Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford Hearing Up in Air as Trump Defends Kavanaugh; Anita Hill Weighs in on Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford Saga; North Korean TV Blasts U.S. for Lack of Progress in Nuclear Talks; Democrats Demand Other Witnesses Be Called to Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford Hearing. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired September 18, 2018 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:30:26] JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: President Trump is standing by a Supreme Court nominee, saying he has an unblemished record. The president today defended Brett Kavanagh in the wake of a sexual assault accusation dating back to the 1980s. Both Kavanaugh and his accuser have been invited to testify before a Senate panel committee hearing on Monday, but that hearing is up in the air.

Let's bring in CNN legal analyst, Joan Biskupic.

Joan, this is just the news in the last half hour or so. There are doubts now as to whether or not this hearing might take place. In part, because the Senate Republicans controlling that Judiciary Committee saying they haven't heard back from Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser in this Brett Kavanaugh saga. Do you think it's too early to say, hey, wait a minute, this hearing may not happen? What do you make of these developments?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's too early to say almost everything. Think of how much unfolded from just Sunday when the name became known publicly when the "Washington Post" printed the interview with her. Since then, we have had disarray and the committee was up and down and it's on and it's off. At this point, we should hold our horses and see what's going to happen. The committee needs to hear from both of these individuals, Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, to find out what is the truth of the situation. Democrats are concerned that a hearing was scheduled, which sounded like it was a good idea. Apparently, Professor Ford was not completely on board with the timing or something. Something is unusual. The Democratic Senators themselves feel like the FBI should be involved to investigate this. We just heard President Trump say the FBI shouldn't be involved. There a lot of moving pieces.

What we do know, Jim, is there will be no committee vote on Thursday. We know that for sure. We're back to where we started. Whether we are going to have a hearing next Monday or not is still uncertain. They will have to have some hearing at some point.

ACOSTA: Right. And we should mention that Brett Kavanaugh has said he would like to clear his name. He said that through a statement released by the White House.

Senator Grassley has said this morning, and there are other Republicans in the Senate saying similar things, that they would like to have this hearing contained to just Brett Kavanaugh versus Christine Blasey Ford. That leaves out this other person who has been accused in all of this. This Mark Judge, friend of Brett Kavanaugh. I suppose both sides may want to have supporting witnesses to testify on behalf of each one of the individuals, which does raise the specter of having a Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill-type situation. Isn't that right?

BISKUPIC: That's what happened in 1991. First, you heard from Anita Hill and then-Judge Thomas. Then you had a cast of many panels with both for and against, saying, at first, supporters of Anita Hill saying, yes, we knew about this because she had talked about it in the years before the testimony about her complaints against her boss at the time, Clarence Thomas. And then there were many women who came forward, reminiscent of what we have now, defending Judge Thomas, and he ended up being confirmed, of course on a 52-48 vote. We already see the testimonials coming out on behalf of Judge Kavanaugh. I don't think he -- right now, his supporters want a full-fledged hearing with all these different voices. I can't imagine they want Mark Judge to testify, given what we have read and known of their accounts of their lives in the 1980s, you know, drenched in alcohol. Who would want that to be as a witness in any way? Democrats are saying that could be a way to get what might have actually happened in that house back in 1982 or whatever it happened.

ACOSTA: We should point out, a lot is changing minute by minute. Senator Jeff Flake, who was scheduled to come on this program during this hour, his staff said he went into a last-minute meeting regarding some of this. So things may be changing moment by moment. We will keep you posted on that.

Since we brought up Anita Hill, who was the accuser in the Clarence Thomas hearing in the early 90s, let's talk about this. She is weighing in on all of this today in a "New York Times" op-ed. She called for a neutral party to investigate the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. And she writes, "As Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country's highest court, he has the burden of persuasion here and that is only fair."

Does Anita Hill have a point? And when do you start to bring in -- she says a neutral party that should investigate all of this? You are talking about something that could delay the proceedings for an indefinite amount of time. We don't know how long it could be delayed. They can't put that in a week. I suppose they could, but it could be very, very difficult. You are talking about further delays, and that upsets the people at the White House. What do you make of this proposal from Anita Hill.

[13:35:41] BISKUPIC: She speaks from first happened experience the way she called up there. This is the Senate's responsibility to get to the bottom of this. Whether the Senate Judiciary Committee is equipped to get to the bottom of this is a serious question. But you're right, the White House doesn't want delays. Judge Kavanaugh's supporters don't want delay beyond a possible hearing next week where they can air his defense to what Professor Ford has said.

You know, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I have been watching for many, many years, I can't think of a version they have ever had. They had their own counsel, for better or worse, feeding questions and asking questions. But what she is proposing is a new animal for that committee. And --

ACOSTA: It goes back to the experience that she had with Senators.

BISKUPIC: Right.

ACOSTA: And you have Senator who went through that experience back then, and will see now, gee, I wish we handled this differently. There were a lot of women in this country, and I remember this, and they were just outraged with how Anita Hill was treated.

BISKUPIC: Yes. I can say that Dianne Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, got her election, got her job because of that, quote, "year of the woman," which followed in 1992. She was elected because there was that mantra. They just don't get it. They don't get it. You see now something that is happening with the claims from Christine Blasey Ford that so many other women are coming out, saying, you know, it rings true because of my personal experience. You are seeing a lot of that again. And it may not in any way affect Brett Kavanaugh and maybe all these atmospherics shouldn't affect Brett Kavanaugh, but you have a similar phenomenon that is above and beyond where we were at with the "Me Too" movement just a week ago.

ACOSTA: Absolutely.

Joan, thank you very much for coming in.

BISKUPIC: Thank you.

ACOSTA: We appreciate it, Joan Biskupic. Thank you.

And in moments, the president set to hold a news conference and his first chance to discuss this public hearing in a controversial move to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation.

Plus, I will speak live with an American diplomat who went to North Korea months before the summit as North Korean state TV is now blaming the U.S. for the stalemate in nuclear talks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:32] ACOSTA: Happening right now, North Korea blasting the U.S. over a lack of progress in the nuclear talks saying the U.S. is, quote, "totally to blame by stubbornly insisting on full denuclearization." This comes as South Korea's President Moon is in North Korea for a new round of talks between the two countries.

Here with me now is Jeffrey Feltman, a former U.S. and United Nations diplomat, who went to North Korea to help lay the ground work for these talks. Let me ask you about this, Jeff. It sounds like the negotiations have

stalled out over what we were promised. I was there in Singapore when the president said, and they put a piece of paper in front of us that denuclearization was going to happen. Where do you think things stand?

JEFFREY FELTMAN, FORMER U.S. & UNITED NATIONS DIPLOMAT: Jim, I would look at it in the context of where we were a year ago. A year ago, at this time, we were headed into the General Assembly, we were headed into the talk about -- President Trump's talk about total destruction of North Korea and the Little Rocket Man rhetoric, the response about "dotard," bringing "dotard" into our vocabular vocabulary. Six nuclear tests in North Korea was on September 6th, showing how much they had advanced in nuclear technology. The long-range missile launch was November 29th. There were no channels of communication. There was always a chance of accidental war, always a chance of misinterpreting the other's intentions. The situation is extremely dangerous. Even though, right now, both sides are saying, hey, it's your turn, it's your turn, we are inherently in a far better situation than we were a year ago when it looked like we were on a march to war.

ACOSTA: Let me stop you on that because you hear from this from the White House, we are in a better place than a year ago. The president did not have to engage in the rhetoric over the past year, which did bring things to the brink to some extent. North Korea, before the president came on board back in January of 2017, they were in a box. They were contained. It is the president whose rhetoric provoked the North Koreans to some extent. I suppose you would acknowledge that. Is it fair to say, well, look how far we have come? Things were spiraling out of control last year.

FELTMAN: Jim, the progressive nuclear test -- North Korea has done six nuclear tests and the missile launches. Those were taking place before the Trump administration came into office and after the Trump administration came into office. There was a clear public display by the North Koreans of their defiance of multiple Security Council resolutions. That's what caused the dangerous situation, I would argue. That's what caused the international unity. That was some of the best examples of the Security Council working together, was recognition of the threat to the nonproliferation regime that Pyongyang was posing.

But what I was concerned about when I went to North Korea in December, there was the risk of accidental war. There were no lines of communication between Seoul and Pyongyang. There were no lines of communication between Washington and Pyongyang. Pyongyang or Washington or Seoul can misread the interpretation of the other, leading into war. There could be an incident, an incident in the DMZ, and incident in the northern limit line, the undefined boundary in the west sea that could have led to something. That risk is gone. That doesn't mean the problem is solved, but the immediate risk of accidental war is gone.

[13:45:54] ACOSTA: The risk of accidental war may be gone, but are we where we were before Singapore? Did Singapore really accomplish anything? FELTMAN: I think that Singapore broke the taboo about having ongoing

channels with North Korea. I think it's important to have ongoing channels with North Korea. It's unusual to start with the summit and have the working-level meetings afterwards. Without question, that's unusual. That's what we needed to break the taboo against having ongoing talks with the North Koreans. Fine, there's a diplomatic history here. We are all aware of the difficulty in diplomatic history. I would say that right now there's an opportunity to take the language the North Koreans have used in the diplomacy with the South Koreans, et cetera, and turn it into an opportunity. I'm as skeptical as the next person. Is Kim Jong-Un committed to denuclearization? We don't know yet. Given the change in his language --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: They'll get another summit though?

FELTMAN: That's up to the president to decide. But I'm all for using diplomacy and trying to set up working groups to flush out what does denuclearization mean? Because his language has changed.

ACOSTA: Yes.

OK. Jeff Feltman, thank you very much. Appreciate that. We will have to see. At this point, it does appear to be a stalemate, but, Jeff, a very important expert on this. Thank you.

Democrats demanding other witnesses be called to the hearing featuring Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser. Find out who may be on that short list.

Plus, the president's news conference as Kavanaugh spends his second day huddled inside the White House. That is moments away. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:52:01] ACOSTA: An historic hearing is possibly coming up. On Monday, Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to answer questions about an alleged sexual assault. His accuser also invited by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but she has not accepted yet.

Joining me now, CNN politics reporter and CNN editor-at-large, Chris Cillizza.

Chris, first, we should say we don't even know if the hearing is going to happen. But if Christine Blasey Ford is there, what do you make of that and who else could potentially testify in all of this?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER & CNN EDITOR-AT-LARGE: All right, let's run through this. First, you're right, Ford, no indication yet that she is coming. But I would assume, given her attorney has said that she is willing to testify publicly, we assume that she will be there Monday or at some point. But who else? Now, Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate

Judiciary Committee, has said just two witnesses, Kavanaugh and Ford. But that is Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh's, who allegedly was in the room to witness all of this. Now, he says he doesn't recall. Lindsey Graham has said we don't need to hear from him. Not sure that makes a lot of sense given that three people are available to talk, why not have all three. And we don't know --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: Pretty colorful character, from what we understand.

CILLIZZA: Absolutely. And again, this is not somebody who is unreachable who couldn't be there. This is somebody they are not choosing to ask yet. Yet.

Now, in the "Washington Post" story where they broke down this story and where Blasey Ford spoke, they have notes from her therapist from 2012, from marriage counseling with her therapist, in which the incident is described similarly, although the therapist wrote down four men were in the room as opposed to two. Kavanaugh's name is not used. But the "Post" got a look at this. The question is, could this person shed more light, because Blasey Ford said she said two, it was four. She said she wrote it down wrong, et cetera, et cetera. Another person that could shine some light.

All right, let's go because I think that we do have a conflict here. These are quotes from very recently. This is Lindsey Graham, "The committee should hear from Ms. Ford, it should be done immediately so the process can continue as scheduled." Remember, Jim, we were supposed to have a vote Thursday."

Let's go to the next, Orrin Hatch, same thing. Expeditiously. The timeline. They want to get this done before the election, let's make no mistake. And here is Orrin Hatch in 2016, "The confirmation process will be deferred until after the election season is over. That decision has nothing to do with the identity of the nominee." The nominee was Merrick Garland, who was Barack Obama's pick to fill the seat.

And let's do one more. Mitch McConnell talking about this - oh, skip that. But McConnell said the same thing. Here's Merrick Garland, 293 days between the day Barack Obama nominated him and the day that nomination was fully dropped. So --

ACOSTA: Brett Kavanaugh has not waited nearly as long.

(CROSSTALK)

CILLIZZA: They are on tough ground as it relates to we need to get it done as soon as possible.

ACOSTA: All right. Chris Cillizza, thank you very much.

CILLIZZA: Thank you. [13:54:57] ACOSTA: At any moment, President Trump will hold a news conference and take questions from reporters at the White House. This is as we learn more details about the allegations against his Supreme Court nominee and the woman accusing him of sexual assault. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:59:51] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin. Thank you for being with me.

Moments from now, the president of the United States is set to speak to reporters in a joint news conference with the leader of Poland. We are expecting to hear more from him about the turmoil now playing out, of course, with his Supreme Court nominee.

Today, the president responded for the very first time to the new extraordinary public reckoning that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is now facing -