Now Kavanagh News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Playing out. i don't think the fbi which has the responsibility of background checks has to be reauthorized to do what it's already authorized to do. i mean they have been given the letter, they certainly have the power to do whatever they want by way of background checks. it's not that an old background check is closed, at least this is my understanding, and then they have to reopen an entirely new one. so i don't get that particular thing, but i do think this, this is more than just, you know, the sprrk supreme court, i mean that's obviously important who's on the supreme court, but it's als...

Judges who would want the job. and to add to that, kavanagh, chuck, was really fawning over the president when he accepted the nomination. let's play that sound bite. >> throughout this process, i have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the american judiciary. no president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people for more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. mr. president, i am grateful to you and i'm humbled by your confidence in me. thank you. >> chuck, he said throughout this process i have witnessed firsthand your appreciatio...

Department and thought he should step aside from any consideration of the case. that could happen here. that would be up to justice, perhaps justice kavanagh to decide that. it might be a good avenue out. but the precedent here is very strong and supreme court justices strongly adhere to precedent. so i guess i just don't share the same degree of alarm. >> chuck rosenberg. chuck, thank you very much. >> coming up, tracking donald trump's lies. the washington post now puts his false and misleading claims over 4,000. but as the pace of those lies accelerates, is he winning his war on the truth? ...

Be able to not just be subject to a subpoena while in office, but if he can even be investigated criminally while in office. so i think when he comes before the senate, one of the big questions -- you often see supreme court nominees who won't talk of cases because they might come before the court. because he's written about it and because of this, i think he has to answer whether he believes united states versus nixon would set a precedent, who have to turnover documents in response to a subpoena. whether that's settled law or up for grabs. >> whether documents is the same as testimony. the...

My view, is an unindicted coconspirator is highly unsettling. i still sort of come back to my original point, which is is that justices of the supreme court appointed for life often and early establish their independence from whoever appointed them. precedent matters a lot here. and remember those earlier decisions that i talked about where justices appointed by the very president under fire sided against him in both cases. so yeah, fawning absolutely. unsettling, you bet. but i still have a lot of faith in the rule of law. >> charlie, what do you think? >> well, yes, precedent matters, but so...