sen. Blumenthal: —which turns this hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms. Sen. Grassley: Well— Sen. Blumenthal: And Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, move to adjourn this hearing. Sen. Grassley: Okay. Protester: This is a mockery and a travesty of justice. This is a travesty of justice, and we’ll not go back. Cancel Brett Kavanaugh. Adjourn the hearing. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Unknown Speaker: _______(02:07—What do we have to do? Trump? We may have to work with Trump. In a demonstrative adjourn, we have to have—) Unknown Speaker: We’re not in an executive session. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll-call vote on my motion to adjourn. 18:40 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, it is also— Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): I think that I— Sen. Hirono: Mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order for the majority— Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: —to require the minority to pre-clear our questions, our documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process that we wish to follow to question this nominee? Sen. Grassley: Senator— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your clarification. Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your response on why you are requesting— Sen. Grassley: —I would ask that you— Sen. Hirono: — ____(00:30) order to submit our questions, too. Sen. Grassley: —I ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isn’t going exactly the way that the minority would like to have it go— Protester: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —but we have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day, and I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. And you have heard my side of the aisle call for a regular order, and I think we ought to proceed in regular order. There will be plenty of opportunities to respond to the questions that the minority is— Protester 2: We didn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh. [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —legitimately raising. Unknown Speaker: Get her thrown out of here, my god. Protester 3: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: And we will proceed accordingly. Unknown Speaker: What did she say? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may I ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted— Protester 4: [unclear] Sen. Whitehouse: —if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question? Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or indeed is even an actual assertion of executive privilege? I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point, because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): Mr. Chairman, if I might add to this, on the integrity of the documents we’ve received, there really is no integrity. They have alterations, they have oddities, attachments are missing, emails are cut off halfway through a chain, recipient’s names are missing—many are of interest to this committee, but it’s cut off. The National Archives hasn’t had a chance to get us all that we want, even though you said on your website the National Archives would act as a check against any political interference. But— Protester 5: [unclear] Sen. Leahy: —I’d check after the hearing is over, there’s no check, I think we ought to at least have the National Archives finish it, and to have for the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there’s a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn’t made such a claim, just puts everything under doubt. What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing? Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 1 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 53:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, as a judge— Sen. Feinstein: As a judge. Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court—by “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—and reaffirm many times Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember, and I understand the significance of the issue, the jurisprudential issue, and I understand the significance, as best I can, I always try and I do hear, of the real-world effects of that decision, as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court. 1:02:35* Brett Kavanaugh: I can tell you about the U.S. v. Nixon precedent, and I did about Chief Justice Burger’s role in forging a unanimous opinion—and, really, all the justices worked together on that—but Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon—appointed by President Nixon—writes the opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, 8-0—Rehnquist was recused—8-0, ordering President Nixon to disclose the tapes in response to a criminal trial subpoena. A moment-of-crisis argument, I think July 8, 1974. They decided two weeks later a really important opinion, a moment of judicial independence, important precedent of the Supreme Court. 1:09:49 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I’d like to turn now to your work in the Bush administration. As you know, my Democratic colleagues are demanding to see every, every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the Bush administration, in part because they want to know what role, if any, you played in developing the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, Ranking Member Feinstein, who was then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a good one at that, issued a lengthy report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President Bush. The report detailed the origins, development, and implementation of the program. In 2014 a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version, or report, runs well over 500 pages, and your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I, myself, spent over 20 years on the Intelligence Committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do, and I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, I think the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, Judge Kavanaugh, I want to ask you for the record: what role, if any, did you play in developing or implementing the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, the policies that are reflected and described in Senator Feinstein’s extensive, thorough report were very controversial, as you know, Senator—the enhanced interrogation techniques— Sen. Hatch: Right, right. Kavanaugh: —and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved. I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to Senator Feinstein’s report, the Justice Department did a lengthy Office of Professional Responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name’s not in that report, Senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers—and this came up at my last hearing—a number of lawyers who were involved, including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing, I recall Senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other judicial nominees had been, and the answer was no, and that answer was accurate, and that answer’s been shown to be accurate by the Office of Professional Responsibility report, by Senator Feinstein’s thorough report. 2:37:49 Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): So when somebody says post-9/11, that we’ve been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? Brett Kavanaugh: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect. And that was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later. Sen. Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? Kavanaugh: There is such a body, Senator. Sen. Graham: Is there a body of law that’s called the basic criminal law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government? Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes. Sen. Graham: Okay. So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government. Sen. Graham: Is there a longstanding— Kavanaugh: That’s long-settled law. Sen. Graham: Isn’t there also a long-settled law that—it goes back to Eisentrager case—I can’t remember the name of it— Kavanaugh: Yeah, Johnson v. Eisentrager. Sen. Graham: Right. —that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants? Kavanaugh: They can be. Sen. Graham: Can be. Kavanaugh: They can be. They’re often—they’re sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense. Sen. Graham: Well, let’s talk about “can be.” I think the— Kavanaugh: Under Supreme Court precedent— Sen. Graham: Right. Kavanaugh: —just want to make….yeah. Sen. Graham: There’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct? Kavanaugh: That is correct. Sen. Graham: I think a couple of them were executed. Kavanaugh: Yeah. Sen. Graham: So if anybody doubts, there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case? Kavanaugh: Yeah. Hamdi. Sen. Graham: Okay. So the bottom line is I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those differences? Kavanaugh: I do understand that there’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 3 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 25:10 Brett Kavanaugh: My case, I upheld, importantly I upheld limits on contributions in the RNC case and in the Bluman case, and the Supreme Court has upheld contribution limits generally but struck them down when they’re too low in cases like Randall v. Sorrell, and McCutcheon. 54:45 Brett Kavanaugh: The religious tradition reflected in the First Amendment is a foundational part of American liberty, and it’s important for us as judges to recognize that and not—and recognize too that, as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. Our job—we can, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, question their sincerity of a religious belief, meaning, is someone lying or not about it? But we can’t question the reasonableness of it, and so the Supreme Court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected—Justice Brennan really the architect of that. So religious liberty is critical to the First Amendment and the American Constitution. 1:50:00 Brett Kavanaugh: All the significant wars in U.S. history have been congressionally authorized, with one major exception—the Korean War. And the Korean War is an anomaly in many respects, and I think some of—the fact that it was undeclared and unauthorized really did lead to the Youngstown decision. But, you know, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the AUMF against al Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq War, and then going back, World War II, World War I, the War of 1812—they’re all congressionally authorized. You can go back throughout, and I specify that. And so the war power, the power to take the nation into war, at least a significant one—and there’s some questions about short-term air strikes and things like that—but a significant war, that’s the biggest of all, and that’s something that Hamilton talked about in ’69 and that our historical practice, I think, is actually lived up to. I don’t mean to footnote Korea—that’s an enormous exception—but since then, they’ve all been congressionally authorized. 1:56:30 Senator Ben Sasse (NE): And one of the reasons that the executive branch seems so powerful right now is, again, because of how weak the legislature is. I mean, it’s a fundamental part of why we have the term “president.” In the 1780s, this wasn’t a very common term in the English language. “President” was just a nounified form of the name “presiding officer,” and we made it up, our founders made it up so that we wouldn’t have a term that sounded a lot like a king. And so we wanted to be sure that the term “presiding officer” sounded pretty boring and administrative, because the legislative, the policymaking powers were supposed to sit in this body, and the Article Two branch is supposed to preside over and execute the laws that have been passed. It’s not supposed to be the locus of all policymaking in America, but one of the reasons we have some of these problems with so many of these executive agencies is because Congress regularly doesn’t finish its work, punch those powers to Article Two, and then it’s not clear who exactly can execute all those authorities. And so we end up with this debate about the unitary executive, and you had a different term for it, but unpack for us a little bit why you have a different view about both the prudence and the constitutionality of one-person-headed independent executive agencies or pseudo-independent agencies versus commission-structure-headed independent agencies. Brett Kavanaugh: The traditional independent agencies that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 are multi-member independent agencies. And so usually sometimes three, five, occasionally more, but they’re multi-member independent agencies, and that’s been all the way through. And then the—for the significant independent agencies—the CFPB—and I had no—it’s not my role to question the policy or to question the creation of the new agency. In fact, I think it was designed for efficiency and centralization of certain overlapping authorities. It’s not my role to question that policy. Someone challenged the fact that it was headed, for the first time on something like this, by a single person. And a couple things, then, I wrote about in my dissent in that case—I’ll just repeat what I wrote in the dissent—I said, “First of all, that’s a departure from historical practice of independent agencies, and that matters according to the Supreme Court.” They had a previous case involving the PCAOB, where they had different innovation there that the Supreme Court had struck down in part because of the novelty of it. So departure from historical practice matters because precedent always matters, including executive precedent. Then, diminution of presidential authority beyond the traditional independent agencies in this sense. With traditional independent agencies, when a new president comes in office, almost immediately the president has been given the authority to designate a new chair of the independent agencies, so when a new—when President Obama came in, was able to designate new chairs of the various independent agencies, and the chairs, of course, set the policy direction and control the agenda. That’s historically been the way. That does not happen with the CFPB. And finally, having a single person—just going back to liberty—who’s in charge, who’s not removable at will by anyone, not accountable to Congress, in charge of a huge agency is something that’s different and has an effect on individual liberty. So a single person can make these enormous decisions—rule makings, adjudications, and enforcement decisions, all of them—and from my perspective—I am just repeating what I wrote here. I’m not intending to go beyond what I wrote in that opinion that was an issue of concern. And I did put in a hypothetical because it seems abstract that—I think we’ll realize this issue with that agency or any other—when a president comes in to office and has to live for three, four years with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president. And then I think everyone’s going to realize—of a different party— Sen. Sasse: Right. Kavanaugh: — in particular—and then I think everyone’s going to realize, wow, that’s an odd structure. Now, maybe not, but that’s what I wrote in my opinion that that will seem very weird because that’s not what happens with all the traditional independent agencies. And so whenever any president leaves and has appointed in the last two years a CFPB director, the new president might campaign on consumer protection. Let’s imagine, okay, presidential campaigns on consumer protection and consumer issues and then comes into office and can’t actually appoint a new CFPB director for the whole term of his or her office, that’s going to seem, I think, quite odd structurally. At least, that’s what I said in my opinion. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 4:45 Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): I want to talk about Jane Doe in Garza v. Hagen. As you know, she was a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor who came across this border, having escaped serious, threatening, horrific physical violence in her family, in her homeland. She braved horrific threats of rape and sexual exploitation as she crossed the border. She was eight weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, she received an order that entitled her to an abortion, and she also went through mandatory counseling, as required by Texas law. She was eligible for an abortion under that law. The Trump administration blocked her. The Office of Refugee Resettlement forced her to go to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was subjected to medically unnecessary procedures. She was punished by her continued requests to terminate her pregnancy by being isolated from the rest of the residents. She was also forced to notify her parents, which Texas law did not require. And the pregnancy, which was eight weeks, was four weeks further when you participated on a panel that upheld the Trump administration in blocking her efforts to terminate her pregnancy. The decision of that panel was overruled by a full court of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It reversed that panel, and the decision and opinion in that case commented “the flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.” And it said further, “The government’s insistence that it must not even stand back and permit abortion to go forward for someone in some form of custody is freakishly erratic.” In addition to being erratic, it also threatened her health because she was unable to terminate her pregnancy for weeks that further increased the risk of the procedure—one study said 38 percent every week her health was threatened. She was going through emotional turmoil. And yet, in your dissent, you would have further blocked and delayed that termination of pregnancy. All of what I said is correct, hence to the facts here, correct? Brett Kavanaugh: No, Senator. I respectfully disagree in various parts. My ruling, my position in the case would not have blocked— Sen. Blumenthal: It would have delayed it. And it would have set imperiously close to the 20-week limit under Texas law, correct? Kavanaugh: No. We were still several weeks away. I said several things that are important, I think. First— Sen. Blumenthal: Well, I want to go on because I can read your dissent, but I want to go to— Kavanaugh: Well, but you read several things, respectfully—first of all, I think the opinion was by one judge that you’re reading from that was not the opinion for the majority. Secondly, I was trying to follow precedent of the Supreme Court on parental consent, which allows some delays in the abortion procedure so as to fulfill the parental-consent requirements. I was reasoning by analogy from those. People can disagree, I understand, on whether we were following precedent, how to read that precedent, but I was trying to do so as faithfully as I could and explained that. I also did not join the separate opinion, the separate dissent, that said she had no right to attain an abortion. ____(04:29) I did not say that. And I also made clear that the government could not use this immigration-sponsor provision as a ruse to try to delay her abortion past, to your point, the time when it was safe. 21:15 Brett Kavanaugh: And I said, thirdly, that if the nine days or seven days expired, that the minor at that point—unless the government had some argument that had not unfolded yet that was persuasive, and since they hadn’t unfolded it yet, I’m not sure what that would have been—that the minor would have to be allowed to obtain the abortion at that time. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 30:35 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): It’s my understanding that by agreement with private lawyer Bill Burke, the chairman has designated 190,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s records “committee confidential,” and by doing this, Republicans argue members can’t use these documents at the hearing or release them to the public. Unlike the Intelligence Committee—and I’ve been a member for about two decades—the judiciary committee doesn’t have any standing rules on how and when documents are designated “committee confidential.” Previously, the judiciary committee has made material confidential only through bipartisan agreement. That has not been done in this case. So this is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy accepted documents on a committee-confidential basis during the Kagan administration. It’s my understanding that those documents were processed through the National Archives, not private partisan lawyers, and Republicans agreed. Ninety-nine percent of Elena Kagan’s White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. By contrast, the committee has only seven percent of Brett Kavanaugh’s White House records and only four percent of those are available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents “committee confidential.” So I have no idea how that stamp “committee confidential” got on these documents. 39:10 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Mr. Chairman, I’m looking at a Wall Street Journal article, back during the Elena Kagan nomination. It says, document production from Elena Kagan’s years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. So President Bush, by choosing Mr. Burke, is doing exactly what President Clinton did in choosing Bruce Lindsey for that same purpose. 1:51:22 Brett Kavanaugh: My religious beliefs have no relevance to my judging. I judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States. I take an oath to do that, and for 12 years I’ve lived up to that oath. At the same time, of course, as you point out, I am religious, and I am a Catholic, and I grew up attending Catholic schools. And the Constitution of the United States foresaw that religious people or people who are not religious are all equally American. As I’ve said in one of my opinions, the Newdow opinion, no matter what religion you are or no religion at all, we’re all equally American, and the Constitution of the United States also says in Article Six, no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That was an important provision to have in the founding Constitution to ensure that there was not discrimination against people who had a religion or people who didn’t have a religion. It’s a foundation of our country. We’re all equally American. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 22:30 Senator Mike Lee (UT): What you were asked about was whether or not you were involved in crafting the policies that would govern detention of enemy combatants. Is that right? Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And that was a classified program, classified at a very high level, presumably compartmentalized such that you would have had to have been read into that program in order to participate in that process. Is that right? Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. Read in. I wasn’t necessarily using the formal sense of that, but what I meant is I was not a part of that program. Sen. Lee: Okay. But that is a binary issue. You were either involved in the development of that policy or you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And Tim Flanigan, who was, I believe, at the time the White House counsel. Kavanaugh: He was the deputy counsel. Sen. Lee: The deputy counsel. Has confirmed that you were not involved in that. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: We have your word and the word of the then-deputy White House counsel. Then, there is a separate issue. Well, I guess one could argue a related issue, but a separate— Protesters: [unclear] Unknown Speaker: ____(01:17—I don’t know if it’s worth it, but he said something that got read into it. I don’t know whether people understand what it means.) Sen. Lee: I assume that won’t be counted against me, there. Unknown Speaker: It will be counted against you. Sen. Lee: Oh, okay. All right, well, I’ll have to speak more quickly then. When we talk about being read into, that is a colloquial term that we sometimes refer to. It’s government speak that talks about being cleared to discuss certain classified matters. In any event, you were not brought into the development of this policy. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: Secondly, there was a separate, arguable related, but a distinct issue involving a meeting where you were asked for your opinion about how Justice Kennedy might react to certain legal arguments that people in the administration were pushing. Is that right? Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you answered that question. Kavanaugh: I said that indefinite detention of an American citizen without access to a lawyer, which at the time was what was happening in that particular case, would never fly with Justice Kennedy. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 3 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 18:25 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): Specifically, what impact does technology have on the Fourth and the First Amendments? Brett Kavanaugh: So I think the Carpenter case explains that once upon a time if a piece of information of yours ended up in the hands of a third party, and the government got a third party, that really wasn’t of any effect on your privacy. But now when all of our data is in the hands of a business, a third party, and the government obtains all your data, all your emails, all your tax, all your information, your financial transactions, your whole life is in the hands of a data company, and the government gets that, your privacy is very well affected. And that’s the importance, I think, of the Carpenter decision is that it recognizes that change in understanding of our understandings of privacy, and I think going forward, that’s going to be a critical issue. 1:27:10 Brett Kavanaugh: One of the things that we have to do as judges, as I’ve emphasized many times in this hearing, is maintain the independence of the federal judiciary, independence from politics, independence from political influence or public pressure or public influence. And part of that, part of the canons for federal judges, federal judiciary, is that we don’t attend political rallies, we’re not allowed to donate to political campaigns, support political candidates, put bumper stickers on our cars, signs in our yards. And one of the things I decided—we are allowed, technically, to vote, but one of the things I decided after I voted in the first election, and I read something about how the second Justice Harlan decided not to vote in elections because he thought that reinforced the independence that he felt as a judge. And I thought about that, and I decided to follow that lead. I’m not saying my approach is right, and other judges take a different approach on that, and I fully respect that. But for me it just felt more consistent for me, with the independence of the judiciary, not to vote, because I’ve always considered voting a sacred responsibility and one in which I think very deeply about the policies I’m supporting and the people I’m supporting, and that seemed almost as if I were taking policy views, at least to myself, into the voting booth, and I didn’t want to do that as a judge. So I decided to follow the lead of the second Justice Harlan. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the second Justice Harlan. He was a great justice on the Supreme Court and someone, of course, who I would be—if I were to be confirmed—honored to be on that Court and follow in his lead. Senator John Kennedy (LA): So you don’t vote in political elections. Kavanaugh: I do not vote in political elections. Sen. Kennedy: Interesting. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 6 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 7 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 3:37 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind, into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me. And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging Brett on, and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing, and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 1:22:10 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: 100 percent. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Judge Kavanaugh Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 10:04 Brett Kavanaugh: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. 18:04 Brett Kavanaugh: From 2001 to 2006 I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As staff secretary, I was by President Bush’s side for three years and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. I travelled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, five and a half years in the White House. 2:57:20 Senator John Kennedy (LA): None of these allegations are true. Brett Kavanaugh: Correct. Sen. Kennedy: No doubt in your mind. Kavanaugh: Zero. I’m 100 percent certain. Sen. Kennedy: Not even a scintilla. Kavanaugh: Not a scintilla. One hundred percent certain, Senator. Sen. Kennedy: Do you swear to God? Kavanaugh: I swear to God. Meeting: Meeting on Brett Kavanaugh Nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2018. 4:12:55 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): I have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. We’ve had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure that we do due diligence here. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than, one week in order to let the FBI continue—to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and a limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor, with that understanding.   Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, to be the watchdog agency to protect consumers from predatory lenders, aggressive debt collectors and bad actors in the financial industry. Since its creation, the agency has reported that it has returned $11.8 billion to nearly 30 million consumers because of its enforcement activity. But the CFPB now appears to be headed in a very different direction, led by a interim new leader, President Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney. As a congressman, he once described the consumer protection agency as a "sick, sad" joke. In a few short months, Mulvaney has already made major changes to how the agency operates, such as proposing to reduce its funding and reversing several investigations and enforcement actions. How will the CFPB continue to operate under the Trump administration? This week on Money Talking, Charlie Herman talks about the issue with Renae Merle, Wall Street reporter for The Washington Post.

Online Privacy Issues -- An Overview As online privacy issues mount in the U.S., regulators are pulling back. Earlier this year, Congress repealed the privacy rules the FCC passed under former Chairman Tom Wheeler. The rules would have required ISPs to obtain subscribers' permission before using their data for commercial purposes. The ISPs argued that they should be entitled to the same free reign over consumer data that large tech companies enjoy. But, of course, the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction to directly regulate tech companies. Jules Polonetsky discusses online privacy issues and where U.S. privacy law and policy now stand in light of recent data breaches. He also explains what consumers can do to protect their data from hackers. Bio Jules Polonetsky (@JulesPolonetsky) serves as CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF). FPF is a leading Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization focused on privacy. The chief privacy officers of more than 130 leading companies support FPF. Further, FPF is supported by several foundations. FPF has an advisory board comprised of the country's leading academics and advocates. FPF's current projects focus on Big Data, Mobile, Location, Apps, the Internet of Things, Wearables, De-Identification, Connected Cars and Student Privacy. Jules' previous roles have included serving as Chief Privacy Officer at AOL and before that at DoubleClick, as Consumer Affairs Commissioner for New York City, as an elected New York State Legislator and as a congressional staffer, and as an attorney.Previously, Jules served as an elected member of the New York State Assembly from 1994 to 1997. From November 1992 through 1993, Jules was a legislative aide to Congressman Charles Schumer. Prior to that, he was also a District Representative for Congressman Steve Solarz.. Jules practiced law in the New York office of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan from 1989 to 1990. Jules has served on the boards of a number of privacy and consumer protection organizations. These include TRUSTe, the International Association of Privacy Professionals, and the Network Advertising Initiative. From 2011-2012, Jules served on the Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He is also a member of The George Washington University Law School Privacy and Security Advisory Council. Jules is a regular speaker at privacy and technology events. He has has testified or presented before Congressional committees and the Federal Trade Commission. Jules is a graduate of New York University School of Law and Yeshiva University. He is admitted to the Bars of New York and Washington, D.C. Jules is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional. Resources Future of Privacy Forum Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking Machine Learning for Absolute Beginners by Oliver Theobald News Roundup Puerto Rico all but destroyed following Hurricane Maria Hurricane Maria left Puerto Rico absolutely devastated last week. Puerto Ricans living in the mainland U.S. remain unable to reach friends and family members. Maria made landfall on Wednesday as a Category 4 storm with 155 MPH winds, the likes of which the island hasn't seen in generations. The storm knocked off Puerto Rico's entire electrical grid leaving millions without power. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released a statement saying 95% of Puerto Rico's cell sites are out of service. The island is running out of supplies. Many were thunderstruck over the weekend by President Trump's silence about Puerto Rico. Instead, Trump spent the weekend news cycle railing against NBA and NFL players taking a knee against the national anthem. Tom McKay has the story in Gizmodo. Mother of slain sex trafficking victim testifies before Senate Commerce Committee Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of the 16-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by a 32-year-old Backpage.com user, testified on the Hill. Ambrose appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee in support of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESA). The bi-partisan bill, introduced by Senator Rob Portman, would hold internet companies more accountable for content on their sites. Currently, the Communications Decency Act shields websites from liability for content posted by third parties. That's what enabled Backpage.com to post ads placed by criminals selling opportunities to sexually abuse children. So the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act would hold web companies more accountable. It would do so by making them liable for knowingly hosting sex trafficking content. Sabrina Eaton reports on cleveland.com. SEC reports hackers breached EDGAR last year So the Securities and Exchange Commission--the nation's top Wall Street regulator--was hacked. Last year. The SEC decided last week that it would finally get around to telling us.  In an eight-page statement, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton announced that hackers breached the agency's filing system--EDGAR. That breach may have enabled improper trading to take place. The statement doesn't explain either  the reason for the delay in notifying the public or the date on which the breach occurred. Renae Merle reports in the Washington Post. Google signs $1.1 billion "cooperation agreement" with HTC Google invested $1.1 billion in struggling device manufacturer HTC last week and is expected to announce the release of two new devices on October 4th. David Pierce, Jordan McMahon, Issie Lapowsky, Jack Stewart, Eric Niiler, Andy Greenberg, and Michelle Dean report in Wired. Facebook to change ad targeting In response to revelations that it was allowing advertisers to target racists, Facebook announced changes to its ad targeting system. For example, according to the New York Times, advertisers had the ability to target self-described "Jew Haters"  Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said the company would be adding more human review and oversight. Sapna Maheshwari reports in the New York Times. Facebook turning over thousands of Russia-linked ads to Congress In other Facebook news, Facebook announced last week that it would also be turning over some 3,000 advertisements placed by Russia-linked groups during the 2016 presidential campaign. Ali Breland reports in the Hill. U.S. and EU kick off first Privacy Shield review season EU Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova travelled to Washington last week to meet with U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. The EU is set to release its first report on the efficacy of the U.S.-EU Privacy Shield on October 4th. The Privacy Shield allows data transfers between the U.S. and EU, which have entirely different standards when it comes to protecting consumer privacy. Privacy Shield replaced a previous framework that the EU overturned last year because it didn't provide enough oversight over U.S. mass surveillance practices.  Under the Privacy Shield, the U.S. is supposed to appoint an Ombudsman to review the U.S.'s mass surveillance tactics. However, the U.S. has yet to appoint anyone to the ombudsman role. Jimmy Koo reports for Bloomberg. Equifax breach happened months earlier than initially disclosed Ali Breland and Olivia Beavers report in the Hill that the Equifax breach happened in March rather than July. The breach exposed the personal data of an estimated 143 million Americans.  

Martin Shkreli is often described as the "most hated man in America” for raising the price of a lifesaving drug by 5,000%, earning him the nickname "Pharma bro." Shkreli said his pharmaceutical company raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 a pill to $750 in order to spend that money on research for an alternative drug, a claim which medical experts widely derided. Now, Shkreli is back in the news and on trial for securities fraud, and while others in his situation might sit quietly and await the verdict, that's not what Shkreli is doing. He can't help himself from making even more attention grabbing headlines.  This week on Money Talking, Host Charlie Herman talks with Renae Merle, a Wall Street and white collar crime reporter for the Washington Post, and Sheelah Kolhatkar, staff writer for the The New Yorker and author of Black Edge: Inside Information, Dirty Money, and the Quest to Bring Down the Most Wanted Man on Wall Street about Shkreli’s case and what it could say about the prosecution of white collar crimes.