Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Chuck Grassley States Hearing on Sexual Assault Accusations against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh May Only have Two Witnesses. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired September 20, 2018 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: -- according to Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Professor Christine Blasey Ford has exactly 26 hours to decide whether she will testify about the alleged assault involving Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, 26 hours to decide whether she wants to tell her story of being pinned to a bed, groped, and prevented from screaming. That's what she says happened. Judge Kavanaugh denies it.

Now, she can tell her story, but only under the terms set by Chuck Grassley, which means no witnesses, no testimony other than that of Professor Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Meanwhile, President Trump has the power to ask the FBI to reopen its background check into Kavanaugh, but he's rejecting that idea. Instead the president says it's, quote, hard for him to imagine that anything happened. So will Ford testify or will the Senate vote to confirm Kavanaugh without all the information?

Let's bring in CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson, CNN political director David Chalian, and senior correspondent for "New York" magazine an coauthor of "Notorious RBG" Irin Carmon.

Irin, I want to start with you. So she has, as John said, 26 hours. We can only imagine the stress of trying to figure out if she wants to do this publicly since we know her trajectory of first wanting it to be confidential. Now her name being out there. She says that her family has had to move, go into hiding because of the death threats. If this is about getting, if it's about getting all of the information, why are they forcing her to make a decision by tomorrow, and why wouldn't they call any other witnesses?

IRIN CARMON, COAUTHOR, "NOTORIOUS RBG": You know, I have the same question. If this is really about getting to the bottom of what happened or trying to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's character to see if he deserves to sit on the highest court in the land, why not call other witnesses, as her lawyers have suggested?

One thing that I find really interesting as someone who has been covering this issue for a long time is that as Me Too, as more people have raised their hands in Me Too, we have heard what about due process. What Ms. Blasey Ford is asking for is a basic modicum of process. She's asking for more people to be interviewed. She's asking for a neutral fact-finding record. The FBI is not going to say whether this happened or not, but she's asking that it not be her word against his.

And I understand why she wants that. And I guess I don't totally understand why the White House would want a cloud over this nomination. If Judge Kavanaugh says that he didn't do it, why he can't tell the FBI that.

BERMAN: And maybe Judge Kavanaugh would want that. He could perhaps want the FBI to go ask these questions, or one might think he would, to find out if there is more information out there. Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh would want additional witnesses to testify. There is this Patrick Smyth, am I getting that name right, who says he may have been at that party and he never saw anything happen here. Those are people who could corroborate it.

But David, what I think we are seeing here on day five of this, is a political strategy. And I don't know if it's Mitch McConnell who has been so effective as a Republican leader of the Senate over the years or Chuck Grassley, but they have stripped everything away and made this is very stark choice for Professor Blasey. She's got 26 hours to decide to do this, but she could only do it Chuck Grassley's way. She could only do it on an island with no support. And she of course knows that one of the lessons that Anita Hill learned and that was learned from that hearing in 1991 is that when you are on an island it can be excruciating.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICS DIRECTOR: Yes. I do not envy the position that Professor Ford is in right now to make this decision. But you are absolutely right about the politics here, John. There is in doubt. This is what having the gavel means. This is what having control of the majority of the United States Senate and the majority, therefore, on the Judiciary Committee. You get to set the rules of how committee process plays out.

And so there is no doubt that for Mitch McConnell who also, I am sure, does not want a cloud over this. You heard Susan Collins say this would be a terrible way for this all to end if these allegations were just hanging out there, but nobody got to hear from Professor Ford and hear from Judge Kavanaugh. And yet the Republicans are not budging on how that hearing should take place on Monday. And therefore, we may not hear from them, and there will be a cloud over it.

But you know what might be more important to Mitch McConnell than having a cloud over it is having Judge Kavanaugh on the United States Supreme Court. So the priority is clear here. And obviously the Democrats have some politics at play here, too, as they are looking for delaying as much as possible because they think that opens up the opportunity for perhaps filling the Kavanaugh nomination altogether.

CAMEROTA: Speaking of the Democrats tactics, Nia, Grassley wants an unredacted version of the letter that was sent originally, we remember, to Senator Dianne Feinstein that she was supposed to keep confidential and maybe she did. But in any event, somehow it got out. So why not provide that? Again, in the interest of information, in the interest of illumination, let's just argue for all the information to be on the table before the senators have to make this important decision. [08:05:00] NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: I

think that's right. And maybe that is something that Dianne Feinstein, who has been criticized not only by the president, Republicans, and some folks in her own caucus, maybe that is something she'll hand over to Chuck Grassley.

At some point there has been very little cooperation or coordination so far between the Democrats on that committee and the Republicans on that committee. It's hard to see that changing going forward.

But listen, we started at a different place on Monday and here we are in a different place now. This has been a fast-moving story. Things are coming out and changing, and going back and forth, and the ball is in the Republican's court, then it is in Dr. Ford's court at some point. So we'll see what happens over these next crucial hours.

I think if you are Chuck Grassley you very much want to give the appearance that you are being accommodating without being too accommodating. He talks about wanting to make Dr. Ford as comfortable as possible as if she needs sort of a pillow as she's talking to these folks. But I think obviously, she's much more concerned with a full investigation. And it looks like they're not budging on this. We'll see. We'll know by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow whether or not this is something she is willing to do.

BERMAN: Irin, over the last day there has been a lot said. But Jeffrey Toobin said it last night, and not criticizing Jeffrey, but he said the stakes are this -- if she doesn't testify, he gets confirmed. If she does testify, maybe he doesn't. And then people has suggested this morning and she owes it to the country to testify, to get that story out there. But this is a lot of pressure on her. This is an enormous amount of pressure. And should her calculation be, whether Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed or not, should her calculation be the midterm elections, or what should she be thinking about now?

CARMON: I think there is a tension here between what might be good for Democrats and what, for example, victim-focused organizations say would be good for somebody who says that they are traumatized by an experience early in their lives. So the politics of this is if she doesn't show up and testify, Republicans are then going to say why did her lawyer go on television and say we want to testify and then she's not doing it. And they're going to say we tried to talk to her.

This is in fact why the terms have been set so narrowly I think, because they're hoping she doesn't show up. Why else would they set these deadlines? Why else would they limit who we hear from? They do not want her to testify because they know the specter of them grilling her about being a teenager when she said she was sexually assaulted, is not good for them. But if she doesn't show up, I agree that the politics are difficult.

That said, there are all kinds of reasons why one would want to put preconditions under which one talks about a really traumatizing experience. So I genuinely understand that there's a tension here. And I don't know what's going to happen next week, but the parallel political universe is one in which Judge Kavanaugh was not going to get confirmed and we were not going to talk about it, and Democrats were going to stand in the corner and say but Roe v. Wade. So we are already having so much more scrutiny on this nominee that no matter how the politics cut, we're in a different place than we were last week.

CAMEROTA: That's for sure. And I just want to stick with you for one second, Irin, because of your reporting on some of these issues in the past. If she just boils it down, if she can somehow peel away all of the political ramifications and peel away the high stakes that the future of the country is resting on her shoulders, and if she can just get back to, I'm just going to tell my story. I'm just going to tell my story. I'm not going to think about all the political ramifications. I'm just going to tell what I know to be my truth of what happened that day. I think that will be an easier calculation because she wanted the information to get in the hands of lawmakers. That's what prompted her to do it.

So maybe she does agree to do something in private. It won't help the public understand this, but maybe somebody can fly to California and she can do it in private if that was her original impetus was wanting to get the information out there.

CARMON: I have tried to communicate with her attorneys through my reporting. I haven't yet been able to connect with them. I'm not familiar with what their thinking is right now, but I do think it is a lot of pressure to put on one individual person. If you go back to the interview she did give to the "Washington Post," she said why suffer through the annihilation if it's not going to matter? And look at what Republicans are saying. Lindsey Graham just said the other day we'll hear the lady out, but we're going to bring this to a close. This is a rigged game, and so I understand that there is some hesitation here to participate in it.

BERMAN: I'll listen to the lady is what he said, which were not very sensitive words at all, or empathetic words at all. David Chalian, the politics of this, again, which I do think is separate than what Professor Blasey should be thinking about this morning. She should be thinking about herself and her life. The politics of this, I think there are Democrats saying, oh, this plays well for us. This energizes women. Do we know for sure? Because I see George W. Bush coming out with a statement of support for Brett Kavanaugh. It unites different factions of the Republican Party, a Supreme Court nomination, including factions that haven't always been squarely behind Donald Trump.

CHALIAN: Without a doubt, John. This is true of all Supreme Court battles, whether or not a hot potato like this is thrown in the middle of it. It is an opportunity to rile up both bases. And there is nothing in the last year and a half, nothing that has unified Republicans more under the Trump era of Republicanism than Neil Gorsuch's ascendency to the Supreme Court and Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

[08:10:12] That is the biggest unifying factor for Republicans. So it will fire up both bases. So there is I think little doubt about that. I do think where we are is because of the broken politics in Washington. I mean, I think that we are -- what is so different than the Anita Hill moment in 1991 is how broken Congress is and how broken the United States Senate is. And I think it is that that has caused us to be in this moment in a way with these kinds of deadlines and inability to work together to actually get to some conclusion here that at least works for the process. That's out the window because of the way our current polarization and political climate is.

BERMAN: David Chalian, Irin Carmon, Nia-Malika Henderson, thanks so much for being with us. Appreciate it.

We do have breaking news. The security breach in Orlando Melbourne International Airport. Officials say a student pilot forced the airport to be locked down early this morning after the man jumped a fence and bordered this American Airlines plane that was undergoing maintenance at a hanger. No passengers were on board at the time. Officials say the 26-year-old suspect is in police custody, has a Florida driver's license, and is from Trinidad. The airport has since reopened as officials investigate his motivations.

CAMEROTA: OK, that's weird. We'll just have to wait until we get more reporting on that from the local officials.

Meanwhile, a New York congressman who stood up for Anita Hill in 1991 says she is seeing history repeat itself. Congresswoman Nita Lowey joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

NITA LOWEY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: One of the things we've seen and one of the reasons we're here is that it's very difficult for some of our colleagues to deal with issues of sexual harassment.

And I think one of the important fall outs of this hearing is an awareness that it exists.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: It's so interesting John, to watch that from all those years ago, because how much has changed and how much has not changed--

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And that's a moment in history that I think people forget. And we talked to a member of Congress, Pat Schroeder the other day.

But - but when do members of the House walked over to the Senate in 1991, and that's the famous picture right there.

They waked over to the Senate to the democrats in the Senate. So the members of their own party and they're saying you are messing up this Clarence Thomas hearing. You are not listening to Anita Hill, and you have to. CAMEROTA: So, does that message resonate again today. The woman that you just heard there was democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey in 1991. Her comments came after the testimony of then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, a former Thomas colleague who said that he had sexually harassed her.

So joining us now is that Congresswoman, Lowey. She played a key role in demanding that be hearing be delayed in order to hear Anita Hill's testimony. Congresswoman thanks so much.

LOWEY: Always a pleasure to be with you-

CAMEROTA: It's - what do you think when you look back at that video of you making that demand back in 1991?

LOWEY: I still think as I look back, the male members of Congress just didn't get it. When we heard that they weren't paying attention to her and giving her an adequate opportunity to testify and to really get the background of what happened, we was shocked.

And that's when we marched over there. Believe it or not, the Senators were in a caucus, and (inaudible) came out, and wouldn't allow us in to talk to the members.

CAMEROTA: Why not? What did they say to you?

LOWEY: Oh, I don't know. They didn't feel that we belonged at the caucus meeting. So the whole incident was shocking. And today however, it's a little different.

CAMEROTA: Is it?

LOWEY: It's a little different. However, I do believe that the Senators have an obligation to deal with character and credibility.

And I don't think that her request to have an F.B.I. background check is improper. Certainly, it took guts for Dr. Ford to come out with this and testify.

Remember, this is a lifetime appointment. We're going to have this judge as we now have Clarence Thomas for a lifetime-

CAMEROTA: Understood, but I think you know that President Trump is never going to agree to that. He's the one who has to give the directive of whether or not the F.B.I. would reopen the background check - that's not going to happen. That's a nonstarter.

LOWEY: Well, it's unfortunate that this is not a requirement. Because if you have a situation where Judge Kavanaugh says I didn't do it, and you have Dr. Ford - and it took a lot f guts for her to get out there. Then I think you need a third party, the F.B.I. to really validate the statements.

CAMEROTA: You said back in 1991 the male Senators didn't get it. A lots changed since 1991, do you think they get it today?

LOWEY: We'll have to see. We'll have to see whether they get it or not-

CAMEROTA: What would-

(CROSSTALK)

LOWEY: Some don't get it.

CAMEROTA: But what - I mean what you've seen this far, what would be the evidence that they get it, they understand how sexual assault allegations come forward. They understand the sensitivity of all of this.

LOWEY: Whether they get it or not will determine whether they allow Dr. Ford to speak and whether they will do an F.B.I. check. Look, this is a lifetime appointment; you don't want to just rush this through-

CAMEROTA: Well-

LOWEY: Now they say they're going to deal with this on Monday and it cannot be rushed through in my judgment because f I were voting, I'm not voting at the Senate, at this point I would have to vote no.

CAMEROTA: But what's the proper amount of time? Obviously republicans want to get Brett Kavanaugh seated. Obviously democrats don't. So what's the proper amount of time to allow her to tell her story?

LOWEY: The proper amount of time is to have the F.B.I. do a background and allow her to tell the story because if you have a situation with some believe her, some don't believe her. And some don't want t believer her, then I think you need the third party to validate.

CAMEROTA: I understand, but it sounds like that's not going to happen. So given that the F.B.I. is out of the equation because President Trump des not want to have them reopen the background check.

As he has said, Brett Kavanaugh, he said if they're subject to something like six background checks, surely something like this would have come out. But you know, look, the F.B.I. doesn't ever really investigate things where there's no police report.

[08:20:00]

Should she testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday?

LOWEY: It's a Senate Judiciary Committee is determined by a bipartisan real listening of her, perhaps she should. But if a group of Senators have made their mind up, that they're not going to believe her, then you need a third party to validate what's she's saying ad hat he's saying.

He says no, I didn't do it. She says yes, he did. And frankly as a woman, it takes a lot of guts to come out publically and discuss this incident. CAMEROTA: And that's what she's calling for. So what she's calling for is let's here from some of the other people who were there. So she says I think that there was something like six people at this party and she would like them to take the time to investigate and talk to the other people and what their memories are of the party.

Chuck Grassley has said no, there will only be these two witnesses, Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. So, if - she has 24 hours to decide, I mean, what - you were instrumental in helping figure out how Anita Hill should do this. What is your advice to Christine Blasey Ford today?

LOWEY: I don't understand how Dr. Ford can testify without other witnesses corroborating. Because as you look at this, as you just said, you have the Senators saying testify Monday, that's it.

And she has enormous pressure to come testify. If they've already made up their mind, they're not going to believe her, then you need someone else. Either as he said other people who were there or the F.B.I., there are other ways to corroborate.

Again, I'd like to say this is a lifetime appointment. And it's absolutely essential that we understand the character of this man the issues what he stands for and what he's apposed to.

CAMEROTA: But if Chuck Grassley won't let nay other witness, do you think she should not show up on Monday?

LOWEY: I think she's going to have to make this very tough decision, because if they're already determined not to believe her, then she needs other people to corroborate what she is talking about. It took such guts to come out publically.

I - I can't imagine what it took before and according to her and according to her testimony, too many others privately this was so disturbing to her. And of course I - I can't imagine it. Can't imagine it.

So, for somebody -- for a Senator to vote for a judge who denies this action and yet doesn't feel other people should corroborate either what he's saying or what she saying, I think I absolutely wrong.

CAMEROTA: Awesome. Nita Lowey, we thank you for being here.

LOWEY: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: We'll see what happens.

LOWEY: A pleasure to be with you.

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

LOWEY: Thank you.

BERMAN: All right. So, hat is the decision professor Blasey Ford faces this morning and what happens if republicans move forward with the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh without hearing from her. We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:00]

BERMAN: If the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a vote next week as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh without hearing from his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, could that become an issue in the November midterm elections, particularly among women voters. 47 days until the midterms.

Joining us now, Ana Navarro, a CNN political commentator; Amy Kremer, the co-founder of Women for Trump, and Areva Martin, a Civil Rights attorney and CNN legal analyst.

Ana, I want to start with you. So the way this is going right now, the way it looks right no, maybe it'll change, is that professor Blasey not inclined to testify on Monday, which means the republicans will have this vote, Kavanaugh will be confirmed, it's all over there. What happens in November then?

ANA NAVARRO, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, John, part of me just thinks that it's kind of like one more spot on the leopard. I don't know how much more affected it. Certainly, it'll be more fresh of mind. But the republicans don't look good right now with women period already.

They've nominated a guy who had 19 sexual assault accusations against him, quite a bold one. They nominated and elected a guy for president who we heard on tape posting about grabbing women. They supported a nominee who was an alleged pedophile for U.S. Senator for Alabama.

So, this is just one more instance where I think republicans are not looking particularly good, in fact they're looking very very bad for a lot of women. But is it going to change anything?

I'm not sure; because it's already a pattern of behavior that I think a lot of women have sadly come to expect from what is a very disappointing Republican Party on these issues.

BERMAN: And it will that - that President Trump gets one more nominee on the Supreme Curt, which Amy, you know is something that is very important to the president supporters.

AMY KREMER, POLITICAL FIGURE: Absolutely it is, John. That's one of the reasons he was elected. And I believe that if the Senate doesn't hold the line and do what they're supposed to do here, she has a right to be heard.

And she's being given every opportunity. If she does not testify, that's on her. They should go ahead with the vote. And I think that should they not, if they fall in to this trap that democrats are trying to set for them, then they will lose the Senate.

BERMAN: So Areva, this is a good pint to bring you in, because you're an attorney and you've worked on all kinds of sexual assault cases in your life. Something just said there is interesting. If she doesn't speak, it's on her.

And - and I think a lot of the maneuvering that we've seen politically and legally the last few days is to make this a very stark decision for professor Blasey, which oh yes, you can talk but it has to be on the republican Senate's terms. What does that mean for an alleged victim of sexual assault?

AREVA MARTIN, AUTHOR: Well, John first of all, I totally disagree with Amy that it's on her. It's not on her; it's on these republican Senators. They were elected to serve the country.

Dr. Ford is a private citizen; she came forward to tell her story first privately to Senator Feinstein.

[08:30:00]