Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
President Trump Mocks Christine Blasey Ford's Sexual Assault Testimony; Brett Kavanaugh Signs 1983 Letter As Bart O'Kavanaugh; NYT: Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches from His Father; Protesters Confront Senators on Kavanaugh Confirmation. Aired 11-12a ET
Aired October 02, 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 TONIGHT NEWS SHOW HOST: This is CNN TONIGHT. I'm Don Lemon. President Trump went off on Christine Blasey Ford tonight in front of a raucous crowd, mocking the woman who testified for hours in excruciating detail about what she says Brett Kavanaugh did to her when they were teenagers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 36 years ago this happened. I had one beer. Right? I had one beer. Well, you think it was -- no, it was one beer. Good. How did you get home? I don't remember. How did you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember.
How many years ago was it. I don't know, I don't know. I don't know! I don't know! What neighborhood was it in? I don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So you heard that laughter. No matter how this whole thing ends, Professor Ford does not deserve to be laughed at. Not again. Made the punch line to a joke that is not at all funny.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, KAVANAUGH'S ACCUSER: Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Kind of what happened tonight isn't it? At that rally? And we are learning more about Brett Kavanaugh. As the FBI expands its investigation tonight, here's what "The New York Times" has published. A copy of a 1983 letter written by Kavanaugh. And he writes his high school buddies should warn the neighbors that we're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. What sounds pretty different from what Kavanaugh said about drinking beer in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRETT KAVANAUGH, NOMINATED AS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And there's more, Kavanaugh signed that letter Bart. Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He references a Bart O'Kavanaugh. Vomiting in sun's car during beach week and then passing out. Is that you?
KAVANAUGH: Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem. Now, as part of his therapy, or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an account. I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what for characters in the book. So --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you Bart Kavanaugh that he is referring to.
Yes or no.
KAVANAUGH: You would have to ask him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So much to discuss right now. We've got a lot to talk about, Robin Pogrebin from "The New York Times" who was a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's at Yale, Robin joins us now, also Frank Bruni of "The Times" and David Swerdlick of "The Washington Post."
Good evening. It is so good to have all of you on. David, I am going to start with you, why mock her? Why mock her in front of a crowd tonight? I mean, he just couldn't resist.
DAVID SWERDLICK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, Don. And remember immediately after Dr. Ford's testimony, the President on camera called her compelling, credible, a very fine woman, and much of her testimony was very good. This is a stark contrast to what he said then right after everybody in the country had had a chance to see her and she was compelling whether you believe her or not, whether Americans believe her or not.
And then the President though, a few days later obviously couldn't resist the mocking, and that is I think what has people scratching their head both, because the President, you know, sort of has returned to form, he likes to mock people and this idea that not just President Trump, but other Republicans who even though they're not going to vote -- excuse me, that they will vote for Judge Kavanaugh or they have signaled they'll vote for Judge Kavanaugh, a wide array of the members of the judiciary committee said, oh, they found her credible. [23:05:00] But as others have pointed out including our colleague
Kirsten Powers several days ago on Twitter, if you are saying she is credible, but you are saying you don't believe the central contention of her testimony, then you're not really saying she is credible.
LEMON: Robin Pogrebin, thank you for coming on. Listen, I've had both these gentlemen on before. As I'm sitting here tonight just looking at your expression, I can't tell if you, you know, are -- I don't know if it's exasperation, you are tired of talking about it, you can't believe it is happening. What do you think of the way he is handled this and the way he is -- the accusations and the testimony?
ROBIN POGREBIN, CULTURE REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I think what's been interesting about my reporting is it's first of all dob tailed with my experience at Yale. I was a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's. I did not know him well. He was someone I saw in passing. Our kind of worlds intersected somewhat. But I think what's really interesting has come clear to me it's not about drawing a bright line from the keg to him being a sexual predator.
And I don't think anyone finds that argument defensible. I think the issue is and what bothered so many of my classmates is the way he portrayed himself in testimony for a very important position on the highest court. When you raise your hand and swear to tell the whole truth, particularly to be a Supreme Court justice, you should be telling the truth. And in the memory of the classmates who I have interviewed, that is not the Brett Kavanaugh they remember.
LEMON: Interesting. Frank you don't have big hopes for this FBI investigation and you wrote as much in your column. Why do you say that?
FRANK BRUNI, OP-ED COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": You know, it's time limited. It was initially narrow in scope. I think these events are 36 years ago. I fear that at the end of this week, you know, when we learn what the fruits of the investigation are, it's not going to move people off of conclusions that are largely partisan they've reached already.
LEMON: OK. Frank, let me stop you there. All right. I think we're on the same page here because listen, I don't know what happened. We don't know guilt or innocence, but when you consider what your colleagues have uncovered with the money and the taxes and all of that, you consider that he settled a multimillion dollar lawsuit for Trump University, when you consider all the other things and they have not mattered it's really all about the Supreme Court and Trump supporters are not about to let this slip away. Do you think I'm wrong?
BRUNI: No, I think this is a battle royale. But you know, what Robin was talking before is quite relevant in terms of Brett Kavanaugh's testimony and how truthful or not, seemingly he was being. We've gotten some wavering Republican Senators here, three of them, we've been keeping an eye on. And they could decide not based on what the FBI investigation turns up or doesn't, but they could decide based on what they're reminded of this week in terms of what he said under oath, as Robin said with his hand raised, you know, in an audition for the highest court in the land. They had could decide that there are enough questions about his character and his honesty that regardless of what happened 36 years ago and what the FBI can or cannot verify, he doesn't belong on the court.
LEMON: Yes. Let's talk about that, David. Because the letter was signed, he was asked about Bart O'Kavanaugh and what Mark Judge wrote. He said it's a fictional book and he wouldn't answer whether the character was him, right. So he really dodged the question. So if -- it's interesting that he dodges the question whether it was him or not, but then this letter, they uncover this letter and he signs it, Bart. Remember his name is Brett.
SWERDLICK: Right. So Don, if you take together that letter that "The New York Times" reported out today, you take his yearbook entry from his senior year, you take at least four classmates who have gone on the record saying that he was a heavy drinker, some of them described him as a sloppy drunk and an aggressive drunk. A couple of them on CNN's air last week.
If you take those things together and then you compare that with the way Brett Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his Fox News interview and in that testimony, I doubt that anyone could find that he perjured himself. Because he kind of covered himself with, I like beers, you know, sometimes things got out of hand, the seniors had beer. The drinking age was 18 at one time. So perjury would be a stretch.
But -- it seems to me he misled the American people and the members of the judiciary committee about what the environment was and about how central that was to the social life there, and that has gotten him in this place where it's now not just about the sexual assault allegations which as you said we don't know what happened, but it's also about his credibility.
LEMON: Robin, you said a couple things here you. Said that Brett Kavanaugh had a reputation as a guy known for holding up the walls, right?
POGREBIN: Right. I mean he definitely was a party guy. He moved in a crowd of athletic folks both females and males and they liked to have a good time on Saturday nights. I don't think anyone is holding that against him per se, but I think when they started to watch him on Fox sort of sit with his wife and kind of holier than thou talking about being something of a choir boy emphasizing his church attendance and his social service and his academic record, all of that is valid, but there was another side to him that he was downplaying to the point of real exaggeration and people felt like they had to cry foul.
[23:10:23] LEMON: You're saying heavy drinking is one thing. Right? But my question is, do most of the people you spoke with from Yale, do they believe allegations against Kavanaugh made by Dr. Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez?
POGREBIN: I think it's a really good question. I think there was a real sense of pride when he was nominated. I think that was the initial reaction, a Yaley made good in a really big way and he always seemed kind of destined for greatness, because he had a real upward trajectory. I think this really -- just went to the core of his character and his fitness for the court. And I think also actually frankly watching his testimony and how he was sort of a red-faced angry white man did not sit well with people in terms of -- it started to sort of square with this image of someone who could be capable of such an act. I think that undermined his reputation.
LEMON: Frank, Senator Jeff Flake said that if Kavanaugh lied to the senate, his nomination is over. In your opinion, should this be over then if he did lie?
BRUNI: In my opinion he did lie and it should be over. I don't think it's my opinion that he lied. One of these things we haven't brought up tonight, as we've talked about the yearbook, et cetera, he sat there under oath and he said that Renata alumni was just a gesture of friendship and respect for a young woman they knew and he even turned it around and got angry of anyone who would imply otherwise. That doesn't pass the smell test.
David's right that probably doesn't go all the way to perjury although I'm not sure exactly when it is you say you've gotten to perjury. But it is a degree of deception that I don't think we could square with someone should be the highest court of the land. I think Jeff Flake is honest with himself to reach that conclusion, the question is really be joined in that conclusion by Senators Collins and Murkowski. They need two of them and then it's over.
LEMON: Frank, David and Robin, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
POGREBIN: Thank you.
LEMON: In the midst of all of these chaos over Brett Kavanaugh. Guess who is back? Stormy Daniels. A source telling CNN new details about President Trump's efforts to keep her quiet. Her attorney Michael Avenatti here to talk about it.
[23:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: For months President Trump insisted he knew nothing about the effort to silence porn star, Stormy Daniels. Turns out, he wasn't telling the truth. Sources confirming to CNN that Trump told Michael Cohen back in February to get a restraining order against Daniels. He said, don't worry. I'll pay for everything. The source says the President's son Eric Trump was also involved. Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti joins us.
Michael, thank you. Good evening to you. This is what you have been saying all along that President Trump knew.
MICHAEL AVENATTI, STORMY DANIELS' ATTORNEY: Well, that is right. I mean, we've been saying that for over six months, Don and we've been making a point to make it known to the American people that it was our belief that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen and the people they surround themselves with were constantly lying to the public and not shooting straight with them. And now, this report confirms that. I don't think there was a big doubt at least not in my mind and many
other people's minds. The problem is, is that the President of the United States is a liar. And he surrounds himself with liars, Michael Cohen is a liar, now we see that Brett Kavanaugh is a liar. And you know that, does not bode well for the future of the nation, but I was pleased to read the report. I believe the report. And I think as additional facts and evidence come forward, we're going to prove without a doubt that there are even more lies that have been told relating to the $130,000 payment to my client.
LEMON: OK. Since you said -- and you mentioned Michael Cohen. But did you know, there's another twist? Did you know that president's son Eric Trump was also involved in the effort to silence your client?
AVENATTI: I was not aware of that. But I'm not surprised by it. I think it goes to show how serious Donald Trump considered this and the steps that he was willing to take to cover this up, but Don, if you go back and look at the denials, and I've been on your show many times over the last six months and other shows. We had David Swartz attempting to defend Michael Cohen and others. I mean, all of that was a bunch of nonsense. I mean, all of these folks were trotted out to lie to the American people and now come to find out, what we've been saying all along is true and that is that is Donald Trump was aware of the $130,000 payment and was doing everything in his power to cover it up including enlisting the help of his son.
LEMON: What does that say about someone they would enlist the help of their son to help pay off a mistress? I mean, is this open? Number one, what does it say about the President? But number two, does this open Eric Trump, in any sort of -- is he in legal jeopardy in any way?
AVENATTI: Well, he could be very well be in legal jeopardy if he knew of this effort to silence her. If he had anything to do with the routing of the $130,000 payment. It further calls into question the involvement of the Trump organization and what role the organization had in the $130,000 payment. There could be liability there, but the fact that he would enlist his own son, Don, to assist in the cover-up of $130,000 payment to a porn star that he had sex with, I think that just shows to the extent there was any question, I don't think there was, that this is a man that lacks any moral fiber, does whatever he wants. Thinks he can get away with it. He certainly doesn't have the moral fiber to lead or to serve as the President of the United States.
LEMON: What does this do for your case? Does it change anything in your case? How does it relate?
[23:20:00] AVENATTI: I think it does change things in our case. You know, we made a recent filing with the court and we told the court that we believe that a sham had been perpetrated on not only the American public, but also on the court, that the court had been lied to relating to the involvement of Donald Trump and I think this proves it. Without a doubt. And I think that this is going to become very complicated for Donald Trump and Michael Cohen in the next two months.
LEMON: Michael Avenatti, I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.
AVENATTI: Thank you.
LEMON: Dubious tax schemes, sham corporations, outright fraud, all quotes from "The New York Times" blockbuster investigation into the Trump family finances. Stick around.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: So Donald Trump's carefully crafted images and I say Donald Trump, because this is before he became president, but it was carefully crafted image as a self-made businessman, it's taking quite a hit tonight. A bombshell "New York Times" report alleges Donald Trump received a whopping 413 -- look at that picture, a whopping $413 million in today's dollars in wealth from his father's business. Not the small $1 million loan that he claims he used to build his own business empire from scratch.
[23:25:05] Nearly a billion dollars in total was transferred from Fred Trump's business to his children over the course of decades. Sometimes through dodgy tax practices. The state of New York is looking into the allegations. The White House responding as well, calling it a misleading attack against the Trump family.
So let's discuss. Max Boot is here, Walter Shaub, David Cay Johnston, the author of the book "It's Even Worse than You Think: What the Trump Administration is Doing to America." Thank you all.
David, I was just talking to you last hour with Chris Cuomo about this, about you telling me once before we get to all of their egregious stuff that is alleged here, there is actually no evidence that you know about that he is actually even a billionaire.
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, AUTHOR: Yes, there is not now and never has been one sin in tale of evidence. I broke the story in 1990 that Trump was not a billionaire. And he called me a liar for four months until he had to produce his own net worth statement that showed he was worth negative $295 million or as I wrote it at the time, you are probably worth more than Donald Trump. As a candidate he claimed to be worth over $10 billion. But as President, he filed a statement listing his worth at $1.4 billion. So, somehow in ten weeks, almost $9 billion just disappeared from his wealth.
LEMON: Now to this extensive New York Times report here. I mean, it is extensive, right? What is the most egregious thing you see in here?
JOHNSTON: Serial tax cheating. If you cheat once, if you make a mistake, that is not such a big deal. This was calculated deception to cheat the government and in fact, to cheat poor people who were in rent controlled housing. They've got sworn testimony by Donald's brother Robert and this goes to something I've said for a long time. The Trumps are a crime family. And they have been. Now this theories, there incredible reporting and trust me, this did not get in calling the President engaged in outright frauds without incredibly careful editing.
This story makes very clear that it is mostly about things in the '70s, '80s and '90s. It's not current data. That is why we need to see Donald Trump's more recent tax returns and I think they'll show the same kind of fraud that he was tried for twice in the '80s when he lost both income tax fraud trials.
LEMON: Do you think this -- I need to go to the other folks. Is this the reason number one that he said the red line, you're not going to go into my finances, because he is afraid of what that people may uncover stories like this.
JOHNSTON: Don, absolutely, Don. If we had his tax returns and the books and records, that is what the Times got its hands on, 100,000 pages of canceled checks and ledger entries and things, they will absolutely show Donald Trump is a world class criminal.
LEMON: OK. So Walter, one pattern that stands out from the New York Times story is that the Trump parents repeatedly undervalued assets when they passed it on to Donald Trump and his siblings. The President's attorneys though -- they do insist it was handled by professionals and that it's totally legal. But what do you think about this?
WALTER SHAUB, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think what's truly amazing is to see "The New York Times" go so far as to call this outright fraud and to accuse him of crossing legal lines with his tax forms. That is an amazing allegation against a sitting United States President. And the fact that Trump broke with tradition of all of his modern predecessors by refusing to release his tax returns when his opponent in the election released years and years of tax returns means he is not entitled to any benefit of the doubt.
And so the information the "Times" was looking at revealed how he got rich and they don't have current information about where he is now, but I don't think that the man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The American people should be wondering if the reason that he has hid his tax forms from us is because there's more of this stuff and that is deeply concerning.
I think if we had a Congress, they would be calling immediately for hearings or conducting an investigation of their own or referring this to the Department of Justice, but we have a Congress that is decided that it's out of the business of fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of conducting oversight of the executive branch.
LEMON: Yes. So Max, I know you want to weigh in on this. But let me ask you a question and you can say whatever you want, you can take it wherever you want. Because in New York -- in this report, it says that the President was a millionaire by the age eight. That completely obliterates the image that he has built, you know, that he is a self-made businessman and a success story and it was a small $1 million loan as if that is small. I mean, what do you think of all this.
MAX BOOT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, I think, Don, it confirms that basically Donald Trump is living a giant lie, that he is a con man. He is a liar and a fraud, and the very foundation of the story that he has sold to the American people is false because he has repeatedly portrayed himself as being the self-made billionaire, this business genius.
And we knew in broad general terms that was not the case. We knew that he had had six corporate bankruptcies. We knew that he overvalued his assets. We knew all this in broad terms. What "The New York Times" account really shows in a very specific credible way over the course of 14,000 words is how most of his money came from his daddy.
I mean, there was a business genius named Trump and his name was Fred Trump. It wasn't Donald Trump. So Donald Trump was selling the American people a bill of goods. And beyond that, as Walter and David have been pointing out, not only is he a fraud in terms of this story of self-made success that he has sold, he is actually also in all probability committed actual no kidding tax fraud. He has defrauded the people of the United States of hundreds of millions of dollars.
You know, reading that account in the "New York Times," I was reminded of the case against Paul Manafort. It sounds to me like a lot of the stuff that Donald Trump and his father did is very similar to what Paul Manafort has now been convicted of doing and has been convicted of eight plus felonies of doing, which is shenanigans such as telling investors that a property is worth a lot of money and then telling the tax authorities that it's worth very little money.
This is exactly the same kind of financial fraud that Manafort was convicted of. If Donald Trump were not the president of the United States and theoretically immune to prosecution, he would face, I suspect, the same kind of legal reckoning right now.
LEMON: You said he would. So Walter, could the president face legal action and what would that look like or no?
SHAUB: Yeah, well, I think that we've already heard that the New York state authorities are looking into this. I certainly hope that the IRS will look into it and maybe the Department of Justice.
We have a president who has been in the business of making threats against executive branch officials who investigate him but hopefully, they'll have the fortitude to actually do their job and take a hard look at this because these are serious enough allegations with enough detail that any law enforcement official who doesn't pick up the baton here and run with it to find out whether there's -- whether there's anything in fact that can be prosecuted or more likely seek civil penalties for to collect some of that money back because if you cheat on your taxes, you're stealing from all of us.
LEMON: Yeah.
SHAUB: And so hopefully, somebody will look into that.
LEMON: I'll give you the last word here, David. I'm wondering, do you think this is why he won't release his taxes? Because here you go.
JOHNSTON: Well, if Donald released his taxes, people like me and people more skilled than me would go through and show all sorts of things that don't make sense. Undervaluing a property down to only six percent is simply outrageous. Setting up a device as 295 devices to funnel money to the children is tax dodges. That's not casual tax cheating. There is no statute of limitations on civil tax fraud. And I believe Donald Trump should be sued for every penny along with his sister who is a sitting federal judge and the other two surviving siblings.
BOOT: And remember, once the Democrats take control of the House ways and means committee assuming they win in November, they have the legal right to request those tax returns, so he may not be able to keep them secret much longer.
LEMON: Max, Walter, David, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Is Judge Kavanaugh's story unraveling with this letter he wrote in 1983, saying, we're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us.
[23:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: So you heard President Trump taking the low road, mocking Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. Well, one of her attorneys is tweeting tonight a vicious, vial and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He is a profile in cowardice.
Wow. Nina Turner, Alice Stewart, Rick Wilson, all here to talk about it. Good evening, everyone. Alice, I just want to play, you saw the tweet there from her attorney. I want to play this from the president in Mississippi this evening, mocking Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I had one beer. Right? I had one beer. Well, do you think it was -- nope, it was one beer. Oh, good. How did you get home? I don't remember. How did you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember.
How many years ago was it? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. What neighborhood was it? I don't know. Where is the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don't know. But had I one beer. That's the only thing I remember.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Is that hard for you to watch, Alice?
ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, Don, it's disgusting. I don't know what's worse, that or when he mocked the reporter, he did during the campaign who had some physical disabilities. And there's no need for that.
He said himself and many people agreed that Dr. Ford's testimony was compelling, it was convincing, and certainly anyone that didn't feel compassion for her, I think there's a real problem with that. And the downfall with what he did is that that just took us back. [23:39:59] I think a lot of people realize that she had a compelling story but in terms of Republicans making grounds on this and getting the votes they need, they had the public support on their side with regard to how the president himself responded to it, and many others responded to it, and he took one step forward, five steps back on that.
There's no need for that. She suffered enough. She's been through a traumatic experience without a doubt. He didn't need to dog pile on it.
LEMON: Nina, you have a pained look on your face.
NINA TURNER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, Don. He's the president of the United States. You know, the other day when he said that she was credible, he found her compelling, that was acting. What we saw tonight was real. And he is stoking this in front of a crowd that just to me lacks what we would call an EQ, an emotional quotient here.
It doesn't matter whose side you're on necessarily from a political standpoint. We can't have empathy one to another and to have the president of the United States of America think it is OK to roll Dr. Ford in this. It's unconscionable. It's shameful. This president doesn't have a shame gene. So he cannot be shamed. All of America should be embarrassed by what he just did tonight.
LEMON: Rick, I wonder what your take is on this because why after Nina said after praising her as credible and a fine woman before, just couldn't resist, it seems like the roar of the crowd. He needed it like a performer.
RICK WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Donald Trump has to be the center of attention at all times. And for about the last week, you know, he was getting high marks from certain Republicans because they were saying, oh, he's shutting his mouth. He's not out there burning the whole village down. He's not doing the crazy Donald act.
Tonight it came out to play. The statement he read last week at the White House after Dr. Ford's testimony, that was President Conway speaking through Donald Trump's mouth. What you saw tonight was the unfiltered Donald Trump.
If you're a supporter of Brett Kavanaugh, you had to look at tonight and say, wow, what are the headlines tomorrow? We're not talking about evidence in this case. We're back to Donald Trump going to war against somebody again because his delicate ego won't let him be out of the spotlight for 30 seconds.
LEMON: Yeah. Alice, you've said many times that people put up with the behavior because of things like the Supreme Court. This is a test whether he can get his nominee through. I don't disagree with you on that. What about the cheering in the crowd? Why is that crowd cheering anyway? Is that OK with you?
STEWART: I don't think it's OK. I'm sure tomorrow what we're going to hear from the White House and officials is that what he was trying to do was highlight different instances where there were some holes in her story.
She said she didn't recall where exactly this happened and how she got home and certain inconsistencies. That will be their response. I see some validity to that. But that being said, for him to go out there and publicly mock her and call attention to it, I'm actually quite surprised at the response from the crowd. I can't imagine as they get in there and they feed off of each other, that's what happens.
But I can tell you that most Republicans I speak to do see her as someone that's compelling and they do see that she has gone through something. The problem is they do not believe that Judge Kavanaugh is the one that was responsible for that. And they do see that he is someone that many Republicans and we're seeing that in key states, West Virginia, Arizona and others where they do want to see him confirmed to the high court.
LEMON: So Nina, we have this letter from 1983 that "The New York Times" uncovered and wait till you hear what it says, how he signed it. You'll be the first one out of the break to talk about it.
[23:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Back now with my panel, back with Nina, Alice and Rick. So Nina, forgive me because I wanted to talk about something else. But I need to talk about this before we run out of time. So if you will allow me, let's hopefully leave that to another occasion.
Because there's a lot of anger out there in our country right now. And some people are dealing with it by getting in politicians' faces. Lately it has been over Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Texas senator, Ted Cruz, was chased from a D.C. restaurant by a group of protesters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE/UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:: We believer survivors. We believe survivors. We believer survivors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excuse me. Let my wife through.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE/UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We believe survivors. We believe survivors. We believe survivors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: So Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was confronted over Kavanaugh at the airport.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator McConnell, why do women have to bare their whole soul to you?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How many stories of sexual violence do you need to hear in order to believe women? (END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And, of course, there was the now viral moment when Arizona Senator Jeff Flake was cornered by two victims of sexual assault in an elevator.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I told the story of my sexual assault. I told it because I recognized in Dr. Ford's story that she's telling the truth. What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit in the Supreme Court.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Look at me when I'm talking to you. You're telling me that my assault doesn't matter, that what happened to me doesn't matter, and that you're going to let people who do these things into power. That's what you're telling me when you vote for him. Don't look away from me. Look at me and tell me it doesn't matter what happened to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:50:00] LEMON: So Senator Flake admits those courageous women played a part in his decision to call for an FBI investigation to the Kavanaugh allegation. So is this what it takes to be heard these days? Do people need to get in politicians' faces? Last week, I said I didn't like it personally. But this is what politicians sign up for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: As a person of color, I know that -- especially during the civil rights movement and now, sometimes the only agency you have is to protest and to get in someone's face. You don't have any power when it comes to government and in society. I don't like it, but it is one reason I'm not a public official, that I'm not running for office. In a way, I think it goes with the territory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And that doesn't mean condoning violence. That means protesting. Telling someone how you feel. It doesn't mean physical altercations. Some people didn't agree with that. So let's discuss now. Nina, what do you think? Am I right? Is this part of what a politician signs up for?
TURNER: I mean, they definitely need to listen to the people, Don. And I'm right where you are because when we think back in history, I mean, at least in the civil rights movement, the way that protest was happening, it was really the protesters for freedom and justice who were being attacked. So it certainly was the other way around.
I believe anybody should put their hands on anybody. I certainly don't believe that anybody has the right to belittle somebody's children. You know, that burns my behind in all kinds of ways to have grown folks mocking other people's kids, especially the children who are under 18. But to me even if they're grown, their children didn't sign up for this. But absolutely, elected officials in this climate have to expect that they will be confronted. And confrontation does not mean being violent, but it does mean that people are going to speak their truth and they want to be heard.
And this bubbling up of emotion is happening all over this country. Dare I say even all over the world. But we definitely have to draw the line if somebody wants to be violent with somebody because that is not what elected officials sign up for and they should not have to endure violence.
LEMON: Alice Stewart, what do you think? Because, I mean, listen, you saw how these -- we all saw how these women were able to have an impact on the whole process with Senator Flake.
STEWART: Yeah. I think elected officials are elected to serve the people and when they're in the halls of Congress or in their state capitol, when they're at work, when they're at home offices or at an event, they are fair game in terms of constituents going and speaking their mind and letting their voice be heard.
But when it comes to them going to public restaurants, when it comes to them going to their home, we also have to remember what they did to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kirstjen Nielsen. They've also shouted them out of public places. That is taking it too far.
I think we need to -- and on top of that having Congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraging people to fight against this administration. That in my view is the wrong way to go about doing it and taking it too far when it becomes personal.
That being said, the most important way you can have your voice be heard is to go out and vote and encouraging people to get out and vote and make your voice be heard because that's going to make the most change in addition to what they're doing in terms of attacking members of Congress or elected officials or those who are public servants, whether in public or in their private lives.
LEMON: So Rick, is there a right and a wrong place to protest or to tell your, you know, congressman or senator how you feel?
WILSON: Look, I have a slightly different view of this. First off, we obviously all agree that when it gets to the point where there's laying on of hands, where there is physical violence or physical confrontation, that's a red line, that's a no go. I don't care where you are, what you're doing. Once you're up putting a fist into somebody's chest or putting -- or pushing somebody around or engaging in any kind of violent action, that's a bright red line.
LEMON: Right.
WILSON: But I will say this. The average member of Congress or the U.S. Senate has a very comfortable life. They live in a bubble. They're shielded from most interactions with the public. They don't read the e-mails coming in. They don't listen to the phone messages coming in. They don't look at the Facebook page themselves. They're given a filter bubble to live in. They live in a very comfortable world.
And a lot of the times, the aggression and the anxiety and the fury that happens on the left and the right in this country comes because people aren't listening to them because they're protected, they're safe, they're in this little bubble.
And so once in a while these guys getting out and hearing somebody in their face telling a story that is -- like the women in the elevator with Jeff Flake, that spoke from real pain and real experience, the political cost of that, yeah, it's real and it's painful, they don't want to deal with it.
But folks on the left and the right have to be available to their constituents and available to the American people or you're going to get this kind of reaction. You're going to get this kind of ramping up. They're going to chase people into restaurants if they can't talk to them in the halls of Congress. They're going to chase people into restaurants if they can't get them to answer a question.
[23:55:02] Ask a Republican when the last time they did a town hall meeting was in the last year and a half, two years. They don't do it anymore.
LEMON: Yeah.
WILSON: So you get frustration that grows and grows, in part because these guys live in a very safe little filter bubble.
LEMON: But also look at -- just a couple seconds left here, Nina. If you look at what happened, remember during the health care debate and, you know, congressmen, senators, they were being confronted at town hall meetings or at meetings when these folks would go back to their homes. People feel powerless now, especially.
TURNER: They do. And you know, listen, we've got to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. There are lots of citizens in this country who are uncomfortable and they're starting to make it known to the elected officials especially on the congressional level to be uncomfortable --
LEMON: OK, I've got to go.
TURNER: -- because we're coming to talk to you.
LEMON: Thank you very much. And again, that does not mean violence. So when you write your stories in your own Twitter, this is not what we're saying. Nobody has said that. Nobody is advocating that. So, check yourself. Thank you, everyone.
WILSON: Thanks, Don.
TURNER: Thanks, Don.
STEWART: Thanks, Don. LEMON: Thanks for watching. Our coverage continues.
[24:00:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
