Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Individuals Make Sworn Statement that Christine Blasey Ford Told Them about Allegedly Sexual Assault Incident before Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired September 26, 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: Overnight, new developments that could affect the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Four people have come forward with sworn statements that Christine Blasey Ford told them about her alleged sexual assault that she says took place 36 years ago. Ford says Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, tried to remove her clothes. Kavanaugh denies an assault took place.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: We are learning new details about tomorrow's high stakes Senate hearing where Kavanaugh and Ford will testify. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee bringing in outside counsel, a sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona, a woman, who will question both witnesses. Even before though, anyone has been heard from at tomorrow's hearing, GOP leadership scheduling a committee vote for Kavanaugh's nomination. That vote on the nomination set for Friday. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Democrats unhappy about it.

BERMAN: Just moments ago I had a chance to speak with Brett Kavanaugh's attorney Beth Wilkinson to clarify some statements that her client has made about all of the allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: Hoping you can help clarify some statements that Judge Kavanaugh has made publicly within the last few days. Number one, he says he may have met Christine Blasey. He's not sure?

BETH WILKINSON, ATTORNEY FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH: I don't think they ran in the same social circles, so they may have met on occasion, but he's very sure the allegations she made did not occur. And as you know, everyone else who she named that was at that party either doesn't remember the party or doesn't even know or never met Brett Kavanaugh.

BERMAN: He says, or you say they may have met on occasion. Did they or did not they meet?

WILKINSON: I really don't know. I know they had overlapping social circles, so they may have met. But the real issue here is we keep saying is the allegations about this very specific incident at a party that no one else was there that she named acknowledges occurred or remembers anything like that.

BERMAN: Understood. So they may have met. She also -- he said, Judge Kavanaugh said on FOX News he doesn't remember attending any parties with Christine Blasey. Is it possible he attended parties with Christine Blasey and does not remember?

WILKINSON: It could always be possible because, as you know, this was 36 years ago. One of the biggest problems with trying to disprove this, as I think people are trying to put the burden on him, is that it's very hard to disprove or even remember exactly what you did 36 years ago. That's one of the reasons why he provided his calendars in response to the Senate judiciary's request for all the documents so they could at least see what he was doing that summer.

But without knowing where the incident happened, the date when it happened, the time period when it happened, it is very hard to disprove that and say I was never at a party. Maybe there was a large party, she was there and he was there at the same time.

BERMAN: So it is possible they were at parties, and at this point he doesn't remember 36 years later?

WILKINSON: That's always possible. I think that is the reality, again, of talking about something that happened such a long time ago.

BERMAN: So Liz Swisher in the "Washington Post," show says she was a college friend of Judge Kavanaugh says she was a sloppy drunk, slurring his words, stumbling. Does he dispute that?

WILKINSON: Well, lots of people dispute that, including him. He's admitted, though, that he drank. He admits that they drank beers. Back then you could drink at 18, so when you were in high school. He admits when he looks back, there are some things that he did that he cringes over. I don't think there is any dispute he drank when he was in high school and when he was in college, but that is not the issue here.

BERMAN: It is in a sense that he said, again, in this interview that he was focused on sports, academics, and service projects and implied in some people's minds that he was some kind of choir boy. That's the phrase in "The Washington Post," and there are people coming forward who say they don't believe that's the case. You say he did things that made people cringe or cause regret. What did he do?

WILKINSON: I think, again, you're misstating exactly what was said. You're taking parts of what he said. He said that he did play sports. And he worked that summer. He was a good student, and he did go to parties, and he did drink beer. He didn't deny any of that.

BERMAN: Did he drink in excess? Did he drink to the point of being drunk?

WILKINSON: He said on occasion he drank more beers than he should.

BERMAN: And he says he did things that cause him regret and to cringe now. What would that include?

WILKINSON: In that context, I think he was talking about the yearbook page which people have paid so much attention to, and I think there's lots of things when folks are 17 years old and 18 years old that they put on the yearbook page that when we all look back we wish we hadn't said. And so I think that's just acknowledging that he's a real person. And I think anybody, if this is going to be the standard of how we judge someone going into public service, I don't know why anyone in their right mind would want to go through something like this. No matter what side of the aisle you're on, if we're going to start saying what you put in your yearbook page is what decides whether you have good character or bad character, I hope my children know that if they make some mistakes along the way that they can live their life and still contribute to public service.

[08:05:00] BERMAN: I understand. In some cases, though, it is a standard that he has set for himself, because, again, in this FOX News interview he said he has always treated women with dignity. You brought up the yearbook page. You brought up the yearbook page, Renate Schroeder, and he claimed to be some part of Renate alumnus group. And there are those -- she's a woman -- who apparently know a number of boys who went to Georgetown Prep, a number of them included her name apparently in relation to some kind of alleged conquest that they all had with her. She has come out and said that it's horrible and hurtful. I pray that Judge Kavanaugh's daughters never are treated that way. Is that treating people with dignity? Again, Judge Kavanaugh says he's always treated with dignity.

WILKINSON: Again, you're leaving out most of the facts. She says that they never had any interaction. He remembers going on one date with her and said that he gave her a kiss good night. She says she doesn't even recall that happening. No one says, including her, that there was any sexual conduct between her and any of these other boys. And I think, again, to suggest that that statement in the yearbook, as he said, he has a lot of respect for her and he regrets if in any way that statement hurt her feelings, but there's nobody including her that says there was any inappropriate conduct or any disrespect for her.

BERMAN: His discussed his assertions over the last few days where he says he has always treated women with dignity. I don't think that Renate Dolphin, that's her name, now thinks that is being treated with dignity when she calls the statements horrible and hurtful. Again, this just gets to the picture that Judge Kavanaugh is painting for himself now. So --

WILKINSON: I think you're trying to malign his character over things that occurred when he was -- excuse me.

WILKINSON: He says always treated people with dignity. Is that yearbook page treating Renate Schroeder her with dignity?

BERMAN: I think what you have heard from lots of people, not just him, when it's 65 women, women who knew him when he was young, women who knew him in high school and college and all the way through that he did treat women with dignity and respect, that he has been an advocate for women. Is he a perfect guy? No. And again, I don't think anyone is perfect. But he had a long line of people who have known him in all different arenas of his life who say he treated women with dignity and respect.

WILKINSON: And again, it was a standard that he set in that interview saying he always did. I was just trying to establish, and I'm not going to push because I think we've got as far as we can on that point, I'm trying to especially whether or not that was treating women with dignity.

To the drinking, again, and this was something that was discussed in the FOX News interview, and to an extent, he has said he had a few beers, he did things that made him cringe and cause regret. In that interview he says he has never blacked out. My question to you is, is his claim that he remembers everything from after every night of heavy drinking?

WILKINSON: I don't think that's what he said. And I don't think he said there is every night of heavy drinking. I think he said he did not black out. He did not say that he never drank too many beers. In fact, he said that he did. Again, it depends on -- we're talking about 36 years ago. The question was, did he black out? Did he black out drink at that time, and he said no.

BERMAN: Did he remember everything from when he was drinking then.

WILKINSON: I don't even know what you mean.

BERMAN: Is the standard --

WILKINSON: The question isn't about everything he ever did. Again, you are talking about every day of his life when he was in high school. We're talking about a very serious allegation here. You're talking about an allegation of sexual assault.

BERMAN: Yes.

WILKINSON: And that's a very important thing. That can ruin someone's reputation over a lifetime.

BERMAN: Yes.

WILKINSON: And we're not in a courtroom. We're outside in public opinion where you're putting forth all of these general allegations instead of talking about the very specific incident where we don't know where it occurred, when don't when it occurred. We know the people that were supposedly there, and they all deny they have any recollection of that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HILL: Joining us now to discuss, CNN political commentator and political anchor for Specter News, Errol Louis, CNN chief political correspondent Dana Bash, and CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. And Jeff, having listened to that, I know you listened to the full interview that John did a little earlier, that was a significant chunk of it in terms of what we heard from Beth Wilkinson and where it puts us at today?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think Beth Wilkinson is a better advocate for Brett Kavanaugh than Brett Kavanaugh is. She is an exceptionally good lawyer. And I think her take is more like, hey, let's look at this as a matter of common sense. Of course, he drank. Of course, he's not perfect. But he certainly didn't sexual assault anybody. That to me is a more persuasive and effective defense than Brett Kavanaugh, I never did anything wrong. That, to me, was -- it just was not believable.

And her repeated invocations of how long ago this was, and the fact that other people who were allegedly present do not corroborate him, those are good facts. Those are good facts for Brett Kavanaugh, and she, not surprisingly, emphasized them.

[08:10:00] I think there were elements where she was taking on strawmen where she said, come on, let's not put people on trial for what they wrote in their yearbook. He's being put on trial for what he wrote in his yearbook. He's being questioned about serious accusations of sexual assault. The yearbook entries may be corroboration of those evidence in support of the sexual assault. So the idea that everybody is on trial for their yearbooks I think is a bit too far. But she's an effective lawyer.

BERMAN: Just one more question on the developments overnight, Jeffrey. The sworn statements from people, including Professor Ford's husband, who say that prior to Judge Kavanaugh being nominated to the Supreme Court, she told them about the alleged assault, the significance of these sworn statements.

TOOBIN: They're very good facts for Ford's credibility. They are significant corroboration. I thought one interesting thing that Beth Wilkinson said that I'd like to hear more about was that there has been nothing produced about the polygraph or about the therapist. And I think over the course of the next day we should sort of tease out what -- whether that information is coming out or why it isn't coming out.

But, look, you have to ask yourself, why did Ms. Ford say that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court? I don't know what the answer to that is unless she really believed that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her all these years ago. It is a very significant fact of corroboration.

HILL: And it will be interesting to see if that question is in fact asked tomorrow. Why did you bring this up these many times? Why are we hearing about it now?

Dana, Jeff brought up a point about the narrative that Beth Wilkinson is putting out there, and what she's talking about, she is a more effective advocate in her words for her client than her client is for himself. What's fascinating, too, we were talking about this briefly, is the way she's now moving the narrative. We're not all perfect. People do things when they're younger. Would it have been more effective if that was the line even a few days ago, Monday night in that interview, versus I've never done anything wrong.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It certainly could have been because now he's now in that box. But he made a decision, maybe it is because he actually believes this, that he was going to go full stop. He was going to have no wriggle room at all in his denial and his defense. I don't know what she was talking about. I wasn't at the party. I didn't do anything like this, leaving absolutely no shade of gray or doubt. And that is something that might come back to haunt him if there is some fact that can disprove that.

I agree with you. What Beth Wilkinson did was talk more like a human, frankly, that we all maybe do things that we don't remember or that we regret, particularly when we're young and don't have maturity that we do now. I also think the argument that Beth made about as a parent, would you -- don't you want your child to have the ability to make some mistakes and then be OK later on. OK, let's just say flatly that sexual assault is not a mistake that's OK at any age, OK? Having said that, just in terms of public perception, my understanding is that that is what a lot of these Republicans are relying on, that a lot of independent women, particularly women voters, are saying the same thing. I have a son. I want to make sure that they can make a mistake and live to go on another day and do good things.

BERMAN: Errol, it is an argument, over the last 24 hours I have heard quite a lot from Republicans saying we feel good about where we are. We think this is turning in our favor because we think that the Democrats have pushed this too far. Hard to know. Of course there is Lisa Murkowski who says she is on the fence, more or less, and she will wait to hear for the testimony tomorrow.

ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: My sense of the politics is that they are going to figure out if they have the bare minimum amount of credibility to force through a vote. And if there is any kind of realistic chance to do it, they are going to take that chance. I think they're going to be political repercussions for it, for sure. But a lot of this was set up really at the start of it. I think Dana is exactly right. We remember back to George W. Bush who had a past career of carousing and inebriation and addiction. And, as I recall, he dealt with it with one line. He said when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish. It is hard to really attack him after that, and that issue was put behind him.

The thing about young people making a mistake, though, and as the father of a son I feel this every day, they have to acknowledge that something went wrong. That's the only way to sort of really go forward. When you stonewall it, when you say I never did anything wrong. I won't talk to the FBI because God knows I don't want to be caught having lied to the FBI, it really raises more questions than it answers.

[08:15:06] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: I will also say, George Bush said, when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible, it was about drinking and it was about drug use. It was never about anything close to sexual assault.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: So much has been made of what was and what wasn't said in that interview. I want to play a little more of it just to remind us all of how some of these questions were answered by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS HOST: Were there times when perhaps you drank so much -- was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened the night before?

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE: No, that never happened.

MACCALLUM: You never said to anyone, I don't remember anything about last night?

KAVANAUGH: No, that did not happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Jeff, as Dana pointed out, there is no gray area in his answers there. As we heard in reporting from Maggie Haberman, the president seeing it and others saying it is a bit robotic.

Does this interview come back to hurt him possibly?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: It may. But, remember, we are dealing with an electorate of 100 people. And it's, in fact, a real electorate of about five people, the votes that are even theoretically in play here.

You know, I am not sure that, you know, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker are parsing each word that everyone says. I think they are probably operating the way politicians do, with sort of the larger atmosphere of how everyone is perceived.

I don't think that interview was a tremendous success for Brett Kavanaugh. I also don't think it was a crippling failure. I think, you know, the testimony tomorrow is going to be by far more important than anything he said to Fox News or that Beth Wilkinson said on CNN.

And we'll see. We'll see how it comes out. I do think the general position that Beth Wilkinson took was a lot more defensible and a lot better both legally and politically than the one Kavanaugh took. But, you know, it's -- this is really much more a political issue than a legal issue.

BERMAN: It was different. I will note it was different. She thought I was crazy for asking does he remember anything because that's the standard he set in this Fox News interview, when he was pressed on in that interview.

Again, maybe it won't matter tomorrow, Dana, when these two witnesses and only two witnesses are questioned by a seasoned sex crimes prosecutor from Arizona. Rachel Mitchell is who will speak on behalf of all the Republicans and the only person to speak on behalf of the Republicans.

There are people suggested about optics. They wanted a woman doing it, instead of the 11 men.

My question is, why don't the Democrats get a lawyer? Shouldn't they? I mean, shouldn't they get a seasoned lawyer to ask these questions?

BASH: Maybe. Maybe they should. You know, there are women who are on the Democratic side that doesn't exist on the Republican side. There's never been a female senator, a GOP senator who is not a man on that committee.

But, look, it is of course 100 percent about the optics. The Republicans are completely transparent about that, that they cannot be seen having a panel of men going after, frankly, even if the questions are all incredibly fair, this woman. Not to mention the fact that they believe, they hope -- maybe not believe -- they hope that having this sex crimes expert interviewing Kavanaugh than it looks more fair. And at the end of the day, it will help Brett Kavanaugh if he can go through that.

TOOBIN: Can I just add one thing to that? I think Dana is exactly right, that it is about optics. But it is also about how you ask questions.

I mean, I think this really presents considerable peril for Ms. Ford to have an aggressive and intelligent effective cross examiner ask her questions and think about what her answer is going to be.

Who else was present? I'm not sure. What day did it take place? I'm not sure. What house did it take place? I don't know. Describe the house. I can't remember.

I mean, a lot of -- if you do a real cross-examination of her in a courtroom style, she could look pretty bad. That's independent of the fact it's a woman asking the questions.

Now, she could be too aggressive this prosecutor and generate sympathy for Ms. Ford, but I think, yes, it is a question of optics, but it is also about the substance of how this examination goes, and I just think it was a very intelligent decision by the Republicans to deputize this woman as their advocate.

BERMAN: All right. Errol, Jeffrey, Dana, thank you very much.

Will Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein keep his job after meeting with President Trump tomorrow? And if he doesn't, what will Congress do to protect the Russia investigation. We'll discuss with a Democratic senator, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:23:28] BERMAN: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will meet face to face with President Trump tomorrow. Will he keep his job and continue to oversee the Russia investigation?

White House officials tell CNN it would be a mistake to assume Rosenstein will be ousted. But as we know, with this administration, anything is possible.

Joining me now is Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. He's a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, thank you very much for being with us.

You said, and I want to put this up on the screen, if the president fires Rod Rosenstein for the purpose of protecting himself from the Mueller investigation, that would represent high crimes and misdemeanor.

I guess my question to you is how would you prove it is for the purposes of protecting himself in the Mueller investigation? Could he be firing Rod Rosenstein because Rosenstein wanted to tape him and was talking about invoking the 25th Amendment?

SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: Well, you would look, of course, at all the evidence. That is our job.

And here is the bottom line: the president has day in and day out been looking for a path to fire Bob Mueller. That has been the end game and he knows that we are reaching a crucial time. Bob Mueller has gotten something like 12 guilty pleas to various kinds of financial crimes, money laundering, tax evasion. This is getting very close to what the president fears most, which is evidence of collusion.

So, you look at all the evidence, but certainly I don't see any reason that you can fire Rod Rosenstein for cause.

[08:25:02] So, we're going to be looking at the evidence.

BERMAN: If someone on your own staff, though, was suggesting taping you without your knowledge and trying to oust you from office, wouldn't that be cause? Wouldn't that be a reason you wouldn't want them in your office anymore?

WYDEN: Well, first of all, the Rosenstein facts are in dispute. It is not clear that he did that and there is people debating whether it happened, whether it was sarcasm.

With respect to my own office, I know my staff folks pretty well. They would never go there.

BERMAN: All right, Senator Wyden. And I have to say, at this point our reporting is it is more likely than not that Rod Rosenstein sticks around, at least until the election. So, perhaps it is a moot point.

Let me ask you about what we're going to see tomorrow on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You are not on that committee, but I'm pretty sure you will be watching. The Senator Republicans have decided to bring in a prosecutor from Arizona to do the questioning on their behalf, Rachel Mitchell.

What do you think of that decision?

WYDEN: I think it is pretty odd that you would have senators outsourcing their constitutional obligation. It's the constitutional obligation of the United States senator to do vigorous oversight and obviously the Republican senators don't want to be part of it. They know that on our side, we have women who are seasoned prosecutors like Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris, and they have decided that they don't want to be seen as males.

But I think that once again this shows that the process can be stacked against the whole idea of a credible and fair process on Fox. Mr. Kavanaugh said that people might have had too many beers on occasion. Well, there sure is a lot of evidence, starting with the fact that his own college roommate said that he came in often belligerent and angry and drinking.

So there is a credible evidence here, credible individuals which deserve a credible process.

BERMAN: Right.

WYDEN: And, by the way, if they decide to have this vote on Friday, and they're going to do it right now, what that, to me, sends is a clear statement to American women that their voices don't really matter, that the evidence doesn't matter. They're just going to jam this through.

BERMAN: Just a couple things. Check Grassley says he is scheduled to vote. If there is any possibility that that vote would take place. He says he could delay it passed Friday morning if the events of tomorrow merit that. Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

And number two, on the issue of having outside counsel, there is a precedent here. I mean, it happened in Iran Contra, all through the '50s and '60s and '70s, in other hearings.

And Ron Klain, who was part of the Clarence Thomas hearings on the Democratic side said getting outside counsel would be good for both sides. He said outside counsel with experience in sexual harassment and assault with particular skill in examining witnesses and developing factual records should be employed to pose questions at the hearings. One for the Republicans and one for the Democrats.

So, it's not without precedent. There are people who have argued on both sides. It could make some sense.

WYDEN: But what is going on here, as I understand it, is that the senators are really going to take a backseat to an outsider. And there is an awful lot of secrecy. We found out late last night who it was going to be.

I've been involved in important hearings before. I have never considered essentially outsourcing my responsibilities for all practical purposes on major issues to an outsider, and I think they're doing it for, you know, a reason is that they know that the picture people are going to see tomorrow, four women, seasoned lawyers on our side, Senator Feinstein is not a lawyer, but seasoned prosecutors, paints a very unfavorable picture for them and they're trying to play catch up ball.

BERMAN: All right. Senator Ron Wyden, thanks so much for being with us. Appreciate your time.

WYDEN: Thanks for having me. BERMAN: Erica?

HILL: Bill Cosby is waking up in prison this morning. So, how do the woman who accused him of sexual assault feel about his sentence, about this image of Bill Cosby in handcuffs? You'll hear directly from two women who testified at his trial. They're with us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)