Return to Transcripts main page
Trump Interviews Supreme Court Candidates; Feinstein Grilled Barret in 2017; Pruitt Offered to be Attorney General; Jim Jordon on Allegations of Abuse; Aired 12-12:30p ET
Aired July 4, 2018 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:00] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: To see you, Karen. Thank you so much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thanks, Kate.
BOLDUAN: I'm now starving. I don't know what that says about me, though.
Thanks for joining me. Have a great Fourth of July, everybody. INSIDE POLITICS with John King starts right now.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Kate.
And welcome to a special holiday edition of INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your Fourth of July with us.
The maneuvering is intense as the president mulls his choice for the Supreme Court. Ties to the Bush family spells trouble for one leading candidate. Strong Catholic faith is a flash point for another.
Plus, there's chutzpah and then there's Scott Pruitt. CNN is told the embattled EPA chief told the president he should be named attorney general.
And if you're having a cookout today or a picnic, take note of the menu. Those ribs, the beer cans, even the ketchup could soon cost more because of the Trump trade war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This Fourth of July, let us pledge to renew the bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as Americans. Let us pledge to expand the blessings of liberty, prosperity and justice to all of our citizens. And let us always remember that we are one people and one nation saluting one great American flag.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: We begin this Independence Day with the most American of metaphors, straight from the president himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have spent the last three days interviewing and thinking about Supreme Court justices. Such an important decision. And we're going to give you a great one. We're going to announce it on Monday. And I think you'll be very impressed. These are very talented people. Brilliant people. And I think you're going to really love it, like Justice Gorsuch. We hit a home run there and we're going to hit a home run here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Nothing more American, right, than baseball, the Supreme Court and an election year confirmation battle. The White House says the president has now spoken to a total of seven top contenders for the vacancy. And while he plans to announce his pick on Monday, next Monday, word is he could well make up his mind sooner than that.
CNN's Jeff Zeleny is live at the White House for us.
Jeff, take us inside the president's process and his thinking.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, good day.
The president right now is at his golf course just outside Washington in Virginia. Probably a sign that he is well on his way to making up his mind for who will be his pick for the Supreme Court. As you said, he has talked to at least seven contenders this week, as we know. And I am told by people familiar with the process that he is likely to make up his mind in a final way by tomorrow or by Friday at the latest.
Now, he's not going to reveal that to many people inside this leak- prone White House. Why? Because, of course, it might seep out. But I am told that he is likely to give the name of possibly three people, possibly only a couple contenders, two contenders, to a small team of advisers who are working in a new war room here at the White House. They are going to prepare identical packets for Capitol Hill, for the press, for others, for that announcement on Monday. But we are told that the president certainly is narrowing in, if not already made that decision.
But, John, one thing very interesting, he has an open door policy when it comes to the telephone. And that is something that is being used extensively. Senators are calling the president.
One example, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas called the president yesterday, I'm told, to weigh in on what he had some concerns about Brett Kavanaugh. He is a longtime appeals court judge here in Washington. He, of course, served in the Bush administration.
Newt Gingrich, for example, is weighing in, in favor of Judge Amy Barrett. She's one of the leading female contenders here. She's on the Supreme Court -- or she's on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.
So there is just an outside push by donors, by friends, by senators, by conservative activists to sort of get the president's ear before he makes that final decision.
But, John, even though he's not announcing it until next week, I am told he is expected to make it much sooner than that, as early, perhaps, as tomorrow or Friday.
KING: We'll get that decision. We'll see with whom he shares it.
Jeff Zeleny live at the White House. Appreciate it. Enjoy the rest of your Fourth.
With me here in studio to share their reporting and their insights, CNN's Abby Phillip, "New York Times" Michael Shear, "Politico's" Eliana Johnson, and CNN's Sara Murray.
It is the lobbying part of this is remarkable. The president is close to his decision. For example, in the case of Judge Barrett there, a lot of social conservatives love her. They're calling up and saying, you know, Mr. President, stand with her. She's from Notre Dame. She's from the Midwest. She's a strong Catholic. And, in the conservative view, she was unfairly attacked by Dianne Feinstein when she was confirmed to the current position.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[12:05:23] KING: I mean that was a big deal then and it's a big deal now in the sense a lot of people thought Dianne Feinstein was trying to apply some religious test, which is out of bounds, right? Everyone gets -- liberals get mad about the president's travel ban. They call it a Muslim ban. Well, what was she doing there? Was that a Catholic ban on the Supreme Court?
ELIANA JOHNSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, "POLITICO": Well, that -- that interaction really put Barrett onto the national stage. It drew tons of attention and it made her a hero to Christian conservatives who saw her as sort of, you know, a martyr to what they viewed as the left's intolerance for Christians, religion and so on. And I think if she is the nominee, she will have Dianne Feinstein in part to thank for that. That's sort of the irony of it all.
But she is the least experienced of the nominees, and conservatives have typically looked, because they've been disappointed by people like David Souter, a George H.W. Bush nominee. They want to see a long record of legal opinions to reassure them that somebody's not going to become more liberal as they go on the court.
SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean it's easy to vilify Democrats, you know, for applying what appears to be a religious test when, you know, you go through these kind of confirmation hearings. It's not so easy to vilify Democrats for questioning why you would put someone on the Supreme Court who has such little judicial experience.
MURRAY: I mean that's an argument that they could make to say this is not actually a person who is qualified for this position at this time. And, you know, that could send the entire timeline of getting someone confirmed into a frenzy. We know, obviously, the White House wants to do this as quickly as possible to get it done before the midterms.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. But, interestingly, her inexperience might be something that actually draws her to President Trump, who's very sensitive to how old his potential nominees are. He wants someone who actually will be on the bench for 40 or 45 years. He keeps repeating that as something that's part of his criteria.
So I wouldn't put it past him to sort of look past that and say, well, she's young and she could be there for a really long time and that's what I want. And beyond that, I think a lot of conservatives are actually pressuring him to maybe try to confirm a tougher nominee this time around on the expectation that perhaps he might have a third seat to fill later on.
And it's possible that Barrett might actually be a tough person to confirm for the reasons that Dianne Feinstein identified. The Democrats are going to feel very strongly that her views, however limited, that she's expressed about issues like abortion could be prohibitive.
KING: Right. Her problem would not be Dianne Feinstein. Her problem would be Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, in the sense that she has said that, sure, judges sometimes have to overturn precedent. That's what judges do. And Susan Collins has said, well, wait a minute, on the question of Roe v. Wade.
Another -- to me the second most important person here, this is the president's choice, the second most important person here is the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, in the United States Senate, who will be among the last phone calls the president makes when he's making this choice and will have, not veto power, but the right to tell the president, look, I do the math here. It's 51-49. It might be 50-49 if John McCain can't come back. I do the math here. And what McConnell's doing right now is he's telling all of these senators, if there's somebody -- Republicans. If there's somebody you absolutely, positively will not switch (ph) on, tell me so that I can tell the president, here's the math, and we can have these private conversations.
Now, McConnell has a favorite, Amul Thakar, who's from Kentucky, who's on the court there. Listen to him here making his case for -- give me my guy, but --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MAJORITY LEADER: I'm glad he's under consideration. I don't know who the president's going to pick, but, obviously, I have a favorite.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: As a favorite, we don't know if the president will just do a favor for Mitch McConnell here. But the leader's choice aside, I'm right, correct, that if he tells the president, look, I can't get you the votes for Judge Barrett or I can't get you the votes for Brett Kavanaugh, would that do it?
MICHAEL SHEAR, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I think the Kavanaugh example is an interesting one because what it shows is the extent to which there's a part of the Republican Party, the conservative part of the Republican Party that doesn't want a squish, right? They don't want somebody who they think is going to sort of be sort of conservative but at the sort of key, crucial moment, sort of, do a Kennedy and shift to the other side. And --
KING: Or a John Roberts and uphold Obamacare.
SHEAR: Or a John Roberts and uphold Obamacare. And there's some suspicion that maybe Roberts had some, you know, sort of tendencies in that direction on maybe some other issues that have been hidden because Kennedy was there and so Roberts could sort of stay with the conservative side of the court but maybe he won't.
And I talked to somebody yesterday, a conservative, who said, look, you know, what we should do is -- what the president should do is nominate the most conservative person we can find. If by some chance the Democrats and Murkowski or Collins rally and defeat that person, this person said the Democrats will take a real beating for that in November. They'll lose seats, Republicans will gain seats, and the president can just go ahead and nominate the person again in January and we'll get them on the court.
[12:10:08] So, in some ways, the conservatives -- this is a moment where conservatives are saying to the president, don't compromise. Don't try to get a moderate that, you know, you think can sort of -- just do the most conservative person you can get and we'll win either way.
KING: But that's --
MURRAY: A risky -- that's a risky gamble now.
SHEAR: That's a risky gamble because if the Democrats do win seats, then --
SHEAR: Then they're -- then they're in more trouble.
PHILLIP: And I don't think there's really the luxury of losing this time around. I mean to be -- for that exact reason, because I think the math on the midterms is not entirely favorable to the Republicans right now. I don't think their -- I don't think the president really believes that he can risk having a nominee go down. That would be catastrophic thing for him at this point.
JOHNSON: It would demoralize conservatives.
PHILLIP: Yes, it would be catastrophic.
JOHNSON: It would give up what right now is the only thing that unites the right around the president, people -- the never Trumpers and the people who are most enthusiastic about Trump. So I think it would be a big defeat if his nominee went down.
MURRAY: And I think it energizes the flip side, too. I mean we already see Democrats out there saying that Trump is going to nominate a conservative and this is going to be the end of Roe v. Wade. This is going to be the end of abortion rights.
SHEAR: But it would also be somewhat risky for some of these red state Democrats to take a real stand, you know, and go sort of hard left in some of these states where that could be -- that could be challenging for them. And that would be bad (ph).
KING: And, to me, the Brett Kavanaugh thing is fascinating because if you look at him, if you look at his history, if you look at his work, this is why the Republican establishment likes him, including -- this is from the Above the Law blog post. Judge Kavanaugh well known to legal elites, especially conservative legal elites, as the number one SCOTUS feeder judge, meaning the lower court judge who has clerks who then go on to be clerks for Supreme Court justices. In fact, Kavanaugh clerks have gone on to work for every Supreme Court justice except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So, the establishment looks at that and says, here's a talented guy. He's a conservative. He has a good staff. Such a great staff. They move on to the Supreme Court. But he's associated with what is truly a four-letter word to conservatives, Bush. The Bush family. And --
PHILLIP: And a four-letter word to the president as well.
PHILLIP: I mean that's a real thing because the president's knee-jerk reaction against the Bushs is so strong.
But, like you said, there are a lot of people, including the person running the show at the White House, White House Counsel Don McGahn, who believes Kavanaugh should be the guy. So it's hard to know who's going to win out on this one. I think on a lot of fronts, Kavanaugh does fill some of the criteria the president wants. He's relatively young. Has a long, legal writing -- history there. And he's pretty conservative. Maybe not as conservative as certain Trumpers want him to be, but he's pretty conservative. KING: To borrow Michael's term, Tom Cotton thinks he's a squish. Tom
Cotton thinks he's a squish, to borrow Michael -- and Rand Paul says he worked with George W. Bush on executive power and stonewalling Congress in his view and he doesn't like that.
SHEAR: And if you lose those two --
SHEAR: Right, I mean that's the end for Kavanaugh, right? I mean if the Republicans -- I know, who knows whether they would actually vote against Kavanaugh when push came to shove, but if he did, that wouldn't -- you know --
MURRAY: And I do think that's why this is -- it is a very wise strategy that Jeff Zeleny laid out that the White House is about to go through, that they are going to essentially prepare for the possibility of three different justices. So the president, who has been known to change his mind at the last minute, can do so. So that if Mitch McConnell is getting these phone calls and realizes the person that he was going to -- they were going to put forth doesn't get the votes, they can do so.
I mean this is the kind of things we see campaigns do when they're about to roll out their VP pick. They make signs for a number of different candidates so no one can guess who it is. But in the Trump era, it seems all the more important.
KING: I would like to see the ledger Mitch McConnell's keeping up here about the vote counts because that would tell you where this one's going to end up.
Up next for us, the controversies and scandals that just keep piling up for the embattled EPA Chief Scott Pruitt. And it seems the White House is keeping count.
And as we go to break, remember, it's Independence Day. Let's check out the festivities here. This is McAllen, Texas, a bit earlier this morning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, this is about as American as it gets.
[12:16:56] KING: Welcome back.
CNN is learning more about, let's just call it an interesting proposal from the EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt. This proposal delivered directly to President Trump. Quote, in an Oval Office conversation with Trump, Pruitt offered to temporarily replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions for the 210 days allowed under the Vacancies Reform Act, telling the president he would return to Oklahoma afterward to run for office.
Reminder, if you've been not following the news, Pruitt is currently facing at least 14 federal ethics and conduct probes. Now, Pruitt's denying this CNN report, telling CNN, quote, General Sessions and I are friends and I have always said I want nothing more than to see him succeed in his role.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins broke this story.
Kaitlan, a, take -- give us more of the details and, b, the White House ever really considering this?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the president certainly seemed to be, John. For the last few months, he had floated this idea to outside advisers and aides of replacing Sessions with Pruitt. Many people wondered where that idea was coming from and now we know it came directly from the EPA administrator himself during that Oval Office meeting with the president where he suggested this proposal. This is a time, keep in mind, when the president's frustration with Jeff Sessions was at an all-time high this spring. And he suggested getting rid of Sessions. He would take over the Department of Justice for the 210 days or so that you would be allowed to do so under the Vacancies Reform Act since he's already Senate confirmed. And then afterward he would go back home to Oklahoma, where he used to serve as the attorney general, and run for office.
Now, aides quickly shot down this idea, explaining to the president what a bad idea it would be. But it goes to show how the president, and only the president in the White House, has remained confident in Pruitt despite the number of scandals made against him. And sources have said for months now that Pruitt does seem to be on his way out. The White House says that the new reports that happened this week are troublesome. But back in April, they said they would be evaluating what came out of those probes. He, so far, is still here, John.
And while a senior administration official says that he does seem to be inching forward to being on his way out, it does raise the question of what scandal is it going to take for the White House to push this guy out. And when he does eventually leave, the question, John, will be, what took so long?
KING: That's a very fair question.
Kaitlan Collins, live at the White House, appreciate that.
Let's get to the list in a minute. But just the chutzpah of, Mr. President, make me the attorney general. Fox, send me to the hen house. I mean, help me. Help me.
PHILLIP: John, I mean this is -- it just shows -- actually, I think it says a lot about the president. It says that a lot of people who work for him believe that he can be swayed contrary to what seems to be the obvious thing to do. I think most people that you ask in Washington would say, obviously he needs to be fired yesterday.
But there are people in Trump's inner circle who say, hey, if I can present to him another idea that is maybe contrary to what the conventional wisdom is, that's totally different, especially if it helps him, you know, poke at someone that he really doesn't like, then maybe he'll go for it. And the president didn't apparently dismiss it out of hand. So Pruitt
wasn't totally wrong. I mean I think this is really remarkable and it's very Trumpian in that under no other administration would this even be contemplated, I think.
[12:20:13] SHEAR: Look, you know, this was a while ago. Maybe there were only 13 scandals at the time. So it's possible that, you know, that he thought that this was a logical thing that solved a bunch of problems.
KING: And if this were happening in an Obama or say a Hillary Clinton administration, the Republican Congress would be completely silent, just like it is now, right?
KING: Almost completely silent.
MURRAY: I'm just like playing out --
KING: There are a few people raising their hands.
MURRAY: I'm playing out the steps (ph) of it. So, you know, so Scott Pruitt becomes the new attorney general. He did not work for Donald Trump's presidential campaign, so he doesn't have to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
KING: Sorry, I have to interrupt you. We've got to go to Ohio.
Jim Jordan, the Republican congressman, has just finished a Fourth of July parade here. He's facing some questions about whether he knew about sexual abuse of wrestlers when he was an assistant coach at Ohio State University. Let's listen in.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: All the stuff that was said yesterday that's just not accurate. I mean it is not -- it's just not true. That then to get an e-mail like 4 in the -- 4:30 in the morning just seems like we should make -- I think our office is going to make the Capitol Police aware of it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have any plans to meet with independent investigators that are looking into it?
JORDAN: Oh, yes, if they contact -- they said they contacted. But we searched -- we searched -- our office went through everything, and no e-mail, no phone -- we don't have any record of them contacting us. And we've reached out to the law firm and said, send us what you -- you know, show us how you contacted us. Give us a record of how you contacted us. And we know they know how to get a hold of us because the same lawyer who said they reached out to us and we didn't respond has been to our office a few years ago to meet on a different issue I think with the Bar Association or the legal aid group here in the state. So --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anything on the books to meet with them yet?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anything scheduled to meet with them yet?
JORDAN: No, I don't -- I don't know of any, no. But we've -- we're -- obviously we're willing to talk with whosever doing the investigation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many e-mails -- how in touch have you been with Mr. DiSabato? He --
JORDAN: I haven't talked to him since -- since March. March or April. It was right after -- late March, early April, sometime in there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And prior to that, how would you characterize your relationship?
JORDAN: I mean Mike wrestled for was. Was, you know, was a friend. But something's changed. It's, you know, the things he said are just not true. We knew of no abuse. Never heard of abuse. If we had, we'd have reported it.
And if, in fact, there -- you know, if, in fact, there's problems, we want justice for the people who were victims, obviously. And, as I said, we're happy to talk with the folks who are doing the investigation. But nothing -- I mean things they said about me just were flat-out not true. Not even --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) comment to us yesterday speaking about the conditions in the training facility, open showers, things of that nature. Can you comment on any of that?
JORDAN: It was the fact. Yes, it was the fact.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you remember Dr. Strauss? I mean does any of this -- these accusations being made against him, not just by DiSabato, but by anybody, making -- have any credence at all?
JORDAN: I did know Dr. Strauss. He was -- you know, he was there when we got to Ohio State. And was continuing to work at Ohio State once I left. So, yes, you know, knew the doctor.
But there's no truth to the fact that I knew of any abuse. I've talked to other coaches. They didn't know of any abuse. It just -- there's just -- that's just not accurate to say those things that we knew of it and didn't report it. It's just not true.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that uncharacteristic for Dr. Strauss? I mean how do you characterize the accusations against Strauss, against him?
JORDAN: You know, all I know is I never knew of any abuse from Dr. Strauss, plain and simple. Was -- was the, you know, the conditions as you described? Yes, we had a separate locker room but, you know, the shower facility was in the -- sort of the general area.
Yes, he would do that, but they were -- I mean our faculty staff, other students. That's just the nature of how the arrangement was.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you comment on the timing of this. This is three decades later and, you know, your name has been brought up a little bit as possible follow-up to Representative Ryan.
JORDAN: You know, look, the timing makes you wonder. All I know is, it's not true. If there -- nothing that that was said about me was true. And if there is any type of abuse of these folks, we want them to get justice.
But it's interesting that the timing is what it is in light of, you know, things that are going on in Washington. But all I know is, it's just not accurate and we want to -- we want to just --
[12:25:02] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What type of justice do you believe they should have (INAUDIBLE)?
JORDAN: I'll let the investigation figure all that out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And do you think there will be any long-lasting political damage to you?
JORDAN: Well, I mean, look, I don't -- I -- my job is to go fight for the principles. I told the folks in the Fourth District, the folks I just spoke to here, that I would fight for it. And I'm going to continue to do that.
And it's been amazing the number of people who have walked up to me today, both at the event in Marion and the event here and been nothing but positive. So I certainly appreciate that.
All right, thanks, guys.
KING: You've been listening there, Congressman Jim Jordan. If you follow the Russian meddling investigation, spending fights in Congress, a prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus, one of the more conservative members of the House of Representatives, now facing big credibility questions. If you were following along there, the congressman saying he knows nothing about alleged sexual abuse of wrestlers at Ohio State University during a time that included a period when he was a coach there. He says he knew nothing about this. He was not aware of it at all. He was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State from 1986 to 1994.
Dr. Richard Strauss, who was a part of the university's medical program, the allegation is that he regularly showered with and some former wrestlers say that he groped them. And, listen here, this is one of the wrestlers. Congressman Jordan made clear that he knows this wrestler. He says this just didn't happen. This is Mike DiSabato this morning on CNN's "NEW DAY" saying the congressman, then Jim, an assistant coach, did know about this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE DISABATO, FORMER WRESTLER AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: I know Jim knew about the -- what I call the deviant sexual atmosphere that we were --
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR, "NEW DAY": How do you know? How do you know?
DISABATO: Well, I -- we all had conversations. Jim was more like a big brother than a coach.
BERMAN: Do you remember specifically talking to him about this back then while it was happening?
DISABATO: Absolutely. I mean it was -- like I said, it was something that we would discuss on a regular basis. Mainly with nervous banter, locker room banter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Is -- how do you resolve this? The congressman says never happened. I know -- he says, I know Mike. He says, I know that guy. I remember he well. It never happened. It never -- this just never came up. I knew nothing about it. Nobody ever raised it with me. And you have this gentleman saying, actually, we all talked -- a bunch of us talked to him -- about it. How does this get resolved?
JOHNSON: I think it's tricky to talk about these things because you don't want to dismiss somebody's personal testimony. But if we're going to compare them to sort of these past kind of Me Too issues, it does seem that you need sort of critical mass of people to come out against, you know, whoever it is that's being accused. And so I think it's going to take more than a single person's, you know, first-person testimony to take somebody -- you know, take a congressman down.
JOHNSON: Now, Paul Ryan's already called for an investigation. And all -- I think all of these claims have a certain amount of credibility now because of the Me Too movement. But it does seem like their -- with all these things, there comes to be a critical mass of testimony that then, you know, reaches a point where, you know, the person can't -- the (INAUDIBLE) can no longer (INAUDIBLE).
MURRAY: But I --
KING: And you did hear the congressman there. He was asked, will you cooperate with the investigation going on in the Ohio about this? There could be an investigation now on Capitol Hill as well. I suspect they'll wait and see and let the process play out in Ohio.
And he was saying the investigators said they have reached out to the congressman and they've tried to contact him and he has not responded. The congressman says he's had his staff scrub both at home and here in Washington, you know, scrub the incoming and they have no record of it. They can't find it. But he says now he will cooperate.
MURRAY: But I think one of the important points here is that these wrestlers in these interviews -- and there have been more than -- there's been more than one person who's come forward to bring allegations against this doctor, of course, who allegedly fondled these boys, but also more than one wrestler who said that they brought this up with Jim Jordan. And they said that the reason that they brought it up was not to try to bring down a congressman, but because they wanted him to use his platform to bring attention to this. They wanted his help. They wanted to be able to get at media attention, to be able to cut through the red tape, to be able to further this investigation.
So these guys, if you watch this whole interview, you know, it seems like they're -- they're sort of -- you know, wrestling with a couple things. I mean one is this experience that they had with this doctor and, you know, he says like we kind of joked about it at the time. We didn't really understand what it was. But, two, you know, a couple of them have this firm belief that this was known within the locker room that Jim Jordan knew. They don't seem to understand why he would be denying it at this point. And they really seem to be having a difficult time wrapping their arms around that whole situation.
SHEAR: I mean two features of these kinds of issues over the last, you know, year or more is, one, that people who come forward tend to beget others. You know, there has been a --
SHEAR: You know, in all of these stories, the Harvey Weinstein stories, et cetera, you know, the -- as people come forward, it frees up other folks to come forward.
[12:29:53] The other feature that seems to be present here too is this question not of just the behavior itself, but of the sort of cover-up around the behavior, right? We've seen that in a lot of these -- where large institutions, whether they're colleges, or in Weinstein's case the sort of kind of Hollywood, you know, institution of Hollywood around them.