Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

New Allegations against Kavanaugh; Flake Speaks on Senate Floor; Senate To Proceed with Hearings. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 26, 2018 - 13:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:00:08] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.

We begin with breaking news.

Truly explosive new allegations against the U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. They're being made by Julie Swetnick, now the third woman to come forward and accuse the nominee of either sexual assault or inappropriate misconduct. In a signed declaration, sworn at the same time, Swetnick now says she partied more than 10 times with Kavanaugh back in the early 1980s, when they were both in high school in the D.C. area. Swetnick says she witnessed Kavanaugh being excessively drunk and forcing himself on women. She also makes other very disturbing allegations that CNN has not been able to corroborate. These claims are now being reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Swetnick is being represented by Michael Avenatti, the same attorney representing Stormy Daniels. President Trump latching on to that detail and reacting just moments ago with this tweet. Avenatti is a third-rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is just looking for attention and doesn't want people to look at his past record and relationship. A total low life, close quote.

Meanwhile, the White House released a separate statement, from Judge Kavanaugh, about these latest allegations from this third woman. The statement saying, quote, this is ridiculous and from the twilight zones. I don't know who this is, and this never happened, close quote.

Let's go to CNN's Sara Sidner. She's been pouring through all the documents, the sworn statement that was just released by this third woman.

Sara, walk us through Swetnick's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

SARA SIDNER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There are many allegations not only Judge Kavanaugh, who is obviously a Supreme Court nominee and what everybody is focused on, but also his friend Mark Judge.

Let me go through where she begins. She talks about basically having gone to ten house parties in the Washington, D.C., area between 1981 and 1983. She says both Mark Judge and Mr. Kavanaugh were present. She says, I would describe them as joined at the hip. She says those parties were a common occurrence in the area and occurred nearly every weekend during the school year.

On numerous occasions, she writes, at these parties I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking no for an answer. This conduct including the fondling and grabbing of girls without their concert.

She goes on to describe some of that in her claims. And she has sworn -- this is a sworn statement. She has written it as a sworn statement. And it has gone on to the Judiciary Committee, and the Judiciary Committee has said they have received it and they are looking at it.

Here's what she says. I observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at many of these parties and engage in abuse and physically aggressive behavior towards girls, including pressing girls against them without their consent, grinding against girls and attempting to removing or shift girls' clothing to expose private body parts. I likewise observed him to be verbally abusive towards girls by making crude sexual comments to them that were designed to demine, humiliate, and embarrass them. I often witnessed Brett Kavanaugh speak in a demeaning manner about girls in general, as well as specific girls by name. I also witnessed Brett Kavanaugh behave as a mean drunk on many of these parties.

Now, you have heard -- you've mentioned Brett Kavanaugh has denied even knowing her, saying that this is from the twilight zone. Mark Judge has also said that he denies all of these allegations that have been made. But she has called Brett Kavanaugh an absolute liar that is telling falsehoods because of the interview that he recently did, saying that, you know, he was an innocent while in, you know, in high school, a very innocent person. She says that is just absolutely not what she observed.

BLITZER: Sara, what do we know about this third woman, Julie Swetnick?

SIDNER: She has a very interesting work history. She has clearances. She has worked for the U.S. Department of Treasury, the U.S. Mint, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Defense, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State. She put all those things in there to show that she is a woman of substance and she has something to lose.

You know, many victims you talk to, in scenarios such as this where it's high profile, they are often demeaned and treated as, you know, less than. And so this is clearly an attempt of her to say, look, I am someone who has something to lose. I am putting these forward. I absolutely stand by it.

[13:05:05] And I spoke to her attorney, Michael Avenatti. He says, look, we want an immediate FBI investigation. She is willing to sit down with investigations. She is also willing to sit and be questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says also she is considering whether or not to file something with police in Maryland.

Wolf.

BLITZER: We -- I just want to point out to our viewers that Brett Kavanaugh's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, is going to be joining us here on the set in a few minutes. We're going to get her reaction, speaking on behalf of her client, Judge Kavanaugh.

But I know you're getting some additional reaction from Mark Judge, this friend, this -- that this woman alleges was deeply involved with Brett Kavanaugh at the time when they were still in high school.

Tell us a little bit more about Mark Judge.

SIDNER: Look, she says in her accusation, in her declaration to the Judiciary Committee, that they were joined at the hip. And she mentions him in conjunction with Mr. Kavanaugh all the way through her declaration. And the two of them -- accusing them both multiple times of many different things.

There is -- there are a couple of other far more egregious and extreme details that she has put in there that CNN is currently trying to vet. But she says there are two other people that can corroborate her story. Mark Judge himself though has said absolutely not, has denied these allegations outright, as have Mr. Kavanaugh.

So we are in a situation now where we're looking into some of these details. There is certainly more to come. A lot of talk, though, about Mr. Kavanaugh being a, quote, mean drunk, is how she puts it inside of her declaration.

Wolf.

BLITZER: A sworn -- sworn declaration, though, we should point out as well.

SIDNER: Yes.

BLITZER: All right, Sara, I know you're working your sources. We'll get back to you. Thanks very much.

I want to get some perspective right now from our own experts.

Joining us, our CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero and Laura Coates, our CNN political analyst, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, and our chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

Gloria, first there was Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Then there was Deborah Ramirez. Now there's Julie Swetnick. Not one woman, not two women, but three women have come forward now with really awful accusations against the Supreme Court nominee.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, and the White House is denying this as being somewhere in the twilight zone, and this isn't a -- you know they -- their -- you know, Republican senators like Orrin Hatch are kind of dismissing this as out of hand. And I think, you know, the question that has to be raised now, is, can you have a hearing where this isn't a part of the hearing? That this isn't, you know, you have -- you have Professor Ford, and we understand that, and that's important to do, but now you have these other allegations. And the question is whether this is going to be regarded as completely incomplete.

And we know that Senator Grassley has said, you know, he wanted a vote in committee as early as Friday. That -- this seems to me to be, as these charges come in, at least give these women a chance to testify, and they want to testify, and then go have a vote. But it seems quite incomplete to me without these other women.

BLITZER: Yes, and the chairman, Chairman Grassley, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Julie, says he wants to go ahead with this hearing tomorrow, and presumably a 9:30 a.m. vote in the committee on Friday, setting the stage for a final Senate vote as early as next week.

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. I mean they're in a precarious position here because Senator Grassley has said he wants to continue on with this hearing, even in light of these new accusations. He wants to have the vote on Friday.

Initially, the White House was really hanging back and saying, this is a Senate process. Senator Grassley is going to determine this. But in the week or so of going back and forth with Christine Blasey Ford and her legal team, there was a sense -- the president had a real sense of frustrations that he felt like Democrats and some of these accusers were coming out of the woodwork in sort of what he -- we now have heard him publicly say is a con game, and that the senators, the Republican senators were really getting rolled. So there is a lot of pressure on them to just get this done in the way that the president already has said publically he wanted them to a couple of weeks ago. He would rather just disregard all of this and go on.

But the question is the votes. If they have the votes to go forward without more vetting of these accusations, I have very little doubt that they will do so. But it's a big question whether Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, some of these other senators who have been more on the fence, will allow that to happen.

BORGER: Yes, and Flake is supposed to speak on the floor of the Senate shortly after 1:00 this afternoon. So we may know more.

BLITZER: Yes, about 1:15. In two minutes.

BORGER: We may know more.

BLITZER: We'll see what -- and he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: The Arizona senator, Jeff Flake, who's retiring, he's leaving the Senate. He's not up for re-election. You know, all of us have now, Carrie, we've gone through this document

that Julie Swetnick, the third woman, has put forward and she declares at the end, I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

[13:10:05] So this is a sworn statement she's making. And it's got incredibly awful allegations against the Supreme Court nominee.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It does. I mean they're very serious allegations. This is now the third set of allegations. And so they need to be taken seriously.

I really think it's a mistake for the Judiciary Committee to go through with the hearing that they're supposed to have tomorrow. Senate Republicans aren't asking my advice, but if they were, I would be telling them that they should take a pause before going though. It's going to be a real circus and it's going to be unsatisfying for all sides because it's not going to take into account these new allegations. There are only women on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are only six women Republicans on the Senate.

BLITZER: No Republican women.

CORDERO: No Republican women.

BLITZER: Yes. There are four Democrat members of this Judiciary Committee who are women. `

CORDERO: Right. Thank you., There are no Republican women on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are only six Republican women in the Senate all together. And the Senate majority is saying that they are going to bring in some outside female prosecutor to do the questioning. In other words, they don't even feel confident to do the job themselves.

So I think it's a problem to go through tomorrow. I think it will be -- reflect poorly on the process. And from an institutional perspective, they really need to be taking account how all of this is affecting the integrity of the Supreme Court, because if someone is rushed to a nomination before allegations are heard, there really is going to be a persistent asterisk over that person's name, even if he were to be confirmed and have the votes.

BLITZER: How do you see it, Laura?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, and, yet, Clarence Thomas has to have that asterisks for 27 years and they haven't seemed to mind on the Republican side.

But I have to look at this from the notion of, how would I look at this third allegation, this third accuser, from a -- in a court of law. I know we're in a court of politics at this point and public opinion. But I didn't see in the allegations and in the sworn statement what the exact role that Brett Kavanaugh played in any form what they call trains or of sexual conquests or rapes of women or the drugging of women at this particular time. And for that I have to take notice because she's talking about his character as a drinker and trying to undermine this particular idea that he was trying to put forth, not only in his confirmation process, but also in the Fox News interview about why he was the consummate altar boy. And she's trying to attack that particular statement. But in a court of law, I couldn't very well present evidence that because you are engaged in drinking, you have committed a sexual assault. If I could have bridged that gap so easily for people that I knew to be sexual predators, my job would have been a lot easier. But this actually is trying to undermine him as being a duplicitous person and call into question whether anything he's had to say in his talks with Senator Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar or any number of senators whether that call is adding to questions.

So this is a little bit of a precarious situation for people looking at it from a criminal perspective of how this would bolster the credibility of her and also would undermine his own.

But (INAUDIBLE), you're absolutely right, Carrie, this is why you need more time. And I remind people, in '91, Anita Hill had about almost three weeks between the investigation concluding and when she testified.

BORGER: Right.

COATES: You're getting less process with more allegations.

BORGER: Right. And there's an election, you know, there's an election 41 days away. But I was noting in, to your point, in Judge Kavanaugh's statement, that in his statement, he does say, I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now.

So this is new for him, I think, because if you look at the Fox interview, he was sort of like, this is ridiculous. I was -- it sounds more like a choir boy than he did in his opening statement. I think there's been a little change in strategy here.

BLITZER: Well, we're going to discuss that. His attorney, Beth Wilkinson, is going to be joining us live here.

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: We'll discuss that a lot more.

We're also standing by to hear from Senator Jeff Flake, the Republican senator from Arizona. He's about to make an important statement on the Senate floor. He's a member of the Judiciary Committee. Remember, there are 51 Republicans, 49 Democrats, if the Republicans lose two and no Democrats vote to confirm, this is all over for Judge Kavanaugh. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:26] SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: Extraordinarily important testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will testify in that order. Two human beings. It feels a bit odd in this political setting to specify their humanity. But we need to. And I admit it feels strange to have to do that. But we, in this political culture, and in this city, and in this building, even in this chamber, we seem to sometimes forget that before this woman and this man are anything else, they are human beings.

We sometimes seem intent on stripping people of their humanity so that we might more easily denigrator or defame them or put them through the grinder that our politics requires. We seem sometimes even to enjoy it.

For the past two weeks, we've certainly seen that happen to both of these human beings, for whatever reason, because we think that we are right and they are wrong, because we think that our ideological struggle is more important than their humanity, because we are so practiced in dehumanizing people that we have also dehumanized ourselves. Whatever else they are, or have become to us, whatever grotesque caricature we have made of them or ourselves, before we are Democrats or Republicans, before we are even Americans, we are human beings. As President Kennedy said, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future, we are all mortal.

And so these witnesses who will testify in a very important hearing tomorrow, these unwitting combatants in an undeclared war, these people are not props for us to make our political points, nor are they to be demolished like Anita Hill, as was said on conservative media the other night. Nor is one of them a proven sex criminal, as has been circulating on the left side of the Internet. These are human beings with families and children, people who love them, and people whom they love and live for. And each is suffering through a very ugly process that we have created.

[13:20:00] I will not review the unseemly process that brought us to this point, because that is for another time. And in any case, it didn't start with this particular nomination. But here we are.

There was an earlier case 27 years ago from which you might have thought we would have learned something. But the past couple of weeks makes it clear that we haven't learned much at all. Consistently, there have been cries from both sides of this proceeding that each of the witnesses has fallen victim to character assassination. Both of these claims are absolutely correct. And so I will say to these witnesses, these human beings, we owe you both a sincere apology.

An apology is inadequate, of course, but it's a start. We can't very well undo the damage that has been done. But we can govern our own behavior as we go through this painful hearing tomorrow and in the days afterwards. We must do that, les we do even more damage.

Some of the public comments about both of these witnesses have been vile. Not unrelated to these comments, each of these witnesses have reportedly been subject to death threats. And for that we should be ashamed. The toxic political culture that has -- we have created has infected everything and we have done little to stop it. In fact, we have only indulged it, fanned the flames, taken partisan advantage at every turn, deepened the ugly divisions that exist in our country.

These past two years, we have tested the limits of how low we can go. And my colleagues, I say to you that winning at all costs is too high a cost. We cannot have a human rather than a political -- if we cannot have a human rather than a political response to these witnesses, if we are heedless to the capacity that we have to do real and lasting damage, then we shouldn't be here.

When Dr. Ford came forward, I felt strongly that her voice needed to be heard. That's why I informed Chairman Grassley that the Judiciary Committee could not and should not proceed to a vote until she had an opportunity to make her voice heard. Until such time as her claims were fully aired and carefully considered and her credibility gauged. This is a lifetime appointment. And this is said to be a deliberative body. In the interest of due diligence and fairness, it seemed to me to be the only thing to do.

Not everyone felt this way. One man somewhere in the country called my office in Arizona and left a message saying that he was tired of me interrupting my president. And for that offense, of allowing Dr. Ford to be heard, for this offense, me and my family would be taken out. I mention this with reluctance, but only to say that we have lit a match, my colleagues. The question is, do we appreciate how close the powder keg is?

Tomorrow we will have a hearing. Many members of this body from both parties have already made up their minds on the record in advance of the hearing. They will presumably hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. One is tempted to ask, why even bother having a hearing? I do not know how I will assess the credibility of these witnesses, these human beings, on the grave matters that will be testified to, because I have not yet heard a word of their testimony. And because I am not psychic, I am not gifted with clairvoyance, given these limitations, I'll have to listen to the testimony before I make up my mind about the testimony.

What I do know is that I don't believe that Dr. Ford is part of some vast conspiracy from start to finish to smear Judge Kavanaugh as has been alleged by some on the right. And I do know that I do not believe that Judge Kavanaugh is some kind of serial sexual predator, as some have alleged on the left.

I must also say that separate and apart from this nominations and the facts that pertain to it, I do not believe that the claim of sexual assault is invalid because a 15-year-old girl didn't properly report the assault to authorities, as the president of the United States said just two days ago. How uninformed and uncaring do we have to be to say things like that, much less believe them? Do we have any idea what kind of message that sends, especially to young women? How many times do we have to marginalize and ignore women before we learn that important lesson?

[13:25:07] And now, if I must say a word or two about the human beings first on the Judiciary Committee, and then in the full Senate, who will have to weigh the testimony that we will hear tomorrow, and to come to some kind of decision on this nomination. The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination on Friday. I hope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote.

But those of us on the committee have to be prepared for the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. In legal terms, the outcome might not be dispositive. While we can only vote yes or no, I hope that we in this body will acknowledge that we don't have all the answers. We are imperfect humans. We will make imperfect decisions.

This monumental decision will no doubt fit that description. Up or down, yes or no, however this vote goes, I'm confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt. This doubt is the only thing of which I am confident about this process.

I say to all of my colleagues. For this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. We must listen. We must do our best. Seek the truth in good faith. That is our only duty.

Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor.

BLITZER: Senator Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican, speaking emotionally about the dilemma he and his colleagues will be facing on this vote, if there is a vote, a final vote on Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court.

There are major developments unfolding. Jeff Flake calling this a toxic political culture, saying he owes both -- that all of the senators owe both of these witnesses tomorrow an apology.

Sunlen Serfaty is our congressional correspondent.

Sunlen, I take it that the Republican leadership are still going ahead, at least planning on going ahead, with this hearing tomorrow morning?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, they certainly are, Wolf, in the face of this third allegation here against Brett Kavanaugh. The Senate chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, just told us a few minutes ago that yes indeed the hearing scheduled for Thursday morning is still a go. He said that it would be a disservice. We don't want to disadvantage Dr. Ford from doing what she offered a long time ago. And he said point blank that tomorrow is a very important day, and he feels that he has a responsibility to continue on with that committee hearing.

And I asked him, though, about this -- these new allegations and if his committee is indeed looking into it and here's how he responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Like we have done so many times, since "The Washington Post" story and Dr. Ford's name came out, we have had accusation after accusation and accusation. Very few of them, or if any, corroborated. Our lawyers, if we can make the context, get on it right away. So obviously with this one, we have a contact and our lawyers are on it right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: So that's Grassley there saying that his lawyers are indeed looking into the Julie Swetnick accusations. And we know that she gave a sworn statement to the Judiciary Committee by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. And it's interesting to note here that Republicans up here on Capitol Hill, in responding to the new round of allegations, they're picking up specifically on her lawyer, on Michael Avenatti.

We just got a statement from Lindsey Graham and basically he says that Michael Avenatti is engaging in a character assassination and noting that he's a lawyer of porn stars, which has brought us, in his words, to a new low. He says, quote, I have a difficult time believing any person would continue to go according to the affidavit ten parties over a two-year period where women were routinely gang raped and not reported. I also find it curious these charges were not brought forward until 2018, two days before the confirmation votes. Why would any reasonable person continue to hang around people like this? Why would any person continue to put their friends and themselves in danger? Isn't there some duty to warn others? This is outrageous, internally inconsistent and I hope that the U.S. Senate will see this for a smear campaign that it is.

[13:29:44] And I think it's notable, you played that live floor speech from Senator Jeff Flake, who is a key, undecided vote here. He sits on the Judiciary Committee as a Republican. I thought it was most interesting that he says he still hasn't made up his mind, of course. He will wait and listen to this testimony. But I thought it interesting that he said what I do know is that I don't believe that Dr. Ford is part of a smear campaign.