the President has tried to disgrace Starr and his office with a sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush, and he should be forced to account for that.

I think this is not an offshore storm. It has made landfall when you see polling that shows that 49 percent of Americans think a corporation will get a fairer shot in the United States Supreme Court than an individual.

an episode that will forever stand as a dark chapter in American Presidential history.

I do not accept its legitimacy. I do not accept its validity.

It has gotten a lot easier since now you can just get a huge special interest to set up a 501(c)(4) and drop tens of millions of dollars in.

I argued against them in the Supreme Court at one point.

The First Amendment ends where efforts to corrupt begin, correct? You do not have a First Amendment right to corrupt your Government.

Every time a big Republican corporate or partisan interest is involved, the big Republican interest wins.

a disgraceful effort to undermine the rule of law.

The separation between candidates and independent expenditures negates the possibility of corruption.

as we showed earlier, when certain amici come before the D.C. Circuit, amici who tend to be associated with and funded by very powerful, very wealthy right-wing interests, they seem to have a better than 90 percent win rate in front of…

Sincere and thorough investigation is critical to these claims in a prosecutor's world.

Presidentially approved smear campaign.

We've never seen anything like this. There is -- not that I've ever seen. I mean, when the five Republicans go off and change the law for the benefit of big Republican interests, that does leave four dismayed Democratic appointees saying…

I have a number of letters that I would ask to be submitted into the record that relate to the importance of proper investigation by trained professionals.

Well, that seems a little bit exaggerated. I think we followed proper regular order throughout the whole committee process.

I think there are two. One is to raise concerns about the way in which this was done and try to get more Americans interested in the fact that we're being so badly and so unprecedentedly rolled on this nominee. And the second is to lead…

When does a pattern prove bias? I wish this were an idle question.