Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Kavanaugh & His Accuser to Testify Before Senate on Monday. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 18, 2018 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: An accusation has been brought forward at the last minute in an irregular manner.

[07:00:05] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would have voted "no" this week, absent her being able to tell her story.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things that's essential to this being fair is for the FBI to do their job.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Judge Kavanaugh is one of the finest people that I've ever known. Never had even a little blemish on his record.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Takes a lot of courage for Dr. Ford to come forward. She should be heard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These Democrats do not care about her. They care about killing this nomination.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From the time that I spent with her, it was self-evident that she had been scarred by this experience.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This shouldn't be the political bludgeon that it's being used as.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY.

There is a dramatic showdown set to take place between Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser. The two will appear on Monday before a Senate panel to answer questions.

Christine Blasey Ford's claims that Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted her back in the 1980s when they were in high school will come out. Some Democratic lawmakers say, though, not so fast. They are calling for an FBI investigation of the accusation before these hearings can happen. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has learned that the White House

strategy will rely on women to attest to Kavanaugh's character, including some of the 65 women who signed a letter in support of him once the sexual assault claims surfaced.

President Trump himself, he continues to defend his Supreme Court pick amid these allegations, and we have new reporting this morning about how and why he is behaving and responding as he is. And we could see more of it play out before our eyes later when the president will take questions at a news conference.

CAMEROTA: All right. We are joined now by CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin; CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash; and Jill Abramson, political columnist at "The Guardian," who covered and co- authored a book on the Anita Hill/Justice Clarence Thomas hearings. Great to have all of you and all of your new information and historical knowledge with us this morning.

Jeffrey, you say that by Monday and on Monday, we will know a lot more about this story. How can you be so confident?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Because I have confidence in American journalism. And people -- there are some of the best reporters in the country searching out information about this specific encounter, about -- you know, we know so little. Where did it take place? Other than Mike (ph) Judge, who else was present? All of that.

We have a lot of people looking into, and I am confident we're going to learn more. We're also going to learn more about the backgrounds of Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh as it relates to this specific encounter. I am completely -- now, I don't know which way that information will cut, in his favor or in her favor, but I do think we're going to know a lot more, especially the pace at which this story has been going.

BERMAN: And Dana, is this for 100 percent sure going to happen like we think it's going to happen on Monday? The Senate judiciary chair, Chuck Grassley, has scheduled a hearing, but now Democrats are saying slow down. Is this rock-solid, mark it on your calendar?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I heard you saying the word "if" and not "when" this morning, and I tend to agree with you, John, because it is more likely to happen than not because of the fact that, never mind the lawmakers. Both the attorney for Dr. Ford, as Alisyn heard firsthand yesterday and, of course, Brett Kavanaugh have both said they want this. They want to testify publicly.

What they have not said is when, and the order of things and whether or not they believe particularly the people in and around Ms. Ford or Ms. Ford herself that there needs to be this FBI investigation that Democrats are calling for.

More likely than not, it is going to happen, but there -- it is not a done deal, because we have not heard affirmatively from her that she is going to testify for sure on Monday. CAMEROTA: Jill, you remember so well, as do so many of us, the moment

where Anita Hill took that witness chair in front of the all-male committee there that really aggressively questioned her. Times have changed, of course, since 1991, but you say that you shudder to think what will happen when Christine Blasey Ford is questioned on Monday. Why is that?

JILL ABRAMSON, POLITICAL COLUMNIST, "THE GUARDIAN": I do, because the Senate Judiciary Committee then, as now, is not an investigative body. It's a political committee, and politics hangs over these proceedings as heavily as it did back in 1991.

And back then, the Republicans on the committee, who were actually in the minority then, still went in with a vicious strategy to undercut Professor Hill's credibility. They called her even an erotomaniac. I mean, they hurled everything at her.

[07:05:05] And I think the Republicans despite, you know, the -- all the changes that have happened and the generations since those hearings, are still going to go in with a strategy to save this nomination at all costs.

And if that means destroying, you know -- destroying Dr. Ford, I hate to even think about it, but I think it's going to be the same kind of political circus as we saw back in 1991. That's -- that's what worries me.

BERMAN: Dana.

BASH: Yes, I think it is going to be a political circus. I do think, in the 25 years since the Anita Hill hearings, what hasn't changed is the number of white men questioning, certainly, on the Republican side. It has changed a little bit on the Democratic side. A little bit on the Democratic side.

But I do think -- I mean, I know -- have covered lots of these white men on the Republican side and the Democratic side, but particularly you're talking about Republicans, Jill, whether or not they go after her character and the outside groups which already are trying to sort of chip away at her credibility. That's one thing, and that's unfortunate; and that is already happening. I agree with you.

But when it comes to the spectacle that we are going to see and the questioning, I do think that -- that these male members at least have a basic understanding that was not there 25 years ago of things that you can and cannot say.

I'm not saying it's not a high-wire act. It is going to be the ultimate high-wire act, particularly for these senators on the Republican side, to try to get the information and not attack the witness, and yet not do anything to, you know -- to prop her up in a way politically that would hurt their nominee. It is going to be a huge high-wire act, and I think the same for the Democrats, as well.

TOOBIN: Dana, do we know anything about this -- the format?

BASH: No.

TOOBIN: Because I think -- you know, are we going to have every single one of these members of the Senate asking them what happened at this party?

BASH: We don't know.

TOOBIN: That's going to be pretty bizarre in and of itself.

BASH: You're right. And this is the other thing to keep in mind. This is happening with warp speed, particularly for the United States Senate, which doesn't move with warp speed.

This was -- this was done in an impromptu meeting late yesterday after the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee met in Mitch McConnell's office. Brett Kavanaugh said that he wanted to -- wanted to speak publicly on this show, Alisyn.

You had Dr. Ford's attorney saying she wanted to do that, and there was so much chaos, so many different points of view they just kind of decided right then and there they were going to do this without the Democrats even knowing about it or, again, we've seen since Dianne Feinstein putting out a release, saying we don't even think this is a good idea to do this.

So this is -- there's no plan yet, because they don't even know if -- if she's going to show up, because she hasn't agreed to.

BERMAN: And it matters. It matters -- the format matters, because there are 11 white male Republicans on this committee, you know, and they will have to be incredibly careful.

And Jill, the stakes have changed. I mean, the stakes are the same since 1991, a Supreme Court seat. But the atmosphere and the culture is absolutely changing, and I just have a hard time -- and Jeffrey, you could address this -- you know, Ted Cruz, for instance, has got a Senate race in two months. If he goes into this questioning, as they did go after Anita Hill in 1991, I have to believe it will have an immediate impact.

TOOBIN: Well, let's also talk about --

ABRAMSON: I just don't see --

TOOBIN: Let Jill go.

ABRAMSON: I'm sorry. I don't see the ability to investigate the situation and the party. It -- it has to -- it's unavoidable that it's going to involve trying to damage her credibility. And it may not be Ted Cruz who, you're right, is facing a tough Senate race, where he doesn't want to alienate women voters in Texas.

But, you know, there are 11 of them. And so many of the atmospherics being planned for this are so dead similar to back in 1991, down to having the panel of women, you know, testify that Judge Kavanaugh is, you know, a wonderful person and how he's treated women. That's exactly the same kind of panel that appeared in 1991 for Clarence Thomas.

TOOBIN: Can we -- can we say one important thing? Jill's book, written with Jane Mayer, called "Strange Justice," is one of the great Washington books of all time. And one of the lessons of that book, I hope -- and I'll speak -- I don't want to speak for Jill -- is that, you know, the facts matter.

[07:10:02] And -- and again, I don't want to speak for Jill, but you read that book, you think Anita Hill was telling the truth about that story. And I like to think that, notwithstanding all the theatrics, the facts will matter coming out of this process.

CAMEROTA: OK. Well, then, that involves getting to the facts. I mean, I for one happen to believe --

ABRAMSON: That's right. Can we do that before Monday? Or, you know, by the end of this.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, Jeffrey's hopeful that more information will come out because of the investigation the journalists are doing. But I have faith in white men. I believe they can ask fair questions.

And so if they're going after her credibility, that's one thing, but going after her character is another. And of course, there are credibility questions about what happened in 1983. I mean, she -- of course there are. All of our memories -- if you know anything about memory science, memory does morph and change since 1983.

So enter Mark Judge, the third person.

BERMAN: A witness. You mean a witness.

CAMEROTA: A witness is what they call it, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: And so he is the person that she says was in the room. We know a little bit about -- I mean, this is the only picture we can find of him on the Internet, which is strange, No. 1.

But No. 2, his -- his writings from that time make him a highly unreliable narrator, because he's written an entire book about what -- what an alcoholic he was and how he was a blacked-out drunk.

TOOBIN: I believe there's two drunks about how -- what an alcoholic he was.

CAMEROTA: One of them is called "Wasted." One of them is called "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk." He also, in the yearbook in 1983, wrote this, "Certain women should be struck regularly like gongs," quoting Noel Coward.

So what's this going to -- are they going to call him, and what happened?

TOOBIN: Again, I think this deals with the issue that Dana raised which is what's the format here. I mean, if you want to learn the facts about a -- about a confrontation between two people and you are a serious investigator, you don't just ask those two people. You try to get corroboration or incrimination from other witnesses.

Will there be other witnesses? What about the famous -- soon-to-be- famous Mr. Judge? He obviously would be someone you -- and I don't know which way his testimony would cut. He says he doesn't remember -- or that there was no such action by Kavanaugh --

CAMEROTA: Here's his quote. This was last week on Friday. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way." But he also talks about blacking out a lot in high school from drinking.

TOOBIN: Yes, and -- and Ms. Ford's story is that alcohol played an absolutely key role in all of this, as it does in so many sexual assaults. So, again, you will -- you will only know what his testimony is if you listen to it.

BERMAN: If. And if he testifies.

TOOBIN: Exactly.

BERMAN: And I think that's uncertain, although I have to say the pressure today for that seems very similar to the pressure yesterday. If you have Professor Ford saying she's willing to testify, how does the Senate not allow it?

If you're going to hold a hearing, how do you not bring in the person who was the one agreed upon alleged witness here, even though his writings, boy, I mean, do they pop out of the page. He talks about Michelle and Barack Obama, and he says Michelle is actually more man than her husband. "Oh, for the days when President George W. Bush gave his wife Laura a loving but firm pat on the backside in public. The man knew who was boss."

Dana Bash, that is the witness, according to Professor Ford, to this assault.

BASH: I -- if I'm a Republican on that committee, I don't think that I would necessarily want him as the witness. Why call him? Because things like that are going to come up immediately, and it's going to be in big question whether or not there is credibility there.

But look, I think we have to remember kind of the big picture here. And I, just as we're talking, got a text from a Republican senator not on the committee, saying sort of the mantra that we've heard over the past 48 hours, she needs to be heard.

And that, if you go back to kind of the core of why this is happening, she needs to be heard. And it is, again, part of this cultural phenomenon where we are that is crashing into this incredibly important confirmation process. That even, you know, the generationally kind of ill-equipped Republicans on Capitol Hill, men, are understanding the moment.

And so she needs to be heard is where they are, but I do think part of the problem is getting past the "she needs to be heard" and to the practical part of what that means is still -- there's still a gulf there. And it's happening on Monday.

So they're going to have to figure it out really fast, meaning she needs to be heard, to what end? And what happens in between there? Are you going to get facts, or are you going to try to listen to her side of the story, listen to his side of the story and then leave it up to these key senators to be the jury and decide, based on the facts that they present and their character.

It's really, really tough. I mean, this is about the most complicated situation that these senators and this alleged victim and this nominee can find themselves in.

[07:15:10] CAMEROTA: It will be fascinating to see what happens on Monday and before. Dana Bash, Jill Abramson, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much.

BERMAN: All right. Defending the accuser.

Up next, we're going to speak to a former member of Congress who did just that in 1991, was in the middle of all of this when Anita Hill testified before the Senate. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Monday with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who says that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school.

This hearing is just a giant, giant deal, and it has echoes of Anita Hill's dramatic testimony in 1991 when she accused then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

[07:20:03] Joining us now is former Democratic member of Congress Pat Schroeder. She played a key role in all of this. A lot of people don't remember, but female members of the House of Representatives walked over to the Senate to demand -- you're looking at a picture right now and Congressman Schroeder right there in the middle.

You walked over to the Senate to demand that these hearings take place and Anita Hill be heard. So Representative, as you were watching what's unfolding before your eyes, is this just all deja vu for you?

PAT SCHROEDER, FORMER DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE: Well, it sure seemed like it, although, they're going to listen to her. But, again, I'm not sure they're going to listen to her prepared, because they're not having the FBI look into all of these allegations, and what you have is a very strange situation.

I guess I'm overly suspicious, but when I heard that -- that he had gone and gotten all of these women from his high school class to sign a letter, I thought, what is he anticipating? What else is there?

And this is really strange. When I think about how long it would take to get that many people from my high school class to sign a letter, you couldn't do it overnight.

BERMAN: We will come back to the now in just a moment, but I do want to go back to 1991, and we saw that amazing picture of you with other members of Congress walking over to the Senate side. Bring us back to that time. What were you fighting for? What was that like?

SCHROEDER: Well, it was a kind of similar situation, in that Anita Hill was this wonderful professor, really a terrific person and didn't really want to come forward, but finally decided she just had to.

And so then what happened was they were like, "No, no, no, we're hurrying this through." I remember very well when we marched over there to talk to the Senate, we were told, "You don't understand how the Senate works. We all promised Senator Danforth that we would move this very rapidly in the gym, and so we've got to move this."

So that happened. And then of course, we had three more women who suddenly decided they should speak out, because Anita had been so brave; and they never let them on.

Then, of course, sitting there and watching how they treated her, you had to wonder, "Have I made a terrible mistake? This poor woman is being absolutely pilloried." And, you know, what happens? They're going to vote for him anyway.

BERMAN: Just to be clear about who we're talking about, some of the characters here, because it was a long time ago. And people who did not live through it may be surprised to hear this, but it was then- chairman of the Judiciary Committee Joe Biden who you were disappointed with.

SCHROEDER: That's correct.

BERMAN: Who you felt was not, first of all, giving Anita Hill a fair hearing and giving it the time it needed, and then also not giving her the protection inside that hearing that you feel she deserved.

SCHROEDER: That's exactly right. And we watched other members on our side that were Democrats that also weren't giving her protection. It was like somebody had zipped their mouths shut. They just sat there.

Obviously, Kennedy, I guess, felt that he was too tainted to say anything, but it was really shocking, because many of our colleagues on our side we thought of as being progressive; and we had to say no way. Couldn't believe it.

BERMAN: Did Joe Biden let you down? Did Joe Biden let you down then?

SCHROEDER: Joe let me down tremendously. He was the one who said, "You don't understand. I promised Senator Danforth in the gym."

And we said, "No, we don't understand. This is for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, for heaven's sakes." But he hurled it through and we were very, very sad about that.

BERMAN: Bring it forward to this time. What lessons, then, does that provide for your Democratic allies on that committee? How should they perform going forward?

SCHROEDER: Well, I think -- I think they aren't going to be silent. We've got all these wonderful women on the committee that I think will be very aggressive on our side.

But I do think they have a point in that they would really like to have more time. I mean, this whole thing has been handled like a railroad or a kangaroo court or something in that, you know, they don't get any -- all the writings that he's had and the ones that they do get, they get the night before the whole thing starts. What is this railroading?

Again, it's not the way you're supposed to do Supreme Court nominations, and hopefully, our side has been articulating that, but unfortunately, the other side has not been listening at all and just been moving it right along.

[07:25:05] BERMAN: More time for what, specifically, when it comes to the FBI? Because the FBI, what they did is they took this letter that Professor Ford wrote, and they put it in the file. Do you want them to go question Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh?

SCHROEDER: Yes, and the third person that was in the room, think about that. This is a guy who's saying, "Oh, no, it didn't happen, but on the other hand, he's famous for having written this book called "Wasted" about all the terrible things he did in high school, drinking and drugs.

So, you know, I think it would be interesting to have this -- the FBI talk to these folks and try and get it out of -- out of the bright lights and see what they can discern, if there's anything more that they can find out.

BERMAN: Do you think that Democrats should try to, you know, refuse to be part of this hearing if you don't get more investigation before Monday?

SCHROEDER: Absolutely not. I think they really need to be there to help protect her.

Look, what woman would want to put themselves in that position? All of us think of Anita Hill and think, "Oh, my goodness." So no woman wants to be in that position. And since she is there, our side definitely needs to be there to make sure this doesn't become a grilling session or just attacking her.

BERMAN: And what about the timing? By the timing, I don't mean the 36 years, because you and I both know that oftentimes, victims of sexual assault and sex abuse don't come forward for some period of time.

But the timing, insofar as the ranking member, Senator Feinstein handled it, she was given a report of this letter months ago. Should she have done more to get that information to her colleagues? One of the problems in 1991 was that then-Chairman Biden did slow-walk some of the information that he had. SCHROEDER: Well, I think it was a tough one. As you know, the woman

went first to her congresswoman, who I served with and is a wonderful person, and then Anna went to the senator.

I think they went back and forth, because at that time, they had been told very clearly she really didn't want to participate. So what I think Senator Feinstein did is thought, "Well, the best I can do, then, is give the letter to the FBI."

So she gave it to the FBI, and then they really didn't do anything but stick it in a file. And I think at that point, that's why it came out so late. And I could understand that. I think all of us would be very conflicted if someone came forward with that kind of damaging information, but then said, "You know, I'm not really sure I want to go out there and talk about this."

BERMAN: Representative Schroeder, it's really, really great to speak to you about this with so much history and so many of your personal history involved with this. Please come back over the next several days. I think we are going to witness some new history over the next week or so.

SCHROEDER: I think we are, too. Let's hope it goes better this time. Thank you.

BERMAN: Thank you, Representative. Appreciate it -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John, we felt that it was time to check in with some voters. So coming up, I'm going to speak to a group of female Trump voters in swing states about how they feel as we approach the midterms and how they plan to vote.

(EGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I could only vote for a candidate who has been perfect his or her entire life, I could only vote for Jesus Christ.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. The other women on the panel feel differently about President Trump now, as well as other politicians, so we have much more on the message they hope to send next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)