Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Yale Roommate: Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath About Drinking; Protestors Head to D.C. to Protest Kavanaugh Confirmation. Aired 6- 6:30a ET

Aired October 04, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

[05:58:56] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Thursday, October 4, 6 a.m. here in New York. And we do start with breaking news, because moments ago, the FBI's report on Brett Kavanaugh is now in the hands of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And two hours from now, senators will begin reading this highly-anticipated report and its findings.

The White House confirming overnight it also has received this report. "The Wall Street Journal" reports that administration officials say there is no corroboration of Christine Blasey Ford's allegations in it. So one major question this morning is how thorough was the FBI's probe?

"The Washington Post" reports the scope was significantly curtailed by the White House despite President Trump publicly claiming otherwise. The paper says FBI agents were prevented from looking into Kavanaugh's past alcohol use and whether he lied to Congress about his drinking habits.

Before the report even arrived on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started the clock on the confirmation vote. The key procedural vote will happen Friday, a final vote on Saturday. This even as new people are coming forward, saying they never heard from the FBI. People who believe they have crucial information about Brett Kavanaugh.

One of the most relevant is Jamie Roche, a college roommate of Kavanaugh's who now says he is 100 percent certain that Kavanaugh lied under oath to the Senate. This was Roche overnight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMIE ROCHE, BRETT KAVANAUGH'S COLLEGE ROOMMATE: This was a time, not long after "Animal House" was shown, and people drank a lot. He went to parties and drank beer. Many people did. But there were even, within that environment, people who were -- who were loud drunks, who were sloppy drunks, who were belligerent drunks.

But even by those standards, my memory of Brett was that he was -- he was on the far edge of this. He was notably heavier in his drinking than other people.

It was an awful long time ago, and I can't say he was drunk on this date or not. But I can tell you that my recollection of my experience with him was that he was drunk frequently, and that it wasn't drunk to the point of having trouble getting up every month or two. It was frequently. I would say with some confidence it was at least once, maybe twice on the weekends. Maybe even during the week.

JOHN BERMAN, CO-HOST: So the important thing there that Roche also said was that Kavanaugh lied under oath about never having blacked out or failing to remember things after he was drinking. And he lied under oath, Roche said, about certain terms that Roche said he heard Kavanaugh use.

CAMEROTA: The sexually suggestive terms?

BERMAN: I'll say it, devil's triangle and boof. He testified under oath about those terms to the Senate. And Jamie Roche said Brett Kavanaugh is lying about that. We're going to talk to James Roche live later in NEW DAY.

So let's bring in CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson; CNN senior political analyst John Avlon and former FBI supervisory special agent and CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell.

Josh, I want to start with you. We have a witness. We have Jamie Roche there saying that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath to the U.S. Senate, which is a crime.

He was never talked to by the FBI. We've been told that the truthfulness of Kavanaugh's testimony was not something FBI could look into, nor his drinking habits. So, as "The Washington Post" asks, is this a sham investigation?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: So that interview last night, I think, was a game changer today in the sense that I don't know if it's going to change any votes on the Hill, but for the American people to sit there and hear someone say directly to -- on camera on national television, that the statements that were made by the judge were not consistent with the truth and even going so far as to say, no, these were lies.

This is someone who sat there and was asked very serious questions and lied about his past. And it takes it back to the larger issue we've been talking about all week. And that is not about his actions and his drinking in the past. It's about standing here today and lying about them, according to someone who knew him well. That will set the stage today. We'll see if it actually impacts anything.

I think that, you know, there have been a lot of us in law enforcement circles, in political circles, media circles that have looked at this very skeptically. And as you say, you know, was there a fix that was in? Was this always going to be the case that people were going to vote for him, no matter what? I think we'll see today, because it appears as though, no matter what type of -- what piece of information comes forward, it doesn't seem to change anything. This thing continues down the tracks. The clock is thinking, and we'll see if any of this impacts it.

CAMEROTA: Josh, one more question. Debby Ramirez. She's the woman who says that, at Yale, she was intoxicated. Brett Kavanaugh was intoxicated. He exposed himself to her close, in her face, that she actually had to make contact with his body to push him away.

She told the -- she was interviewed by the FBI. She told the FBI that she had people who could corroborate her account. They didn't interview those people.

In the course of the normal background investigation, which you are so familiar with, would they have interviewed those people or at some point, do you just say, "OK, I think we have enough information. We hear your testimony. We can't just go on endless fishing expedition."

Why would they have made that choice in this case, which is about sexual assault?

CAMPBELL: So you hit on it. There's no federal nexus here or federal statute or federal crime. So it's not as though the FBI would open a criminal investigation.

But what is happening here, and I hope the viewers understand this, at the end of the day -- and, you know, this is my opinion based on some of the spin that I've seen. Is that you have politicians that are attempting to blur the lines between the FBI brand that's associated with criminal investigations and this very specific unique role that they play in background investigation, which as you say, it's not the same.

In a criminal investigation, the FBI can follow leads wherever they go. It's up to them. They will give the White House the Heisman and any politician who attempts to, you know, interfere with their investigation. This is different. The White House is the client for the FBI. The FBI will only go so far as the White House tells them.

Yes, the bureau can go to them and say, you know, "We want to look at X, Y and Z." But it comes down to the White House giving the green light in order to do that. That we don't know. We don't know the conversation so far. We're taking place with the FBI and the White House. That will all come out.

[06:05:10] The question is, will it be too late for some who look at this and say, if this information had come forward sooner, it would have been followed up on. Maybe this would have impacted, you know, the course of history.

BERMAN: So Nia, in two hours, senators will go into this closed room, the secure setting. First it will be Republicans, then Democrats, then Republicans, then Democrats. And they will look at this FBI report, and they will have to make a judgment.

We all have been saying the most important senators here are Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake. Maybe also Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin. When we look at this, do we know whether it will matter to them about

how thorough the FBI investigation was, or whether it will matter to them whether or not Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about these things that weren't exactly about the sexual assault?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's really unclear. We don't know, essentially, what they wanted out of this whole process. Was Susan Collins OK with this limited scope going in, or is she expecting something much more broad?

Will any of these folks be bothered by the fact that they didn't bring Kavanaugh back in? That they didn't bring Ford back in, that they didn't expand the scope beyond some of the questions and the limited parameters that were clearly, probably, set up first by the Senate and then by the White House. So we don't know.

I mean, this thing has had so many different twists and turns. You think about Flake and what he did, basically, a week ago with extending more time. You wonder if we're just basically back where we started, with these folks likely to back Kavanaugh. Or maybe they'll be in a different place once they read the report.

The other question is are they sort of bothered by the entire process? The fact that this isn't going to be a report, apparently, that's released to the public, that it isn't really a transparent process. So we'll have to see what they say. They're going to be weighing not only the evidence that the FBI presented and the testimony there, but obviously, what they're hearing back home.

CAMEROTA: John Avlon, I want to be clear. It's not just Jamie Roche who said this. There were other people who knew Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, who were roommates or close friends. I'm thinking of Chad Ludington, who was there for the bar fight, said that he was an aggressive drunk; he was belligerent. That was kind of Brett's schtick, he says.

And most importantly, the memory lapses. He couldn't remember things many times, according to Chad Ludington. So now we have more -- and there are other people, as well. So we have more than just Jamie Roche. And so if these senators do vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh, what's that say, that they are choosing to ignore the witnesses to his behavior, that this isn't important that your behavior in college that a sexual assault isn't important?

What's the message here?

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it would point to certain selective memory loss for a Senate vote, because they're going to ignore information that's inconvenient.

Questions of whether the judge did not tell the truth under oath, which go to the heart of the integrity of the court. Now, you know, as we discussed, the portrait of the would-be Supreme Court nominee as a college student and high school student is not terribly impressive. But being a frat boy idiot is not illegal or disqualifying. Lying, however, gets to the heart of what a judge is expected to do. Remember, this opens up because of questions of sexual misconduct and alleged sexual assault. This FBI investigation was supposed to be an off-ramp to try to cool things down, to try to get more information. And the president told us. This was going to be open. The FBI could pursue it wherever they wanted to. The only parameters were the weeklong time. A week hasn't gone -- been surpassed yet. And that statement by the president also appears to be not true.

BERMAN: Josh, is this bad for the FBI?

CAMPBELL: You know, I talked to a former colleague last night, who told me -- she said, "Look, we know what's coming our way." I mean, this is yet another example of the FBI that's been thrust into the middle of politics, essentially. And we see what happens when law enforcement and politics collide.

All we have to do is think back to 2016, you know, for one of the recent examples. But what she meant by that, she knows who's coming our way. Every oversight hearing from now, probably for the next year or two. I don't know.

Someone from the FBI is sitting in the seat at the House of Representatives or in the Senate are going to be asked about this. What happened? Abd what was the thought process? And here's the -- you know, the truth of the matters is the bureau, they're going to explain exactly what happened. They're going to talk about the mandate. They're going to talk about those discussions with the White House.

But again, when you're talking about a lifetime Supreme Court, you know, nomination, is it going to matter at that point? People are going to say, OK, yes, the bureau was thrust in the middle of this. Could you have done more? But once he's confirmed, none of this will really matter. And again, you have the bureau in the hot seat.

AVLON: I'd say, look, the larger game here, bigger than Brett Kavanaugh, bigger than any individual in the Senate who's going to be casting a vote, is how do we restore trust and integrity into our institutions. There will be votes who see Judge Kavanaugh, if he's on the court, with a cloud. There will be people who looked at this FBI investigation, and they were probably not open to whatever it found if it was exonerating of Judge -- Judge Kavanaugh. We don't know what they will find.

[06:10:08] There were other people who -- and they will look at the White House's control of this and say the fix is in. And there are other folks who are Judge Kavanaugh partisans who will say, "Look, this was all about simply rubber stamping the request you made from the ABA to get the FBI done. We've checked that box. Let's move on and get him on the court."

CAMEROTA: The problem is that the senators who have to make the decision won't have the full information. I mean, so according to Debbie Ramirez, will not be able to make the decision. Here's what she told "The New Yorker": "I am very alarmed. First that I was denied an FBI investigation for five days, and then, when one was granted, that it was given on a short time line and that people who were key to corroborating my story have not been contacted. I feel like I'm being silenced."

One of the people that she says could corroborate her story is a professor. That's the Princeton Theological Seminary. So it's Professor Appold -- I hope I'm saying that right, Appold. He says -- Appold said that he was 100 percent certain that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. That was during the time that was -- at present time, he remembers within 24 to 48 hours after the incident that she describes being told about it. So again, how can senators make the decision if they don't have the full information?

HENDERSON: And one of the thing you heard Murkowski say is that she would be taking into account the president said -- some of his mocking of the accuser, Dr. Ford, at that rally. Obviously, the FBI accounts, as well. And then you imagine that she knows about some of the press accounts that have come out, as well, over these last days.

I mean, that is sort of the "X" factor here. The FBI, obviously, has gone about what they wanted to do at the direction of the White House. But you've had reporters and witnesses and folks who can corroborate come forward over these last couple of days, as well. So perhaps this is something that, if you're Murkowski, you're going to take into account. You're going to have this fuller picture that's not just the FBI.

The other issue is do they take into the sort of entire portrait that Kavanaugh presented on last Thursday, which was someone who was quite partisan, someone who apparently believes that this was a Clinton hit job, which is this kind of conspiracy theory. I mean, is that the kind of temperament that they think is suitable for somebody to be on the Supreme Court for -- for three decades. Somebody who's really determining how people live and how people's daily lives are -- you know, go about over these next decades.

BERMAN: They have to make a choice. These senators have to make a choice. Are they going to compartmentalize and say, based on the testimony of these two people, there was no rock-solid proof.

CAMEROTA: Then what's the point of the FBI?

BERMAN: Judge Kavanaugh didn't sit up there and say, "You know, you're damn right I did. I ordered the Code Red." That didn't happen. I think anything short of that, people are going to say this is not an open and shut case. We need to confirm him. Collins, Murkowski could say we're not going to look at these other things. Took into account they weren't persuasive.

Just one more thing on the facts and investigations. Just so we can be crystal-clear on what's usual and not usual. Ford was not interviewed, Professor Ford not interviewed by the FBI, Josh. Brett Kavanaugh not interviewed again by the FBI, given this new information that's come to life. Is that unusual? CAMPBELL: Well, it's not unusual, but it's a huge factor here.

Again, you know, a background investigation, the White House sets the terms.

But here's the issue. We were doing some reporting for the last couple of days, talking to people familiar with the investigation. And one thing that they mentioned yesterday is just because the FBI hasn't interviewed Dr. Ford yet, doesn't mean they won't want to interview her in the future. And the way it was described was, look, in an investigation like this, it's not unusual to wait until you've gathered information.

BERMAN: There is no future.

CAMPBELL: You're right.

BERMAN: The report is done.

CAMPBELL: That is the -- but that's an issue.

CAMEROTA: That's an awfully dark outlook.

CAMPBELL: And that is -- that's the key point here, that again, the overarching issue is that, on one hand, you have an investigation. The way it should work out, is you gather evidence. You talk to witnesses, and again this is people who are very familiar with what's going on, the investigation saying, "Look, this is how it plays out, and you wait until the end to talk to a very key witness" once you've gathered all the facts. The problem is they've imposed this arbitrary deadline on top of this.

So they're basically constraining the bureau in doing the way that, you know, a typical one would be done. But again, it's not going to matter, because I don't think they're interested in what the facts say about what happened in the past.

BERMAN: Were they told they couldn't. Based on your conversations with people inside the FBI, were they told they couldn't talk to Professor Ford?

CAMPBELL: No, it's more nuanced to that. What the White House is saying is, look, you can do whatever you want. You have free reign with the caveat that you have to come back to us and ask for permission. But again, things take time. It takes time to talk to people, to corroborate information, to look at kind of --

CAMEROTA: But you don't know if the White House did not give permission for Christine Blasey Ford to be interviewed?

CAMPBELL: That's right. We don't have that reporting that they refused it, but again, none of it matters, because the clock is ticking, and the report's already gone over.

AVLON: Yes. And to John's point, once this is -- the vote is done, other information becomes entirely academic. I think many senators are going to go into that room, though, based on what they've already said privately and publicly, saying is these -- have these accusations been backed up.

[06:15:14] Because that, for them, will be the due process they keep in mind. On the issue of sexual assault allegations, have they been corroborated or not. If not, you must vote to confirm. That will be many folks' instincts. That will be the lens they use. It will be fascinating to see how Collins and Murkowski weigh the president's comments and the curtailment of the investigation.

BERMAN: It just so happens we're going to be speaking to a couple senators who will go into the room and take a look at the documents. So far we only have the White House accounts. They say that they think Kavanaugh will still get confirmed. They tell "The Wall Street Journal," you know, nothing in there corroborates the story for it.

But we don't know what Democrats make of the documents. And again, we're going to speak to Senator Chris Coons, he was one of the leaders of the bipartisan effort, along with Jeff Flake to get this investigation. And we're all going to speak to the No. 2 in the Senate, the Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, about the investigation. And as we mentioned, we're going to speak to Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate, Jamie Roche, who says he is 100 percent certain that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

CAMEROTA: I'm going to stick around for this show. OK, so in less than two hours, senators will get their first look at the Kavanaugh FBI probe. As we wait for details of what is in it. Protesters, meanwhile, who are opposed to Brett Kavanaugh, are already headed to Washington, D.C., on a bus from New York and elsewhere in the country. What do they hope to accomplish at this late date? We are live with a group of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:20:20] BERMAN: All right. A pivotal day. And happening now, protesters who oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court are making their way from New York City to Washington.

Our Athena Jones, she is on a bus with a group of theses protestors. Athena joins us live. You know, what are you seeing?

ATHENA JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I can't hear.

Hi, John, this is one of several buses full of protesters heading down from New York City and various cities down to Washington, D.C., to protest the confirmation of Kavanaugh. It's part of the Cancel Kavanaugh stop, I Believe Survivors protest.

Many events are taking place around the country. This particular bus, organized by the Women's March.

And once they get down to D.C., this group will be organizing with other women and men and survivors of sexual violence outside the federal courthouse, which is just a couple of blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The idea is to rally outside the courthouse where Judge Kavanaugh currently sits and then march to the one where he is hoping to ascend, the Supreme Court, of course. They want to do everything they can to keep that from happening. So

there will be a civil disobedience training at one point. Then they'll rally on the steps of the Supreme Court and end the day, speaking out on the steps of the Capitol.

One of the words we're hearing most as we talk to the folks on this bus about why they want to go down to D.C. and protest this is anger. One woman described it as an incandescent rage about how this whole confirmation process has played out and the message it sends to survivors of sexual violence.

They want to keep the pressure on this small group of undecided senators. In fact, I spoke to one woman from Maine who said she wants to get a chance to speak to Senator Collins and to tell her that this is a critical moment. The whole country is watching. Women are watching and that her vote isn't just about her decision, it's a decision that's going to affect generations, at least a generation of people.

Also calling on folks to call the offices of these senators -- John.

CAMEROTA: Athena, I'll take it. I appreciate that you're using your golf voice there. It's very early, obviously, for the protesters. They're still getting a little bit of rest before they go into action. Thank you very much for the report.

BERMAN: They don't even know Athena is talking, by the way. They're sitting there. They don't even know that a news report is going on.

CAMEROTA: That's how seamless she is.

So we're getting more details about how the Senate Judiciary Committee got their hands on the Kavanaugh report. So a committee source tells CNN that it came in a sealed box. It was just after 2:30 a.m. East Coast Time. The source also tells us it was delivered to a vault that already holds Kavanaugh's six other background investigation reports.

We're back by John Avlon, who's intrigued by all this. Nia-Malika Henderson and Josh Campbell.

John, I like these skullduggery aspect of the vault here, so a little more information. Grassley and Feinstein agreed yesterday that Republican and Democratic senators would each be allowed an equal time slots for briefings to go in and look at this. And the briefing for Republican senators is scheduled for 10 a.m. in the -- this area.

AVLON: Yes. So this is all going on. I will say things delivered in a sealed box at 2:30 in the morning and put in a vault is a category I would pick for "Jeopardy." Every time.

Look, this -- this is happening, and the question will be, how much credibility is the -- does the report seem to have based on whether -- all the folks they apparently didn't talk to? How much did the White House curtail it?

The problem is, is that the -- as you saw from Athena, even though everyone is very subdued in the early morning, Judge Kavanaugh is being used as an avatar for peoples' righteous fury, incandescent rage, one woman apparently said about sexual assault. Whether that's fair or not. And the senators will be looking at questions of due process. But this appointment, if it goes forward or if it doesn't, is going to almost invariably further polarize the country, and that's bad for the court.

BERMAN: There's been a lot of incandescence over the last ten days, because that was the word that was used to describe the mood of Brett Kavanaugh before his testimony. It turned out to be insufficient to describe, I think, the heat with which he was going to testify there.

Nia, one of the interesting things now, again, is you're getting this political argument outside the facts of this case? And one of the things we're hearing from conservatives is that Brett Kavanaugh is being held to a different standard.

Why all of a sudden does everyone care about drinking in college and substance use in college, when President Obama, we all know, admitted that he drabbled with substances before. He even wrote about it in his book. You know who's talking about this? Donald Trump Jr., let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP JR., SON OF DONALD TRUMP: I know that in this week in particular, you're not allowed to have a beer if you are a conservative. Now, if you're a liberal, you can do cocaine, and you can be the president, but that's OK. It's OK. We'll hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[06:25:08] BERMAN: The politics of victimhood. Donald Trump Jr. always the victim in his own mind.

CAMEROTA: But also, I mean, let's just be clear. If you're a Republican, you can have 15 or more allegations of sexual assault, of sexual harassment against you. He didn't mention that part of the double standard.

BERMAN: Is this a potent argument or why is that a potent argument to some voters?

HENDERSON: You know, it is a potent argument for Donald Trump's base? We obviously saw him use this argument, paint himself as a victim, as well, when he has -- he's been accused by multiple women of harassment and assault.

So yes, this is a potent note. And remember who Republicans are, right? They're older than the average -- than the population. They're whiter than the overall population, and they're more male, too.

So you hear this argument about the sort of different standard in conservatives being targeted, but you also hear this idea that somehow there's a war on men. Right?

Donald Trump Jr., who I think is pretty much on the same page as his father, this notion that he was more afraid for his sons who could be targeted, at least in his imagination, than his daughters.

This is going to be a potent argument for conservatives. It's something you obviously hear on FOX News, as well, that liberals are going after old white men, I think, was one of the chyrons on FOX News at some point.

BERMAN: It's getting -- it's like theme week. It's like a week's worth of coverage. It's not one chyron there.

CAMEROTA: Yes, yes.

AVLON: They move from Shark Week to that.

CAMEROTA: White Man Week.

But let me be clear to everybody. This is not about college drinking. This is not what is being debated. It is if, in college, you were described as an aggressive and belligerent drug with memory lapses, that is connected to the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, saying that that is the condition you were in when you sexually harassed -- sexually assaulted her.

So let's just be clear. Don Jr. has got it wrong. This is not an indictment of college drinking, though it could be. I mean, it should be, because we're having that conversation, as well. But this is about sexual assault, Josh.

CAMPBELL: That's right. And you know, we've long talked about the little lies and the big lies. So whether in life or law enforcement, if you're going to lie about something small, then you -- you know, many of us aren't going to trust you when it comes to some of the larger issues.

And that's the issue here, again. It's what is happening today. Today is going to be a very pivotal day. The next 36 hours are going to be crucial. Because we're going to move from an FBI investigation being turned over to the client and then to the Senate, and then a vote.

So what happens in the next 36 hours will be key. I hope folks stay glued to CNN throughout today, because we're going to start hearing what's in that report. I have no doubt, as the Senate reads it, we're going to start hearing the rumblings, good and bad.

CAMEROTA: There will be leaks, you're saying.

CAMPBELL: And this is important, because we talked about the vault, right, and the -- the van going over --

CAMEROTA: There's no vault strong enough.

CAMPBELL: One thing people have to understand is that the report didn't go from the FBI directly to the Senate. The White House knows what's in it. I have no doubt that the White House communications team right now, they're pouring through those reports. They're trying to figure out the good, the bad, the ugly and how they're going to respond to it.

BERMAN: Are you suggesting that's not a vault, the White House communications team? But it is interesting, John, in a way. And you could -- I know you want to get in here, but I'll make this point and then you can say whatever you want. That all the White House said to "The Wall Street Journal," is there's nothing in here to corroborate Ford's story. It didn't really go much beyond that. I do think that maybe, if they had had rock-solid statements, those might have leaked.

AVLON: Yes, and look, the best way of saying the evidence is in your favor is to release all the evidence. If it's not, you're usually trying to hide something, particularly with this crowd.

I will say, in the debate over Judge Kavanaugh and his fitness, where conservatives are saying, "We're moving into a different area," is not only the demonization, the extension of the politics of personal destruction that was termed -- coined during the Clinton investigation, which Kavanaugh was apparently part of, or was a part of as a member of the Starr Commission.

But the fact that we're not looking at his fitness in office in the -- through the lens of his jurisprudence. We're doing a deeper dive into different parts of his life, and that that is a new standard. And that is a new standard that both parties are going to have to live with.

And in addition to all the information about his college and high- school behavior that's come out, it will be interesting to see whether senators take into account that performance in the second round, where he not only came in hot --

BERMAN: Incandescent.

AVLON: Incandescent. Incandescent rage. But came in very partisan. And whether that will raise questions about judicial temperament and judicial independence, which are transcendent virtues for judges, having nothing to do with somebody's high school and college activities.

CAMEROTA: John, Josh, Nia, thank you very much.

So ahead on NEW DAY, we will talk about all of these developments concerning Brett Kavanaugh with the White House. We have the principle deputy press secretary, Raj Shah.

BERMAN: Remember, the White House has seen this document. Perhaps we'll get some more information about exactly what is in it.

CAMEROTA: Oh, we will.

BERMAN: OK. Growing tensions between the United States and a foreign adversary, and it's not Russia.