Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

More Kavanaugh Allegations Emerge Ahead Of Hearing; Trump: Kavanaugh Allegations A Big, Fat Con Job; Republicans Are Adopting Trump's Tactics In Kavanaugh Battle; Ford and Kavanaugh to Testify in Senate Hearing; Senate Judiciary Committee Will Vote on Kavanaugh Nomination Following Ford Hearing; Trump's Meeting with Rosenstein Not on Schedule. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired September 26, 2018 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: This is CNN Tonight. I'm Don Lemon. It's 11:00 p.m. here on the East Coast, we are live with all the new developments for you this evening. And there is a lot to get to. We have a lot to talk about. Michael Avenatti is going to join us in just moments. I need to get you up to speed on everything that is happening, because there is so much happening. We are heading for a really, truly historic moment in Washington, D.C.

A Supreme Court nominee is set to testify about allegations of sexual misconduct along with one of his accusers, but no other witnesses will testify even though there was someone else allegedly in the room with them at the time. Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser will face the Senate Judiciary Committee and an outside counsel hired, because the Republicans on the committee, all men were, concerned about what it would look like if they questioned Ford about her allegation.

Ford's attorneys, they released the remarks she is expected to make tomorrow. In them she describes in detail what she says happened to her. This is just a portion. It's from where she describes the moment she was assaulted. OK? She said early in the evening, I went up to a narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the bathroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark, once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes.

I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help, but when I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. The last time he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Brett's assault on the drastically on me -- drastically altered my

life. Kavanaugh denies ever encountering Ford, but when he was asked by the committee if he ever had a sexual encounter with a student of Holton Arms, the school Ford attended he said in newly released transcripts I do not believe so, but I'd like to think about to make sure that I'm being fully accurate, but I do not believe so as I sit here right now. I know I never had sexual intercourse.

In just the past few days, we have learned that Ford is not alone in her allegations. There is Deborah Ramirez a classmate of Kavanaugh at Yale alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her.

And tonight, CNN has learning that Senators questioned Kavanaugh about two anonymous allegations they received. Kavanaugh denied both allegations to the Judiciary Committee. But there's yet another accuser. And she is not staying anonymous. D.C. resident, Julie Swetnick, represented by Michael Avenatti. She is out with a statement where she swears under oath she was a victim of a gang rape. She doesn't identify Kavanaugh as an attacker, but says Kavanaugh was present at the party where she says she was drugged and raped. She claims she saw Kavanaugh act aggressively toward women including pressing girls against him without their consent.

Kavanaugh denies all of it. Sources tells CNN, Swetnick's allegations unnerved Senator Susan Collins. She is one of the key swing votes. Her decision on Kavanaugh could make or break his confirmation.

So a lot is at stake for this President so much so that for the first time ever, he attacked Swetnick's attorney Michael Avenatti on Twitter and on camera. The president didn't mention Avenatti by name when Stormy Daniels was in the news or when his personal attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty and implicated him in the crime of paying off Stormy Daniels during the election, but now this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: All of a sudden, the hearings are over. And the rumors start coming out. And then you have this other con artist, Avenatti come out with another beauty today. Her lawyer is a low life.

[23:05:00] OK? So I can't tell you whether or not they're lies. I don't know about today's person that came forward. I do know about the lawyer. And you don't get much worse, bad reputation to take a look at his past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: Michael Avenatti joins me now. Good evening, Michael. What did you think of that?

MICHAEL AVENATTI, STORMY DANIEL'S ATTORNEY: Don, you know, it's laughable. I mean, let me get this straight. So the first rate lawyer would be the lawyer that Donald Trump hired for 10 to 12 years, Michael Cohen. That legal genius. That would be the guy that just pled guilty to the multiple felonies including felonies involving Donald Trump. I mean, evidently that is what Donald Trump thinks is a first rate lawyer. If that is what a first rate lawyer is, I'm happy to be a third rate lawyer.

I'll also add that, you know, that this third rate low life lawyer has been kicking his butt and his lawyer's butt for seven months, not a single thing that I have predicted was going to come true has been proven false. Numerous predictions I've made have come true, not a single accusation that I have made, I haven't delivered on. So you know, again, I think the President has zero credibility. Especially when it comes to his opinion of lawyers.

LEMON: Let me ask you, because there's a lot I want to get to. I've got to ask you about your latest client and the newest, one of the newest accusers. OK? Politico is reporting tonight Michael that your client Julie Swetnick had a restraining order filed against her by her former boyfriend. This was back in 2001. It was eventually dismissed, 13 days later. That boyfriend said that she has no credibility. That was a quote from him in that article. Did this come in your vetting and if not, why not?

AVENATTI: Well, first of all, Don, I haven't seen this alleged restraining order. I'm not aware of any restraining order. I spoke to my client. My understanding is there never was a restraining order. And in fact, I asked Politico when they called me for comment for a copy of the alleged restraining order. And they don't even have it. So, I don't know how they can possibly report from a journalistic standards perspective that there was a restraining order. We are going to pull the entire file and we are going to find out if there was one. I'm not aware of one.

But regardless, what is a restraining order back in 2001 have to do with these allegations? My client is according to her claims a sexual assault victim. Now we're going to start digging into the past of sexual assault victims? As it relates to her boyfriend's accusations? You know, a lot of us have had former boyfriends and girlfriends, you know, very often they don't have nice things to say about us. That is why they're ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends. So I'm not surprised that some ex-boyfriend spoke poorly about my client.

LEMON: OK. So let's talk more about this. Multiple times during his press conference, the President downplayed the allegations because of how long they took place, right? How long ago they took place. Here's one moment. Watch this Michael.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Whether it was a man or a woman, 30 years ago, 36 years ago, in fact, they don't even know how many years ago, because nobody knows what the time is. That is a long time. I could pick as an example hopefully I won't have to do it as a replacement, because hopefully this is going to go very well on Thursday. It's going to go very well on Monday or Saturday or Sunday or whenever they vote, but I could pick a woman. And she could have charges made from many years ago also.

(END VIDEO CLIP) LEMON: Why did your client come out now, Michael?

AVENATTI: My client came out, because she wants the truth known and she was very disturbed by the fact that people were casting aspersions relating to Dr. Ford and the believability of her allegations. And also many of the denials of Brett Kavanaugh which are just simply unbelievable, Don.

This interview that he gave to Fox news two nights ago, I mean, it was laughable. How stupid does he and Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell and others think the American people are? You can't reconcile that yearbook of his with the statements that he gave on Fox News about all he cared about was basketball, being a good student, and caring about boys and girls. The only thing he left out was helping little old ladies across the street and bringing a shiny red apple for every teacher that he had during high school. I mean, it was an absolute joke.

LEMON: Swetnick alleged that she witnessed Kavanaugh grabbing girls without their consent and she says there are two witness who can attest to that. Who are they? Are we going to hear from them?

AVENATTI: Well, I mean, I'm hopeful that they are going to agree to come public. And you are going to hear from them and there's multiple additional witnesses that can attest to the other conduct set forth in the declaration. I mean, there's a number of allegations made. Look at "The New Yorker" piece by Jane Maier and Ronan Farrow that came out over the weekend. That -- those statements within that piece seem to corroborate my client's declaration.

[23:10:08] Look at the statement that you just had on the screen. From Dr. Ford and what she described taking place in that room. That seems to be a pattern and practice, a pattern of conduct by Brett Kavanaugh. We had not seen that statement. I didn't even know that statement existed prior to the declaration being submitted.

LEMON: But your client is making some really heavy and damaging charges here. She is alleging that she was raped herself and Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were present when she was raped. Is there any evidence of that?

AVENATTI: Don, I think that there will be evidence of that. Let me just be really clear about something, OK? This is the first step in a multistep process. We want the FBI involved. We want my client interviewed by the FBI, we want to provide all the witnesses to the FBI. We want Mark Judge interviewed by the FBI. We want Brett Kavanaugh interviewed by the FBI. We want all of the other accusers interviewed by the FBI. When people are lying, they generally do not want to sit down with an FBI agent and discuss what happened. They don't want to lie to the FBI, because you can be prosecuted for a crime for doing that.

LEMON: Michael, have you contacted the FBI?

AVENATTI: No, but I'm going to explain that in a minute. Who doesn't want to be interviewed by the FBI? Brett Kavanaugh, does not want to be interviewed. Mark Judge doesn't want to be interviewed, Donald Trump doesn't want Brett Kavanaugh interviewed nor do the Senate Republicans want Brett Kavanaugh interviewed by the FBI.

Now, why haven't we contacted the FBI? Because the FBI doesn't have any jurisdiction from a criminal perspective over the allegations at issue, but they could investigate if the Senate Republicans on the committee and Donald Trump requested it. Why won't they involve the FBI? The FBI solves and investigates the most heinous crimes on U.S. soil. Why don't they want the FBI involved?

LEMON: So, I understand you were sent a list of FBI field offices. Have you contacted the FBI or will you contact the FBI?

AVENATTI: Don, we're not going to contact the FBI, because the FBI doesn't have any jurisdiction over this from the criminal aspects of it relating to what happened at these parties. That would be a state of Maryland jurisdictional issue. The FBI will only get involved in investigating this if Donald Trump asks for it or if the Senate Judiciary Committee asks the FBI to get involved. Those are the only parties that can ask the FBI to get involved.

And we don't understand why they won't ask the FBI to get involved. We're begging for the FBI to be asked to get involved. My client has agreed to take a polygraph examination provided that Brett Kavanaugh will. My client will undergo eight hours of cross-examination by Brett Kavanaugh's attorney provided that I am given the same opportunity with Brett Kavanaugh. I mean, we are the ones that are asking for the inquiry. We are the ones that wanting to put my client under oath. And yet the people on the other side, they are the ones who want to hide the truth and the facts and the evidence from the American people.

LEMON: Let me ask you, what do you say to people who are questioning why your client would even go to these parties?

AVENATTI: Why she would go to the parties?

LEMON: Why would she go to these parties where this alleged behavior was happening, go as many times as she apparently -- I think it was like 10 times.

AVENATTI: Well, she -- I think she said approximately 10 times. I think, it may have been ultimately been more than 10 times. She knew they were spiking the punch. She would go, she would avoid drinking the punch. She did not know at that time until she was ultimately gang raped exactly what was going on in all of these back bedrooms when she saw these people lined up. I mean, she wasn't out there investigating what was going on in these back bedrooms. There were a lot of people at these parties. You know, other people say, well, the ages don't match. I mean, why was she at these parties? Look, these parties have --

LEMON: Why was she at the parties they are asking because she was in college, but does that even matter why she was at these parties?

AVENATTI: No, I don't think it does. I mean, when is the last time you went to a party? What, everybody was your age when you went to a party. Of course not, it's ludicrous, it's ridiculous. People in general at these parties ranged anywhere from 16 to 21 or 22 years of age.

They were local college students, they were college students that were home on vacation. There were high school students. There were brothers who had older sisters and vice versa. I mean, it's like any other party where there's age range that occurs, but look, we're willing to put my client's credibility up against Brett Kavanaugh's credibility and Mark Judge's credibility any day of the week.

And I'm going to keep saying this, Don. Why haven't we heard from Mark Judge? This guy is at the center of all of these allegations. He was joined at the hip with Brett Kavanaugh. This is supposedly one of Brett Kavanaugh's closest friends. Why are they trying to hide him? Why are they trying to bury him? Why don't they want the American people to hear his testimony? I could assure you if it was positive, if was it going to be a good thing, we would have heard from him.

[23:20:03] They would have trotted him out in a whole dog and pony show for a photo op during the hearing. But instead they put him in a safe house and they hide him away from people so no one can get to him.

LEMON: Michael Avenatti, appreciate your time. Thank you.

AVENATTI: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: When we come back. Sources telling CNN that President Trump was none too pleased with the way Brett Kavanaugh was defending himself. Is that why the president took the gloves off in his no holds barred news conference today?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So the president is coming out swinging tonight against the women accusing his Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault and misconduct. He says the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh are all part of a con job.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: These are all false, to me, these are false accusations in certain cases and certain cases even the media agrees with that. Why did they wait so long?

[23:20:00] Why did Senator Feinstein wait till the hearings were over and make this case? 36 years. No charge, no nothing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But that happens often.

TRUMP: People are going to have to make a decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP) LEMON: The President on the attack for more than an hour, but was

that a smart strategy on the eve of a potentially make or break moment for his Supreme Court nominee? Let's discuss. CNN Political Analyst, Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Brian Karem are here. Also, Julie is a White House reporter for "The New York Times" and Brian is the executive editor of Sentinel Papers. Also Annie Linskey, she is the chief national correspondent for the Boston Globe.

Good evening, it is so good to have all of you on. Julie, I am going to start with you, multiple sources have told CNN that the President was dissatisfied with the way Kavanaugh defended himself especially in the interview. He wanted him to take charge. Is that what the President did today?

JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think that was part of what he was trying to do. Not only was he dissatisfied with Brett Kavanaugh's performance in the that Fox interview, but I think he is been generally displeased with the approach that Senate Republicans have taken here privately, he was saying and we heard him say it publicly yesterday that he really felt that you know, they had let this go on too long and they should have had this vote long ago. They should have just kind a pushed past these allegations and gone ahead with it.

I mean, we heard today more about why that is, because he clearly doesn't put much stock in any of these accusations. And even though he said that these women deserve to be heard, you could hear him, you know, being at the conclusion that there wasn't much to their stories and that they were false allegations. So, I think he was really trying to grab control of the narrative and he feels has gotten away from him. And we heard him refer several times to we have to win. You know, if we win tomorrow and he really does sees this in those terms.

BRIAN KAREM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That is true.

LEMON: Brian, I mean, what to do you think -- I mean, Kavanaugh -- he tried to take a page, he did, from the Trump playbook, with this Fox News interview, but it didn't work.

KAREM: No.

LEMON: Does the Trump show no weakness attack strategy only work if you are Donald Trump?

KAREM: Well, apparently it doesn't work for Donald Trump either. I mean, there were two things. First of all, I could have gone my entire life, Don and never heard when Brett Kavanaugh lost his virginity and I would have led a fine life without ever knowing that. So that was a very disturbing interview on that level. And then Donald Trump today, it was disturbing, because there were several disturbing moments, but at the end when Steve Portnoy from CBS news says, what do you tell young men?

At that point in time, the President of the United States could have healed a lot of wounds, could have save a lot of poor feelings if he had just said respect women. And he didn't. Instead he tried to defend Kavanaugh again. So that entire one hour and 23-minute diatribe came across even at the end as merely a very (inaudible) attack against the women who have accused Kavanaugh of something very nasty and a very horrible way of defending him by continuing to cast as (inaudible) on those who have been abused.

That is not the way to do it. And I think April Ryan said something earlier about that that where is the presumption of innocence for the women, but where is the presumption of treating women with respect? This President has shown no sign of empathy for those who have suffered. And so, that is disturbing on many levels. I don't think it works.

LEMON: I was waiting for the answer that you were talking about you know, I thought that was a great question. What sort of message does it send?

KAREM: It was a great question.

LEMON: But he never answered the question. Annie, to your piece now in the Boston Globe. And t's titled "Republicans are adopting Trump's tactics in Kavanaugh battle." And you write in part, you said there was a time these tactics made the Republican establishment both nauseous and nervous. But in another sign of how Trump has taken over of the GOP, he and Republicans have ripped up the rules for a high court confirmation and adopted Trump's battle tested hyper combative ways for the Kavanaugh fight. Is this strategy all about winning at all costs to apiece the bases?

ANNIE LINSKEY, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, BOSTON GLOBE: I mean, that is certainly why it has been looking like. I mean, it's been hard for me to understand why exactly the Republicans haven't just pull this nomination. I mean, this is such a dirty, terrible conversation that the country is being dragged through. And there's nothing particularly special about Judge Kavanaugh. I mean, he could easily be replaced by another Conservative judge. And the President I will say did allude to that today at his press conference which I thought was really quite surprising.

LEMON: He gave himself an opening.

LINSKEY: He did give himself an opening. If I were Kavanaugh, I would be a little bit terrified by that today. That it wasn't completely a full-throated backing of the President, but you know, you look at -- there are many, many nominees who don't make it through the process.

[23:25:02] And it's not -- there's no shame in that. I mean, it's a job interview. And so to me, I mean, this is the Republicans deciding we can just dig in here and play so hard to the base that you know, everything else be darned.

KAREM: We know why. I mean, the bottom line why is because the midterms are coming up and they fear the blue wave. And if they don't push it through before November, then they fear they won't get the second choice. LEMON: Julie, I got to ask you this question, the President was asked

today if the multiple women who have accused him of sexual misconduct, if it impacts how he views the accusations against Kavanaugh. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, it does impact my opinion. You know why? Because I've had a lot of false charges made against me. I'm a very famous person, unfortunately. I've been a famous person for a long time. But I've had a lot of false charges made against me, really false charges. I know friends that have had false charges. People want fame. They want money. They want whatever. So when I see it, I view it differently than somebody sitting home watching television.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: It's a disturbing statement, but it is vintage Trump. It's always about him.

HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: It is about him. And I mean, this is one of the reasons why I think a lot of Republicans privately were scratching their heads why he was doing this news conference. Certainly why he let it go on so long. He really tied himself, he made this parallel between himself and the allegations against him and some of the more sordid stories about him and you know, you have to think back to the access Hollywood tape and that whole episode. He really parallel himself with Brett Kavanaugh. I've been accused by these women and now Brett Kavanaugh is being accused by these women. And that is not a helpful thing for Kavanaugh at this stage in the process.

KAREM: Doesn't do him any favors.

HIRSCHFELD DAVIS: When you talk about the Republican Party becoming the Party of Trump and sort of throwing in with these tactics, I think part of the reason is it's not just that they don't want to abandon him at this point. They don't feel like they can abandon him at this point without losing the base, without demoralizing base Republican who after all, after hearing the access Hollywood tape, after going through the whole process right before the election in 2016 really embraced Donald Trump and he won. And so, that is really the direction the party has been going ever since. And this whole process has just elucidated about a lot more.

LEMON: One thing is for sure, we will all be watching tomorrow. So there you go. 10:00 a.m.

KAREM: For the next few days.

LEMON: Thank you all, thank you Julie, thank you Annie, thank you Brian. I appreciate it.

KAREM: Sure, Don.

LEMON: When we come back, with the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh are growing and only one hearing scheduled with just one of the accuser, should the Senate postpone their vote?

[23:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So just one of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. Just one, even though accusations against the judge are growing, and if the committee sticks to their schedule, they'll vote on Friday morning.

So joining me now to discuss are CNN Political Commentators, Joan Walsh and Scott Jennings. Good evening to both of you. Joan, I have to start with you because late tonight, Senator Chuck Grassley's office said that they have spoken with two men who believe that they and not Judge Kavanaugh had the encounter with Christine Blasey Ford. Do you think that's going to be brought up in the hearing tomorrow? What do you think of that?

JOAN WALSH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Don, I have no idea. This is a dumpster fire. The idea that Senator Grassley or his staff -- and his staff released this muddying the waters further is so incredibly outrageous.

The idea that we're going to have a hearing tomorrow with only one of the women who come forward, we have three named women, we have two more allegations that I won't even talk about because no one put their name to them, so let's leave those aside.

But every day, more is coming out. And then there are two guys out there who said, hey, I'm the one who tried to rape Dr. Blasey Ford. No, I'm the one who tried to rape her.

I mean -- and what I want to communicate, Don, is how anxious so many women are, American women are tonight waiting for this woman who did not want to come forward, who's had to live and relive and relive this trauma to talk to 11 Republicans who don't believe her, to be interrogated by a sex crimes lawyer.

I mean, everyone who's ever been victimized is reliving it tonight and this week as you know.

LEMON: Scott, I want to bring you in because there are now three named accusers of Judge Kavanaugh accusing him of sexual misconduct or assault, plus two anonymous ones. Kavanaugh calls them smears. Do you think all five of them are smears?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think we know much about these claims because there's no evidence and no corroborating witnesses, and we haven't had a hearing yet. So we're going to have a hearing tomorrow with one of them, and she's going to get to tell her story. I've seen her prepared testimony. She will answer some questions.

Brett Kavanaugh is going to put his hand up and go under oath, and he's going to give his testimony and answer a few questions. Then we'll be a step farther down the road her. But right now, what is true is, we have one person who is making allegations that will testify that is going to say under oath she has a fuzzy memory about several of the details on this.

And another person, Kavanaugh, who is going to make an unequivocal denial and has no lapses in his memory regarding this issue and has never claimed to. So, that's what the committee is going to hear tomorrow. In the aftermath of that, the senators will have to assess where they are, make a decision on where to go.

WALSH: Scott, I think you're smart enough to know and I think you're well read enough to know that it's extremely common for survivors of sexual assault to have a fuzzy memory about certain things but not others.

When she talks about Brett and Mark pushed me on the bed, brought me into the room, pushed me on the bed, tried to remove my clothing. Mark was laughing. Mark was saying stop, then he was trying to join in. These details ring true.

Now, I agree with you, we do not know for certain that this happened, but we are not having a real investigation. The idea that Mark Judge, the alleged accomplice, the alleged witness, whose name comes up in virtually all -- not the Yale assault but the other two that he is not being subpoenaed, that he is not speaking is ridiculous.

[23:35:00] And we know why it's happening because he's got a memoir where he writes about being blackout drunk with Bart O'Kavanaugh who used to puke in cars. I mean, if people wanted to get to the bottom of this, they would be subpoenaing him, they would be asking for other witnesses. This is a farce. But I think that the other side is going to be very sorry tomorrow.

LEMON: Scott, do you want to respond to that?

JENNINGS: Yeah. I would jus say that -- I'm not going to sit here and dispute the claim that she's going to make under oath. It's her right to make that claim, and I'm glad she's being heard.

But if we're going to take the allegations seriously, we also have to take seriously the other parts of the story. She's named four people that she says were there. All four people say it didn't happen. She can't name the location.

WALSH: They don't say that. They don't say it didn't happen.

JENNINGS: Yes, they have. Don't be dishonest. The people she named have all said to reporters and to the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have no recollection of being at this, we have no memory of this, we don't think we were at this --

WALSH: That doesn't mean it didn't happen. They have no recollection. She does. I'm not saying --

JENNINGS: Joan, I did not interrupt you while you were going. Let me talk.

WALSH: All right, that's fair, Scott.

JENNINGS: I am not going to sit here and dispute her claim that she's going to make under oath. It's her right to make it. But I am going to say, if you want to take it seriously, four people say no, we don't know the location, we don't know the exact year.

There are questions that have to be asked about. If you're going to take what she says on the record seriously, then you have to take the questions that have been raised seriously.

LEMON: Can I ask you something?

JENNINGS: The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to ask them all tomorrow. That's an appropriate venue.

LEMON: How -- Do you think that they should vote the day after, Scott?

JENNINGS: I think they had to schedule the vote because of the way the rules of the committee work. And I think we won't know whether they're going to vote frankly until after the testimony is heard.

LEMON: What do you think about --

JENNINGS: But I do -- but I do think this. Right now, the intention is to vote, keep the Senate in session (ph) over the weekend, and move to the floor by the beginning of next week. That is the current plan. But of course, plans can be changed.

WALSH: I hope the plan changes. You know, maybe it's about Senate rules, Scott, but it looked incredibly -- sounded incredibly tone deaf for Chairman Grassley to schedule that vote for there to be such talk of pushing this through when we haven't even heard what the woman says or what Judge Kavanaugh is going to say tomorrow.

It doesn't have be to rushed this way. Except for one reason, politics. That's not a good reason to rush somebody onto the Supreme Court. I'm sorry.

LEMON: Thank you both. We'll be right back.

[23:40:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: At tomorrow's hearing, the 11 Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expected to yield their questioning time to this woman. Her name is Rachel Mitchell. She's an Arizona prosecutor with over 25 years of experience prosecuting sex crimes. She will be questioning both Kavanaugh and Ford.

Mitchell was hired because of concerns over how it would look when Republicans on the committee, all men, questioned Ford about her allegations. But this is how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described her hiring.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: We have hired a female assistant to go on staff and to ask these questions in a respectful and professional way. We want this hearing to be handled very professionally, not a political sideshow like you saw the -- put on by the Democrats when they were questioning Judge Kavanaugh.

LEMON: Assistant. It's safe to say that Mitchell will be more than that, more than an assistant. Let's discus now with Linda Fairstein. She is the former lead prosecutor of the Manhattan Special Victims Unit and a "New York Times" best selling author. Thank you so much.

LINDA FAIRSTEIN, FORMER LEAD PROSECUTOR, MANHATTAN SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT: Thank you, Don.

LEMON: Did you hear that? You heard what Leader McConnell said. She's got years and years of experience, assistant?

(LAUGHTER)

FAIRSTEIN: Right. It's hard to believe. It just seems such a bizarre and bizarrely inappropriate role for a sex crimes prosecutor to be playing. I'm sure she's well qualified. She wouldn't stay in that job if she didn't have a lot of experience.

But she is generally the one who is bringing an accuser forward believing in, trusting having explored the story. And here she's virtually going to be cross-examining Dr. Ford on behalf of the 11 people in the Senate who don't believe her.

LEMON: As a former prosecutor, what do you make of Ford's account? Credible?

FAIRSTEIN: Very credible.

LEMON: Why?

FAIRSTEIN: So, she told people before -- I mean, she told her therapist, she told her husband. She was 15 at the time when it occurred. This is the most underreported category of crimes in the penal law. Then 1982 or so, '84, these crime were terribly under- reported.

She was under age. She may have been somewhere she wasn't supposed to be, according to her parents. There were very few sex crime prosecutors in the country, very few units, and very few counseling groups available. So, not surprising she kept it hidden.

For me, some of the telltale signs are, why put another man in the room? She puts an eyewitness. She puts Mark Judge in the room which immediately said to me, whoa, there's got to be some truth to this or else there's someone who could say it doesn't go down this way.

LEMON: But supporters of Kavanaugh said, well, she can't remember all the details. Not specifics. Is that common?

FAIRSTEIN: Very common. Passage of time does that in any kind of circumstance, any kind of case. And the trauma that she talks about sustaining creates those holes. Now, I promised you that tomorrow, the prosecutor is trained to ask her probably 200 questions to which she'll say, I don't remember.

It's a very routine defense technique. It's supposed to make the witness look like they're Swiss cheese, holes in the story. It's expected that she will not remember some of the extraneous things.

LEMON: So they put questions in there and you think it's unfairly to -- is that unfair?

FAIRSTEIN: It's not unfair. I mean, I would like to think that the lawyers for the Democrats have worked with Miss Ford.

[23:45:04] There may be more that she knows that will come out.

LEMON: Yeah.

FAIRSTEIN: But just viewers need to know, of course she doesn't remember a lot of things. That's the nature of this.

LEMON: I got two quick things I want to ask you. One is that she said -- her attorneys, they're afraid of a he said, she said. You don't believe in that.

FAIRSTEIN: I don't believe in that. I think there's always something if you have the experience to do the kind of questioning, if you have the manner to do it, usually out of the public eye first, somebody's story makes more sense.

You charge attempted sexual abuse or attempted rape and say it in two sentences. I came out of the bathroom. They grabbed me. They took me in the room. There's much more there than that. So, I would be if I were working with her saying, did you feel his skin against your skin? You had a bathing suit on. So you would be expected to try and get more out of her.

LEMON: Details.

FAIRSTEIN: And on his side, if he's just saying, I wasn't there, well, where were you? And, of course, his drinking habits at that time.

LEMON: They're not letting any corroborating witnesses testify, right?

FAIRSTEIN: So far as I know.

LEMON: Does that mean that they -- are they actually looking for the truth?

FAIRSTEIN: It doesn't seem like they're looking for the truth as much as for that reason as the reason they've already said they're voting the next day.

LEMON: There are now three accusations -- three accusers, right?

FAIRSTEIN: Yes. LEMON: Similarities between them. You know, heavy drinking, grabbing women without their consent. Do the facts of these accusations have things in common? Does that make each of them more credible, you think?

FAIRSTEIN: I do think it makes each of them more credible because it begins to establish a pattern. You first has Dr. Ford, then the skipped to the Yale student Miss Ramirez. And now, today, we have the third woman, Julie, who again was back to high school. The heavy drinking is a role in each of these cases and from Mark Judge's stories and from the judge's own yearbook page about what his drinking habits are.

And the fact that the drinking sort of overlaps or leads to the abusive nature with women and victims. And I think there is a pattern emerging here. And I would not be the least bit surprised to see more witnesses come forward.

LEMON: Linda Fairstein, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.

FAIRSTEIN: Thank you for having me.

LEMON: And when we come back, the president's planned meeting with Rod Rosenstein isn't on his schedule for tomorrow. Has the president changed his mind about Rosenstein?

[23:50:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: So President Trump says he may delay his planned meeting tomorrow with Rod Rosenstein. I want you to listen to what he says about his deputy attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm talking to him. We've had a good talk. He said he never said it. He said he doesn't believe it. He said he has a lot of respect for me. He was very nice. We'll see. I'm going to meet with him tomorrow.

I may call Rod tonight or tomorrow and ask for a little bit of a delay to the meeting because I don't want to do anything that gets in the way of this very important Supreme Court pick. So I don't want it competing and hurting the decision one way or the other.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: All right. Let's talk about it now. Matthew Axelrod is here. He is a former senior official in the Obama administration Justice Department. Good to see, Mr. Axelrod. Thank you for coming on. So the president's scheduled his schedule came out for tomorrow and Rosenstein meeting not on that schedule. Do you think that White House survivor, that Rosenstein has won in this whole thing?

MATTHEW AXELROD, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENIOR OFFICIAL, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Well, I think we have to wait and see what happens when they eventually do have their meeting. Look, having Rod Rosenstein remain at the Justice Department is important. It's important for a few different reasons.

I think as your viewers probably know, Rod oversees the special counsel probe, the Mueller probe. So, he's been a stalwart defender of it. So having him there to continue to be a defender of it is really important.

But he also oversees the rest of the department's operations including the criminal investigations that are pending in the southern district of New York involving Michael Cohen's cooperation and wherever that may lead as has been reported and other matters that have been farmed out to the U.S. attorneys offices for example in D.C.

So, having him there and having him in place is important to the institutional integrity of DOJ.

LEMON: What was all of this then, all of this confusion and -- he's going to quit or he's going to be fired? What was it then?

AXELROD: Yeah, well, so it seemed to have been sparked by a "New York Times" article that ran last week that depicted a point in time, a while ago, approximately 18 months ago when Rod Rosenstein was first in the job as the deputy attorney general after he wrote the memo that the president used as a pretext to fire the FBI director, Jim Comey, and it was --

LEMON: You're talking about the 25th Amendment. I get that. But I mean, what was the -- because the administration responded to it, they played into it, then they said -- now they're saying that it wasn't true.

I'm just wondering, what all if this is sort of a wag the dog to maybe get the attention of Kavanaugh, I don't know. I just don't understand how this became something and now it's -- all of sudden nothing.

AXELROD: Yeah, it is curious as to exactly what is going on, but it seemed like that there was the article posted and then there was this flurry and there was commentary on Fox News and elsewhere about that Rosenstein should be fired and then Shawn Hannity said he shouldn't, and then he's in, he's out and Twitter went crazy.

LEMON: Maybe that's it. Maybe he got his advice from, you know, where he gets his advice from a lot, and he said don't fire him. And he said, OK, I'm not going to fire him, it's all well and good now.

[23:54:59] You did mention in "The New York Times" -- I have to ask you that, because they're reporting tonight that during the craziness of the weekend when no one seemed to know whether Rosenstein was going to be fired, the White House lined up Matthew Whitaker, Attorney General Jeff Sessions' chief of staff to be his replacement.

What do you think saved Rosenstein's job? By the way, Matthew Whitaker used to be on the show a lot before he took the job there. What do you think saved his job?

AXELROD: Yeah. Look, it's hard to -- it's a little hard to speculate. I think that based on the reporting, it seems to be that there was concern among people in the White House that if the president removed Rod Rosenstein prior to the midterms, that there would be a backlash, that people would perceive it as an attempt to weaken the Mueller probe not by firing or removing Robert Mueller, but removing the person who oversees Robert Mueller which is Rod Rosenstein, and that maybe scared him off for now.

LEMON: Matthew Axelrod, thank you. Big day tomorrow.

AXELROD: Big day.

LEMON: Don't try to leave Washington. There is going to be a lot to cover. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

AXELROD: Thanks, Don.

LEMON: Thanks for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)