Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump Stands Behind Kavanaugh Before Today's Hearing; GOP Picks Sex Crimes Prosecutor to Question Kavanaugh & Ford. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 27, 2018 - 07:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ALISYN CAMEROTA CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. We are just three hours away from a historic hearing that could make or break Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination.

[07:00:53] Never before has a Supreme Court nominee faced the kind of allegations being made against Brett Kavanaugh. Professor Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh will be the only two witnesses testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford claims that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and held his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming. In her prepared remarks, she says she believed Kavanaugh was attempting to rape her and says it has had a lasting impact on her life. Brett Kavanaugh denied all these allegations calling them last-minute smears.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: There have been new allegations that surfaced overnight, two anonymous claims against Kavanaugh with no verifiable details.

Also, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee say they talked to two men who say they were the ones who assaulted Ford. Again, no verifiable details there. Then there's the accusation from Julie Swetnick who says that Kavanaugh was present when she was drugged and gang-raped.

She's represented by Michael Avenatti, and Alisyn spoke to him just a little while ago and pressed him on these claims, claims that Kavanaugh denies.

President Trump is standing behind his nomination calling the allegations a Democratic con job. Yet, at the same time, he claims he could be swayed by Professor Ford today and perhaps pull the nomination.

CAMEROTA: All right. Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley is now suing the Trump administration and his Republican colleagues in an effort to stop a Senate vote on Kavanaugh.

Senator Merkley joins us now. Good morning, Senator.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D), OREGON: Good morning, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. You've asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to block the vote on Judge Kavanaugh that is scheduled for tomorrow. Why are you doing this?

MERKLEY: We have an unprecedented situation in which the advice and consent responsibilities under the Constitution are being directly interfered with and substantially interfered with by the president. And this has, to our knowledge, never happened before.

CAMEROTA: How so? Can you just tell us how -- how you see this interference?

MERKLEY: Yes. So the founders envisioned that the president would nominate and that the Senate would review the record and decide if the individual was of fit character or unfit character. But that means to review their entire record.

In this case, on three different ways, the president's team has reached out to block the essential records that would enable the Senate to review the history and the views and the opinions and the record of Brett Kavanaugh.

CAMEROTA: So you don't feel that you've gotten enough documents? You're not alone. We've spoke to many of your Democratic colleagues who feel that the documents and e-mails, et cetera, from Brett Kavanaugh's time at the White House have been withheld and that those are relevant.

Now, tell me about the timing of your lawsuit yesterday, because you've known this for weeks that these documents were not going to be available to you.

MERKLEY: It's what we've seen as a mounting campaign of intervention by the president's team. And normally, the course of consideration is substantially longer. And in this case, it became so clear and evident that the president was doing something never done before in reaching out to compromise the independence of the Senate that I started to raise this issue. Has anyone ever seen this before?

Now, I'm not a lawyer myself so as I started to raise this issue and I found that other people were very concerned about this, and we started to put together if this was something that we should ask the court to intervene with to protect the integrity of the Senate's ability to exercise its advice and consent responsibility in the Constitution.

I mean, think about this. You take an oath of office. You say you're going to uphold the Constitution. You're supposed to review the record. And then the president, the executive violates the separation of powers, reaches out and prevents you from doing so.

CAMEROTA: But again, just --

MERKLEY: Someone should -- someone should call that out, and that's what I'm trying to do.

CAMEROTA: Just give me a little bit more color on this. Because you know, as the administration says, or even the person who was vetting these e-mails from the Bush administration says that some of this information is privileged and not relevant. So just explain to me again how it is --

MERKLEY: Sure.

CAMEROTA: -- that the president's team is actively, on three separate occasions, blocking you from getting information?

MERKLEY: Yes. Well, the first occasion was for the president's team to call in Republican senators and ask them to not request three years of records. That was the first occasion. While the individual, Kavanaugh served as staff secretary.

[07:05:06] The second occasion is an individual who has very close ties to the White House, was recruited by the White House to vet all of the records for when he served on the White House counsel.

And then he used a term that was presidential privilege to say these documents, I'm censoring them. I'm not allowing them to go. And he did this at the power and direction of the president of the United States. Not President Bush, President Trump.

And so this is what makes it so extraordinary. And normally, if you have executive power exercise, there is a review in which you layout exactly why this document is protected by executive privilege or presidential privilege. Nothing like that was done. So 100,000 documents were blocked from the Senate, because Trump intervened to block them. That's the extraordinary and unusual situation we've never seen before.

CAMEROTA: OK. So there have been many legal analysts who have already weighed in on this. There's a professor at the University of Virginia who says, quote, "This is either a publicity stunt or a desperate, 'hail Mary' attempt to get the courts involved."

The thinking is that the courts will not go along with your sort of last-ditch effort to try to stop this vote, so that means tomorrow that --

MERKLEY: Alisyn, this is untested ground, but here's why it's untested. No president has ever violated the separation of powers in this fashion.

I understand that, but I guess I'm saying, do you really think this is going to work in the next 24 hours? Do you think that this will prevent a vote by tomorrow?

MERKLEY: I think it's my responsibility to try to protect the Constitution and the responsibility I have to vet this nominee. I can't do that without the documents. My colleagues can't do that. And we need to send a -- think of the future in which a president nominates someone and then blocks all the records related to that individual.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

MERKLEY: That is -- that is essentially what we have here in terms of the critical documents being blocked.

CAMEROTA: I understand. Republicans --

MERKLEY: We've got to fight it. We've got to protect our Constitution.

CAMEROTA: Republicans say they are ready. They think that -- you heard the president. He feels this has dragged on too long, and Republicans say they are ready to vote tomorrow. So what do you think is going to happen with Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation?

MERKLEY: Well, I am hoping that some of my Republican colleagues say, as members of this institution, we have to defend it here, are individuals who have called for an FBI investigation. Brett Kavanaugh opposes it.

Here is a woman who took a lie detector test, but Kavanaugh won't take this one. Here is a woman who says, "Let me bring in the associated people who can share the testimony." The committee is blocking it.

This is worse treatment than Anita Hill got. In that case, the president immediately said new issues, the FBI is going to investigate. We'll get the facts. That's not happening now.

With Anita Hill, there were many, many people who came to testify and shed light on the situation. This committee is blocking that. They're turning this simply into "he said this, she said that. We don't know." Let's throw up on our hands and pretend that we're doing our job. They're not doing their job.

This committee hearing today is a farce. It is such inappropriate treatment of the -- Dr. Ford who has come forward. I am appalled and embarrassed by what is happening in the U.S. Senate right now.

CAMEROTA: Senator Jeff Merkley, thank you very much for sharing your perspective with us this morning.

MERKLEY: Thank you, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: John.

BERMAN: I want to bring in CNN White House correspondent, Abby Phillip, here with us in New York. Also joining us, CNN political director David Chalian; and CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, notwithstanding Senator Merkley.

This hearing is happening today. In fact, I think we have some live pictures from outside the hearing room. Let's put that up, just so we can get a sense. You can already see security milling about here.

There will be a smaller room than usual, which might paint a different picture than we've seen in these type of hearings. Again, a live look outside that hearing room.

David Chalian, before we get into the nitty-gritty and the back and forth here, on a scale of 1 to 10, what are we looking at in terms of the impact here, the historical resonance?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, I mean, in terms of American political history, I think we're at an eight or nine. I clearly remember sitting in my college dorm room watching the Anita Hill hearings in 1991. It's one of the political hearings in my life that wanted me to get into the business of covering of politics.

And I don't think we can sort of overstate it. You know what this seat on the Supreme Court means. This is -- this is the pivotal sweetened seat. This is about reshaping, in a more reliably conservative direction, the balance of the court for a generation to come.

So -- so you have very high stakes around what this means for impacting American families going forward. There's little doubt about that. And politically, what it means that it's happening so close to an election, Donald Trump's first sort of report card from the American people's coming up in just over five weeks. And you have this landing right in the middle of it.

I do think this is one of those moments that people will be studying in history classes long after you and I are gone from this earth.

[07:10:05] CAMEROTA: Abby, it's such a challenge about how senators are going to be able to make their decisions. Because they're not going to be able to have all the information. They're going to have two important stories, obviously: Kavanaugh's and Christine Blasey Ford's. But now there are other accusations. There are other witnesses. There are other people who have cropped up, and the Senate Republicans just have been determined not to hear them.

So I'm not sure how they're going to make their decision without a full plate of information.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this is really fascinating. I mean, I think this hearing is more of a wildcard today than it was 24 hours ago or even 48 hours ago.

Overnight we've learned so much more about what's been going on behind the scenes in the committee itself, which will come into play in this hearing, except that all of these other individuals who have been part of this conversation privately are not going to be testifying publicly.

So I think it's going to create a lot of uncertainty for both Kavanaugh and for Ford in terms of what kinds of questions they might get from the senators who are on this committee.

The White House is genuinely worried about this. I think they think that this hearing is something that they cannot control, which is true. And the reception that these individuals will get in terms of their credibility from these three moderate senators -- Flake, Collins and Murkowski -- is completely unknown.

I don't think that we can predict right at this moment where they are going to fall on this, because if Ford comes across as more credible, if there is a strong emotional showing, we could really be in uncharted territory; and they don't have much of a margin to lose anyone in terms of the final vote.

BERMAN: Really not at all. It's interesting. As you note, there will only be two witnesses here -- Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh -- and we have their prepared statements.

And Brett Kavanaugh, Jeffrey Toobin, has shifted, I would say, subtly from his interview with FOX News, where he was basically making the case, "I was the model student all through high school and college." Now he says, "I was flawed, but it doesn't matter."

Let me read you what he will say: "I spent most in my time in high schooling focused on academics, sports, church and service, but I was not perfect in those days, just as I'm not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends usually on the weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that's not why we are here today. What I've been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes."

He's a little bit more where Beth Wilkerson was with us yesterday, saying, "Yes, I'm not perfect, but I didn't do that."

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. That was my reaction to that statement. It showed the influence of Beth Wilkerson, his lawyer. And when Alisyn spoke to her yesterday, her -- her approach to this was, look, you know, he was a normal high school student. He did stupid things like all high school students did, but he certainly didn't do that, which is frankly a much more credible position than, you know, "All I did was, you know, do service projects, play football and go to church," which was the -- which was the -- the -- how he presented himself to FOX News, you know.

How -- whether that makes any difference today, you know, what will make any difference today, is really a mystery to me. I mean, how the undecided senators will make up their minds is just a fascinating and just unclear question to me.

CAMEROTA: Yes. I'm now getting credit for your great interviews, which I really like.

BERMAN: You know what? You inspire me.

TOOBIN: Oh, that's right, it was Berman who did that.

CAMEROTA: No, at times.

BERMAN: We dress alike. We look alike. Our interviews are a lot alike.

TOOBIN: Sorry. I thought -- it wasn't Chris Cuomo?

CAMEROTA: We're melding into all the same person in peoples' minds, which I think is --

TOOBIN: Sorry, Berman. You did a good job.

BERMAN: It's all right. Laura Coates, your analysis is terrific.

CAMEROTA: OK. There's -- there's -- oh, my gosh. OK. There's yet a new wrinkle, David Chalian. So you know Michael Avenatti was just on. He is representing a client named Julie Swetnick, who makes the most disturbing and stunning accusations against Brett Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge. I mean, they're truly shocking, the things, if she's to be believed, what she says she witnessed at these house parties that she attended in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in the D.C. area.

She -- we only knew of her because of the sworn statement that she gave to Michael Avenatti that he then sent to the Judiciary Committee, but now we actually do hear from her directly. She has just given an interview, it looks like, to Showtime, so here is this moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIE SWETNICK, BRETT KAVANAUGH ACCUSER: Brett Kavanaugh is going for a seat where he's going to have that seat on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life, and if he's going to have that seat legitimately, all of these things should be investigated. Because from what I experienced firsthand, I don't think he belongs on the Supreme Court.

And I just want the facts to come out, and I want it to be just. And I want the American people to have those facts and judge for themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[07:15:06] CAMEROTA: So look, all this is playing out, obviously, in the court of public opinion, but David Chalian, the senators have her sworn document filled with really vile accusations. I guess I should ask David, how much -- how much stock do you think that they are putting into that sworn statement that Michael Avenatti delivered?

CHALIAN: Well, it seems like, so we've had a few allegations come out after the initial allegation from Dr. Blasey Ford, and -- and that is now all going to be sort of walled off, at least in terms of today's witnesses.

I imagine that you might hear some of the Democratic senators try to bring up some of these other allegations that have come in. But it really is going to sort of hit a pause button on the cascading headlines one would imagine as we focus on this.

I thought it was really interesting in that clip you just played there, Alisyn, that Ms. Swetnick is taking a different approach than what Ford is in her statement, which is you just heard Julie Swetnick weigh in on the confirmation or whether or not Kavanaugh should be sitting on the Supreme Court.

Professor Ford makes clear in her opening statement, that's not her job here is to assess whether or not Brett Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court. Her job today is to tell the truth of her story. TOOBIN: But doesn't it tell you how little the Senate majority, the

Republicans, really want to examine the facts here when she's not even going to be interviewed, she's not going to give testimony, the FBI is not going to test the credibility of her statements?

Here's a woman with a security clearance on the surface, a respectable person who makes this extraordinarily detailed and terrible accusation, and the committee just does nothing? I mean, come on. It just shows that what a -- you know, this is -- this process is designed to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, not to investigate these allegations.

PHILLIP: But I would -- I also wouldn't be surprised if we saw Democrats kind of steer clear of these latest Avenatti allegations because of the environment in which they're being made. And the whole Republican argument right now is that this is politicized.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the hearing today, we saw that they felt like their strongest argument was focusing on what Ford has to say. And even what Deborah Ramirez had to say in "The New Yorker" article. I think they want to avoid the -- in some ways, the appearance of this sort of political pile-on.

And to some extent, these latest -- Swetnick's comments in the clip really don't help that effort at all from her perspective, that she's injected "I don't think he should be on the Supreme Court," into this conversation, which I think Democrats don't find to be helpful to the broader argument that these are serious allegations, regardless of politics.

BERMAN: Very quickly, Jeffrey.

TOOBIN: Just perhaps if, you know, a woman had been a victim of a gang rape in which the Supreme Court nominee participated, she might have a view on whether he should be on the Supreme Court. I don't think that necessarily disqualifies her story.

And all I'm saying is that the fact that her -- she's not even being investigated, not -- you know, adopting her view or adopting it, but they're just ignoring her and ignoring Ramirez seems to me indicative of what the real priorities are.

CHALIAN: And they're going to have to answer, I think, Jeffrey, why a different standard for those accusers than for Dr. Ford.

BERMAN: All right, guys. Stick around. We're going to have a lot more time to discuss this.

I do want to put up a live picture from inside the hearing room. You will see where the --

CAMEROTA: Riveting.

BERMAN: It is a small room. That is a small, intimate room. And I do wonder if the small size there will increase the feeling of pressure. You get a sense right there of where Christine Blasey Ford will be sitting, also Brett Kavanaugh later today. The lights, apparently, only work intermittently.

I do want to read one just quickly, what Dr. Ford has said in her prepared testimony: "It's not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court, but my responsibility is to tell the truth." That's what David Chalian was talking about.

CAMEROTA: And that's what we will see, theoretically, today.

CNN's special coverage of today's historic hearing begins at 10 a.m. Eastern. You can watch it live on CNN, and online at CNN.com.

BERMAN: Republicans on the Senate Judiciary panel, who are all men, they are bringing in a veteran sex crimes prosecutor to question Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. Who is Rachel Mitchell? What's she about? What is she like in the courtroom? We're going to face a friend of hers that has faced her in court, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:23:42] BERMAN: Live pictures from the Capitol. That is the room in Washington where, in just a few hours, an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor will question Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and also Christine Blasey Ford, who says she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh three decades ago.

Again, the woman doing the question on behalf of the Republicans is Rachel Mitchell. So who exactly is she?

Joining us now is Tracey Westerhausen, a criminal defense attorney in Arizona who has gone up against Andrea -- against Mitchell nearly three dozen times in three dozen cases and has been a close friend of hers for more than 20 years.

Tracey, thanks so much for being with us. What's Rachel Mitchell like in a courtroom?

TRACEY WESTERHAUSEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me, John.

BERMAN: It's great to have you. What is Rachel Mitchell like in a courtroom?

WESTERHAUSEN: Her reputation is that she is extremely prepared and methodical. She does not engage in courtroom histrionics. You'll never had, "I gotcha" moment where there's a big surprise. She will build her case very carefully and in layers.

BERMAN: One of the things I've heard you say is how she treats defendants. And we'll get to the distinction here, but from what you have seen and heard in Arizona, how is -- how does she treat the witnesses on the stand?

[07:25:08] WESTERHAUSEN: The most recent experience that I had with her, she actually even offered my client a cough drop when he had a coughing fit. So she pays attention. She's at ease, and if she -- if she can take somebody apart with the death of 1,000 cuts, that's what she'll do as opposed to being a stabber.

BERMAN: Now, let's talk about partisanship. You're a Democrat. She's a Republican. Do you think that comes into play at all when she is in a courtroom?

WESTERHAUSEN: Actually, Rachel and I, as long as we've known each other, we have never discussed politics. I did not know she was a registered Republican until there was an article in the paper this week. So I would say that political parties, anything like that, makes no difference to Rachel Mitchell.

BERMAN: This case is unique and different in so many ways than any case she's ever handled, but one of the things that's unique here is she's normally a prosecutor going after people accused of crimes.

Now inside this judiciary hearing today, it is Christine Blasey Ford, who is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her some years ago. Yet, your friend has been hired by, to an extent, the defense, right? She's been hired by the Republicans, who largely want to see Brett Kavanaugh confirmed. So do you think that will change her approach at all?

WESTERHAUSEN: Rachel's approach is to try and get to the truth, and I don't see why that should change now. The fact that she's going to be questioning Dr. Ford, who is a victim or an alleged victim, is highly unprecedented for Rachel, because she has a reputation as a keen victims' advocate.

BERMAN: That's interesting. So talk more about that. She's a keen victim's advocate. What's her history there?

WESTERHAUSEN: My goodness, John, she spends so much time traveling around the country, educating police officers and other people involved in the criminal justice system on how to treat victims. She advocates for legislation here in Arizona on behalf of victims, and that's really one of the things she's known almost equally well for as her prosecution.

BERMAN: So does that give you reassurance that she will treat Christine Blasey Ford fairly?

WESTERHAUSEN: Yes, absolutely it does. I can't think of anybody who would be better suited for this highly unusual situation.

BERMAN: Do you have any opinion on whether or not Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court?

WESTERHAUSEN: Well, as a lawyer, I have to recognize that he is extremely qualified, but also as a lawyer, I'm going to have to wait and hear what everybody has to say.

BERMAN: And what role do you think your friend will play in that? How will she treat Christine Blasey Ford, and you just said with great sensitivity there, versus Brett Kavanaugh? Do you think that she will press Judge Kavanaugh, as you have noted in the past, with the facts, with the evidence, with the preparation, with the potential of a death by 1,000 cuts that you outlined before?

WESTERHAUSEN: Well, I don't know that I would comment on what I think that Rachel's strategy is. Nobody has consulted with me about that, so John, I just have to rely on the Rachel Mitchell that I know, who is fair and nuanced.

BERMAN: Let me just play something that Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana said about what he expects to see or what he wants to see from your friend inside that courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: I'm not interested in seeing Ms. Mitchell go Catwoman on anybody. I want her to just -- we hired her because she has an extraordinary reputation for being able to ferret out the truth in allegations of sexual assault.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: I guess I won't begin to guess what Senator Kennedy meant by cat woman there. Do you care to take a stab at that?

WESTERHAUSEN: Well, I couldn't hear very well the end of his remarks, but what I did hear, I would agree with him. She is -- she is known for ferreting out of facts.

BERMAN: All right. Tracey Westerhausen thanks so much for telling us about your friend, Rachel Mitchell, who by your account is perhaps perfectly suited for the task in front of her today. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

WESTERHAUSEN: Thank you, John.

BERMAN: Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Really interesting.

BERMAN: Yes.

CAMEROTA: To hear from her, somebody who has gone up against her.

BERMAN: And also Rachel Mitchell's history as a victims' advocate. You know, she made the case that she is known more for that than anything else.

CAMEROTA: All right. Meanwhile, another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while both were students at Yale. Does the Senate Judiciary Committee want to hear from her? We find that out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)