Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

FBI Begins Investigation into Sexual Assault Allegations against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired October 01, 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: That's it. Any other question is moving the goalposts. How do you see it?

ANITA MCBRIDE, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH: Here is one question I have to this to, too. Given the fact that I, myself, have been through a number of FBI background investigations, dating back to the early '80s when I first went to work in the White House, and a lot of information like this that is very invasive about your character, even as a child growing up, everywhere that you lived, your neighbors, your friends, your classmates, your schoolmates, how if there was any allegations or even any hint of any excessive drinking as an issue, separate and apart from any sexual assault, although that would be in there, too, how none of that in six background investigations, through all the people that you interview would ever have come up before. And so it really stumps me, too. And it makes me think, what is the integrity of the process if none of that was discovered before now?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: I think a lot of people have that question, Anita. I think that's an excellent question. And maybe until Christine Blasey Ford's revelation came forward it didn't seem relevant. OK, excessive drinking in high school, OK, excessive drinking in college. Sadly that is part of our culture. We now know how just how stark it is. But suddenly when there's this claim, now the drinking does seem to be part and parcel of that.

And so Joe, you know how these things work, when the White House gives a scope of what they want the investigation to follow, can it follow other leads or is it going to be limited to this narrow scope about Christine Blasey Ford and Debbie Ramirez?

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It will be limited because what we found from the beginning is there is some things that they don't want us all to know. This have decided at every point in this process in rushing this through is the overall story doesn't hold up.

CAMEROTA: Who is "they"?

LOCKHART: The White House. Senator Republicans, the Kavanaugh team. I think if you go back now a week or 10 days, the FOX News interview was a disaster for Kavanaugh because it set up this picture that they couldn't then deliver on. He set up this image of an altar boy who had never made a mistake, who worked hard and all of this. And now we find that those things aren't true. And going to Anita's point, I'm sure the FBI found, in talking to

people, I've been through an FBI background check, that he liked to drink in high school or he liked to drink in college. That wasn't particularly relevant until the sexual assault came out. And I think the big news from last night from Senator Flake is they have set up this idea now that if he didn't tell the truth -- not if he committed perjury. If he misled the committee and didn't tell the truth, Flake is on the record as saying he won't vote for him.

BERMAN: But the part of that that I would like to know more, does Jeff Flake want them to go investigate whether or not he told the truth? I'm not sure -- Jeffrey, I've going to give this to you because you are the world's leading expert on Jeff Flake. I'm not sure that that's what Jeff Flake asked for this investigation in the sexual assault charges, and there seems to be a separation at least in some people's minds about investigating that versus investigating whether or not all of his testimony was truthful before the Senate.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is ambiguous at this point because you could say based on how they announced it at the time, that it is just an investigation of the sexual assault allegations. However, I think any reasonable investigator would say that the drinking issues are relevant to the sexual assault investigations. So I think if the FBI is trying to preserve its reputation as a thorough, effective law enforcement organization, they will do more investigating rather than less.

Another fact to keep in mind here is what will be the product of this investigation? It will probably just be a group of 302s, which are these reports of the interviews of various people. But no conclusions about who is telling the truth --

CAMEROTA: But then who synthesizes all of that?

TOOBIN: Presumably the senators who have to vote. This is very likely be a documented dump of undigested material which, again, may work in Brett Kavanaugh's favor where the senators who are on the fence throw it up and say well, we didn't learn anything we didn't know.

BERMAN: Anita, you've been trying to jump in.

MCBRIDE: Actually two points, I think, add to what Mr. Toobin just said. Brett Kavanaugh said that in that very heated exchange on Thursday that the FBI investigation now is very likely inconclusive. But I think there's one other point that really has bothered me through this whole thing. And you're right, 100 people on that Senate now have to look themselves in the eye, in the mirror, and know that they're doing the right thing.

[08:05:00] One of the most important right things was not done in July, when that letter got to Senator Feinstein. I wish she had gone to the chair of the Judiciary Committee and say I have something very damning and concerning here, and we have to have this looked into, because now it really looks like the whole process was polluted and corrupted, and nobody feels good about it, and everybody is traumatized, including the whole country and these two people.

CAMEROTA: I hear you, Anita. And I think in an ideal world that would have been great. But Christine Blasey Ford didn't want it to be made public to anybody except Dianne Feinstein's office.

MCBRIDE: And look at it now. There has to be some protected way in the Senate in that Judiciary Committee between the chair and the ranking to bring that information to his attention then, and not in the public way that it became now, because everybody is hurt by this.

TOOBIN: It's really heartwarming to hear all these Republicans talking about the integrity of the process and whether Dianne Feinstein did the right thing and the timing. I didn't hear a lot of concerns about the integrity of the process when Merrick Garland didn't get a hearing for a year.

MCBRIDE: That's unfair to me. I have a long history in this town of being fair. I've been on this network and other networks that are not necessarily friendly to Republicans being fair about the process. I care about it. I spent a lot of years in it. And Washington is a fair-weather friend town. And you know that. People peel away when things are tough.

TOOBIN: Yes, but when I hear Lindsey Graham screaming and yelling about how outrageous Dianne Feinstein was and how unfair --

MCBRIDE: I don't think she's outrageous. I just think that was a mistake. She's a good senator.

TOOBIN: It's a minor issue in the larger context here.

LOCKHART: This all comes down to politics, as it always does.

MCBRIDE: It does.

LOCKHART: There are 51 Republican senators looking for a reason to vote for this -- for Brett Kavanaugh because he will be a conservative voice on the court.

MCBRIDE: And I would say no job is worth losing your reputation.

LOCKHART: And the question is, the political question is, can they stand, can they look in the mirror, as Anita said, and can I put this guy on that has now misled the Senate committee, who did not show judicial temperament, who is accused, and credibly accused of sexual assault, and this whole investigation has been searching for that narrow path where they can say OK, I can still vote for this guy.

CAMEROTA: But when you say misled the Senate committee, on what point?

LOCKHART: Number of points. They seem trivial unless you put it in context. All the stuff about the yearbook. Give me a break. People look at Urban Dictionary. He knew what those things meant. I didn't drink and I didn't drink --

CAMEROTA: He said he loves beer.

LOCKHART: He loves beer.

CAMEROTA: He said he didn't drink to excess or have any blackouts.

LOCKHART: And now we find out that isn't true. Again, if you strip all of this away, it's a purely political question of can I survive in my state or can I not? And the longer this goes on, the harder it gets for senators.

BERMAN: I will say -- I'm going to do something odd here. I'm going to inject "Saturday Night Live" into this discussion. And we've been talking about this all morning. Alisyn is inclined to watch it as a comedy show. I look at it for signs of something greater, because obviously Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin had an important political and cultural --

CAMEROTA: Look at Sean Spicer. I think that of course these things seep into the political discussion.

BERMAN: So I want to look at what they did Saturday night with this hearing and talk about what it might mean for the next several decades for Brett Kavanaugh and others here. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge Kavanaugh, would you say in high school that you were a frequent drinker?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like beer. OK? I like beer. Boys like beer. Girls like beer. I like beer. I like beer!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. So I asked if you drank in high school and you said I like beer 10 times.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That leads me to the next question, did you ever drink too many beers?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mean was I cool? Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So, Anita, let me ask you this, because I think what that shows us is what cut through. Granted, it's what cut through from the writers of "Saturday Night Live," but they have the finger on the pulse I think of America at large here. And if that's what cut through in last week's hearing, what does that mean?

MCBRIDE: I tell you, honestly, it is an indictment of all kids in high school and the terrible problem that we have across the country, not just this community of Washington, D.C., which is now that particular high school is under the microscope and scrutiny. It's sadly no different than a lot of others.

[08:10:00] And I'm not talking about Brett specifically now. I'm talking to your point about the national consciousness raising that we have about high school behavior and underage drinking. And it's what we tell all our kids. Your actions have consequences. And anything in it -- you may wind up never being believed even if you are innocent of the charge.

TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas, 27 years ago, all the evidence that has come out in subsequent years shows that Anita Hill told the truth. And you know what they call Clarence Thomas? Justice Thomas. And they've called him that for 27 years. And so what? Just get confirmed. That's all that matters. Overturn Roe v Wade. Let gay people not be admitted to certain bakeries and other stores. That's why Brett Kavanaugh was nominated. That's what he's going to do on the Supreme Court. And if he's embarrassed for a few days, so what?

MCBRIDE: That's not the person I know.

TOOBIN: We'll see.

LOCKHART: I don't think the cultural significance of this is high school drinking. The cultural significance, long term, is women now being empowered to talk about the sexual assault that they -- and that's what's going to come out of this. I agree with Jeffrey, there's politics to drive him through. But this debate going forward is going to be about first women coming forward and then men having to take responsibility for their actions.

TOOBIN: But what if just women continue losing, as they do all the time? What's the salutary message there? What's the message to the professor?

CAMEROTA: Blasey Ford?

TOOBIN: Yes, Professor Blasey Ford? It's like, oh, well, too bad, the hell with yer.

MCBRIDE: No, no, no, her courage, and I think the terrifying silence that women have faced for years, that has been broken. We're at a period of massive social and national change, and it's painful and it's traumatic, but I'm very optimistic that it's going to move forward for women and for the country, as painful as this is. And I think her coverage is not to be diminished.

TOOBIN: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. After all this, Brett Kavanaugh gets confirmed and you're going to take an optimistic message out of women's empowerment out of all that?

MCBRIDE: Yes, of course, because look at the national dialogue we are having. And let's remember something. He says he's innocent. We don't have any conclusions on that yet. So to be fair. I'm optimistic about our country, as painful as this is, and we've gone through painful periods in our country before. She took a courageous stand. Other women are taking a courageous stand, regardless of what comes of this vote on the Supreme Court or not.

LOCKHART: But that's what the 100 senators face this morning.

MCBRIDE: They do, a really tough question.

LOCKHART: And this is what the Republican Party faces.

MCBRIDE: Believe me, I'm a member of it. I know that.

LOCKHART: The Republican Party could lose women for a generation.

MCBRIDE: They won't lose me. I'm going to fight for them to be a better party.

LOCKHART: The bigger point is that they could lose women for a generation for exactly what Jeffrey was just talking about, which is we have raised this issue. Women have come out, and they go forward --

CAMEROTA: Guys, we've got to go. You've always raised wonderful points.

MCBRIDE: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Anita, thank you very much. Anita is right, this is a watershed moment that women have come forward and talk. And you're right, it's important to -- I hear you, that there's a frustrating feeling about all of this. But, yes, it is true that the taboo is being broken and women are coming forward and being believed. And I think that is important.

And by the way, it is also a teachable moment for all of our kids about excessive drinking in high school, and college, and sexual assault.

MCBRIDE: Thank you.

TOOBIN: I am honored to be around so many optimists.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMEROTA: Thank you.

BERMAN: There is much more to discuss this morning. President Trump made shocking comments about a brutal dictator. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He wrote me beautiful letters. And they're great letters. We fell in love.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: We fell in love. CAMEROTA: Yes, we did.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:00]

MAURA FITZGERALD, TRUMP SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SUPPORTER: In, both, public and private, Brett treated me and everyone I know with respect.

LAURA COX KAPLAN, TRUMP SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SUPPORTER: I am so proud that Brett has worked to foster an environment in his office that empowers and supports young women lawyers as they embark on their careers.

JENNIFER SCOTT, TRUMP SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SUPPORTER: He's been a mentor and a friend. He's humble, he's fair. He serves his community.

CATHY MARTIN, TRUMP SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SUPPORTER: Brett has the moral compass, integrity, and humility that I hope my two young sons grow up to have. I am here today because I stand with Brett.

MEGHAN MCCALEB, TRUMP SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SUPPORTER: Those of us who know Brett best, now and back in high school, know he's a man of honor, integrity, and compassion.

KAPLAN: I'm here as the friend of someone who is highly deserving of the position for which he has been nominated. Our country, simply, cannot do better.

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: All right. There were a lot of people who missed this because there were other things going on, but it is important. Listen to what President Trump said over the weekend about North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And, you know, the interesting thing? When I did it - and I was really being tough, and so was he. We would go back and forth, and then we fell in love, OK? No really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they're great letters. We fell in love.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Joining us now is Ian Bremmer, the President of the Eurasia Group, and author of Us Versus Them, The Failure of Globalism. And he's got a brand new show, GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. It airs nationwide on public television starting Friday. Congratulations on...

IAN BREMMER, PRESIDENT, EURASIA GROP: Thank you very much.

BERMAN: ...that. Now, I want to ask about what the President said about Kim Jong-un and I want people to know - and if they've been paying attention to our conversations with you over the last few months, you know, you think it's - it's a mixed bag. Not all negative, a lot positive, about what President Trump has been able to with North Korea over the last year. That's the context of where you come to on this.

But when a President of the United States says of a dictator like Kim Jong-un, and that's what he is, we're having a love affair. It's a love affair, that's what it is. Are those appropriate comments?

BREMMER: Well, I think it's platonic, firstly (ph).

BERMAN: It's a platonic love affair.

BREMMER: Yes. I mean, otherwise, the visuals are hard, right? But if I think about, like, is it good that we are saying of the world's, you know, sort of, most abusive and brutal dictator, that we can have this kind of jokey, friendly, offhand, kind of, comments. No, obviously it means that we know - we didn't need this to tell us that Trump doesn't prioritize human rights and international relations.

But this, obviously, shows that it doesn't matter what you do at home. And he said that in his United Nations speech as well. I do not care about domestic affairs. It's sovereignty, it's not interference.

It's what the Chinese have been saying for decades. Like, you don't pay attention to us at home? We're not paying attention to you at home. And North Korea, if Trump can get a deal, then, really, the internal nature of the regime is not relevant to that discussion.

BERMAN: But not caring about human rights, at all, is something that is a stark statement from a U.S. president. And I just - because President Trump often is looked at as something different that we've seen from past presidents, and he absolutely is. But what if President Obama had said this about Castro for instance, we're having a love affair?

BREMMER: Well, look, it'd be strange because Obama isn't given to that kind of statement.

[08:20:00]

No drama Obama - sort of well spoken and reserved. Trump would not say he doesn't care about human rights; he cares about human rights when he can use it as a shtick (ph) to abuse countries he doesn't like the leaders of.

So certainly we've seen that with Maduro (ph) and Venezuela. We've seen it with the supreme leader and with President Rouhani in Iran, but in North Korea where he likes the guy, it's irrelevant. Duterte, Philippines, he likes the guy - it's irrelevant. Putin, Russia, it's like well, hey we kill people too, so if the Russians kill people.

So I think it's that transactional nature that it just doesn't matter if it's not in service of the deal and that's what makes the Trump administration so different compared to the Trump Presidency - so different, I should say, not just the administration than other Presidents.

BERMAN: All right, so how does this help and what is the status of the current deal with North Korea?

BREMMER: Well its interesting, I heard that - last week I spoke with Iranians, I spoke with the Chinese, and they both told me that the reason why Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans had - were so abrasive toward Secretary of State, Pompeo, which ended up canceling the second trip he was planning to make is because they believed - Kim believed that Trump had promised him there was going to be a peace agreement between the U.S. and North Korea that actually normalized diplomatic relations.

When Kim Jong Un met with Pompeo the first time, Pompeo said absolutely not, not on the table, so in other words, you can get a promise from Trump but it doesn't go anywhere. So their view is they want another meeting with Trump directly, so they can work with the guy they think they have a good relationship with and certainly, Trump last week made it very clear - Yes, that's what I want to do.

BERMAN: The guy that they think made them the promise that this is going to happen.

BREMMER: Absolutely, and the funny thing is, Trump may well be - I mean the North Korean's may well be credible on this issue and I'm not one to say that the North Korean's are credible on most issues, right?

BERMAN: All right. Another huge development overnight and we should know - President Trump is going to some kind of - not news conference, but public statement at 11 o'clock today on this new trade agreement. He's calling it - I think, the USMCA, no longer NAFTA.

BREMMER: USMCA.

BERMAN: Yes, USMCA. A new trade deal with Canada and Mexico got Canada sign on basically to the revisions of NAFTA. The practical significance versus the political significance.

BREMMER: The practical significance is more than marginal; it's not an entirely new deal. Trump detractors will say they spent all this time and got nothing, that's not quite true. We have significantly improved environmental regulations, significantly advanced modernized intellectual property regulations.

There is more American access to the Canadian dairy market that was a big sticking (ph) point; there are other issues as well, so it's not as if he's just slapping a new name on an old deal. It's still going to take some time to get through Congress and the U.S. has to be approved in Canada and Mexico too, but it is meaningful. And its particularly meaningful because if you now look at a very strong meeting with the Japanese, Shinzo Abe last week where Trump said - OK, we're not going to hit you with new automotive tariffs, instead we're going to start working on some formal trade negotiations.

The Europeans, a few weeks ago you and I and Alisyn had spoken about how they came to a modus operandi in negotiations there. Now NAFTA, already better talks with the South Koreans, the Brazilians, the Argentines, in other words, everyone but China, and that's a much better position for Trump to be in because the Chinese are the ones most people agree we actually have much broader ranging and real challenges in terms of our trade.

BERMAN: Of course whenever you begin a sentence or a phrase, everyone but China - what comes to my mind is TPP.

BREMMER: Absolutely.

BERMAN: Which was a whole global agreement meant to be everyone but China.

BREMMER: That's right. I mean Obama's big failure was that he tried hard to get TPP done and he ran out of time and he couldn't actually get Congress to agree and then Trumps first major trade initiative when he become President is to rip it up. Now if Trump really wanted to be in a good position with the China, now on the back of a new post-NAFTA deal, he should say - Now I'm going to go and negotiate TPP.

BERMAN: All right. The President who likes to make deals, he got one overnight. We'll hear from him at 11 o'clock today.

Ian Bremmer, great to have you with us. Thanks very much. Ali (ph) ... ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN, ANCHOR: OK, FBI agents are questionings witnesses in the Brett Kavanaugh investigation. Does the investigation go far enough? Two former FBI agents with their take.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:00]

CAMEROTA: FBI agents investigating allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but they are not expected to question Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford. CNN has learned though that they did speak Sunday with another Kavanaugh accuser, that's Debbie Ramirez.

So, joining us now is former FBI Assistant Director and CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst, Tom Fuentes and Josh Campbell, former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and CNN Law Enforcement Analyst. Great to have both of you, and all of your vast experience here with us.

Tom, let me start with you. Would you want to interview, if you were still an FBI agent, Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford?

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I think first of all, Alison, what I would say is, we can't go by the reports of who they're going to talk to or not talk to or the scope.

We've heard the reporting from the White House, from Senate officials, from others, of what that scope's going to be, but that changes all the time and it may not be accurate. So, I would not rule out that those interviews are going take place.

Normally, in a situation like this, those would probably be the last interviews you do. You would want to interview other witnesses first, if you have a list of witnesses to go after.

So, I don't put a lot of credence in what we're hearing in the reporting of how big the scope -- you know, we heard right away, Friday, the scope is going to extremely limited and only concern the allegations made by Ford and now we hear that, last night, the FBI talked to Ramirez. So, we don't know exactly what the scope is going to be at this point.

CAMEROTA: And that's fair. And Debbie Ramirez, just to remind everybody, she's the person who was a Yale classmate who says that when she was intoxicated at a party he exposed himself and forced her to actually make contact with his body part.

[08:30:00]