Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
Lawyer Says Kavanaugh Accuser Willing To Testify Before Congress; NYT: North Korea Building Nukes Despite Public Claims; Studies Show Low-Dose Aspirin Risk May Outweigh Benefits. Aired 7:30- 8a ET
Aired September 17, 2018 - 07:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:30:00] DEBRA KATZ, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: -- senator very soon after she -- the letter was sent, which was July 30th. At that point, Dr. Blasey retained counsel and then communications went between staff and Dr. Blasey's counsel.
CAMEROTA: Because the question is why did Sen. Feinstein sit on the letter -- or was that your impression? What was the point --
KATZ: No, it isn't.
CAMEROTA: Well, I guess my question is what was the point? What was Sen. Feinstein supposed to do with this letter?
KATZ: OK, I just want to be clear I think that's an unfair characterization. In this moment, victims need to be able to control when and whether their stories become public.
She went to her senator because she had information that she thought was very important that had bearing on the fitness and character of this nominee. And throughout that period of time, Sen. Feinstein's office was eager for her to come forward if she felt comfortable coming forward.
There was no effort to dissuade her from coming forward. This was entirely this woman's decision and I think that was appropriate. I think that's how victims of trauma and sexual violence must be treated.
CAMEROTA: And so was that letter shared with the committee?
KATZ: Apparently, at a later point, it was.
CAMEROTA: At a later point, meaning but before the hearing? I'm just trying to get the time line. Before the hearing you --
KATZ: No.
CAMEROTA: No --
KATZ: It was not shared. And honestly, we made the request. My client made the request that Sen. Feinstein treat her allegations confidentially and Sen. Feinstein agreed to do so.
I will say that the door was always open and the staff made it clear that if her -- if she changed her mind she could come forward.
As Dr. Blasey saw these hearings unfold, her choice became more clear in her mind that she did not want to come forward. She saw this as a very highly politicized and very brutal process. And she was not wanting to inject herself in this because who would want to incur this kind of really highly politicized attack game that she now finds herself in?
CAMEROTA: So --
KATZ: So she was fine with that decision. But that decision was taken away from her after the hearings when her allegations were essentially leaked.
CAMEROTA: Understood.
So does Dr. -- what does Dr. Blasey want now? Does Dr. Blasey want Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court or for his approval -- his confirmation to be blocked?
KATZ: That's not what she wants one way or another. She wants the Senate to do what it is constitutionally obligated to do.
She's taken this great risk of coming forward. She's a credible person.
These are very serious allegations and they should be treated seriously and she should be treated respectfully during this process. And unfortunately, at this point, she is already getting a lot of hostile threats and recrimination and that is, of course, quite disturbing and unfortunate.
CAMEROTA: Indeed.
Debra Katz, thank you very much for all the information. Please keep us posted --
KATZ: Sure, we will. Thank you.
CAMEROTA: -- as to when lawmakers do reach out and if she's going to testify publicly. Thank you very much.
KATZ: Will do. Thank you.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So that's significant. That significant development there where Christine Blasey Ford is willing to testify publicly before the Senate to tell her story --
CAMEROTA: Yes.
BERMAN: -- to the American people.
CAMEROTA: But has not been contacted yet.
BERMAN: Will Republicans change their mind on this? Will they allow this woman to come forward with her accusation that a Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her? That is the key question this morning -- what will Republicans do?
We're going to talk to a key Trump supporter and a Republican activist, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:37:00] BERMAN: All right, breaking news.
Just moments ago, a lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford told Alisyn that her client is willing to testify publicly before the Senate about her accusation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago.
So what happens now? Will Republicans in the Senate allow this public testimony?
Joining us now is Amy Kremer, co-founder and co-chair of Women Vote Trump. Amy, always a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much.
AMY KREMER, CO-FOUNDER AND CO-CHAIR, WOMEN VOTE TRUMP: Good to be here.
BERMAN: Should America hear her story? The lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford says she's willing to testify publicly before the Senate. Shouldn't the Senate allow this to happen?
KREMER: I think that the Senate -- the Judiciary Committee needs to hear from her. I don't necessarily know that it needs to be a public hearing but if that's what they decide so be it.
Either way, I think that this is a political hack job to derail the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, who has a stellar reputation not only in his community, in his church, in his work, and it's here at the Eleventh Hour to derail this nomination.
Why did they sit on this for months, John?
BERMAN: All right --
KREMER: The timing is very questionable.
BERMAN: -- let's take this piece by piece.
This woman, Christine Blasey Ford -- and she has a name and she has now gone public with the accusations that Brett Kavanaugh, she says, forced herself on her and she was afraid that she would be killed.
She went to "The Washington Post" before Kavanaugh was even the nominee. How do you explain that?
KREMER: Well, John, where was she when he was appointed to the federal court? This man has been through six FBI investigations, more than anyone else. He's had a life of public service.
He was appointed to a federal appeals court -- or federal court. Where was she then when he was appointed to that court? BERMAN: I don't -- I don't -- I don't know.
KREMER: Why now? Why --
BERMAN: I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that often --
KREMER: I think that's a question that needs to be answered.
BERMAN: And a question that perhaps she could be asked if she does testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What I do know is often, victims of sexual assault -- which she alleges she was -- do not come forward for years for whatever reason. They don't feel like they would be believed at the time. They're afraid of what could happen to their reputations if they do come public, which is happening now to Christine Blasey Ford.
But she did come forward. She told her couples therapist about this in 2012. She told her individual therapist about it in 2013. So it is something she discussed.
Let me just ask you outright, do you believe her?
KREMER: It doesn't matter if I believe her.
BERMAN: Do you believe her? Yes, it does.
KREMER: It's not -- no, no -- that absolutely -- no it does not. It doesn't matter if I believe her, it doesn't matter if you believe her.
Where we are right now is that this will never be proven or shut down that it didn't happen. It's he said-she said. Here we go again. I mean, we're right back to where we started, I mean, months ago.
This is Democrats lodging this at a Republican that's about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
BERMAN: OK.
KREMER: It doesn't matter what I think, John.
BERMAN: I don't know -- I don't know what you're talking about -- where we started.
KREMER: I'm not --
BERMAN: But let me ask you this. Does it not matter if a Supreme Court nominee -- someone who will be sitting on the Supreme Court for 30 years -- it doesn't matter to you whether or not he sexually assaulted somebody?
[07:40:04] KREMER: I didn't say it doesn't matter to me whether he did. Of course, it matters. But the bottom line is that this has been lodged at him at the Eleventh Hour.
Why has she not come forward before?
Why did Sen. Diane Feinstein -- no, wait. Why did she sit on this for months -- not just a week or two weeks, but months and did nothing about it? Would it -- could it be because this week is the confirmation vote to confirm him --
BERMAN: Let me --
KREMER: -- to the U.S. Supreme Court and then on Thursday it comes out?
BERMAN: All I know, Amy --
KREMER: And then on Sunday -- I mean, she comes forward.
BERMAN: All I know is what we were told about this. You say the Eleventh Hour.
Again, this woman went to "The Washington Post" before Kavanaugh was even the nominee. And then as for why her name did not become public until now, it's because she asked Dianne Feinstein not to go public with it. We just heard from her attorney and that's what her attorney just made clear.
Now, whether or not --
KREMER: And, Dianne Feinstein --
BERMAN: But whether or not --
KREMER: -- didn't go public with it on Thursday. She released an anonymous letter.
BERMAN: Because she was asked by this woman not to. And whether or not you think Feinstein should have gone against the wishes of --
KREMER: Right, so my --
BERMAN: You think that Feinstein should have gone against the wishes of this alleged victim? Do you think that alleged --
KREMER: Let me say this.
BERMAN: Hang on, Amy. Do you think, in a vacuum, alleged victims of sexual assault have a right to control how their story is told?
KREMER: I do think they have a right to control how their story is told. But if Dianne Feinstein was honoring her wishes by releasing the letter anonymously on Thursday, why didn't she do that back in July?
This man has sat through two days -- or four days of public hearings. He answered 1,300 questions and a 17,000-page answer that was submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then he followed up 1,200 more questions.
I mean, he has been vetted by the FBI. None of this has ever come up.
Not to mention the 65 women that signed a letter saying they've known him for years, since their youth, and there's never been a problem. That this is not in his character.
So, I mean, I would say to you why did Dianne Feinstein -- if she was honoring her wishes then why didn't she do that back in July and honor her wishes then? Because it's an attempt to derail this nomination.
BERMAN: Just to be clear, what you said there at the end doesn't make sense. She did honor her wishes back in July by not --
KREMER: But --
BERMAN: -- by not coming forward with her name. She honored her wishes for two months.
And then when that name began to leak -- when that name began to leak -- the name began to leak and the story started becoming public, Dianne -- and I'm not defending her. I'm just telling you the story that she is saying. Dianne Feinstein then went to her Senate colleagues with the letter redacting her name.
And then, Christine Blasey Ford -- this woman who is now coming forward in public -- she has allowed herself to be named and she has told her story.
And a certain point this gets down to -- you know, remove the Senate from it for a second. A woman is claiming she was sexually assaulted.
Do you want to know whether or not it's true?
KREMER: Yes, I want to know whether or not it's true but will we ever know for sure? No, because it happened approximately 40 years ago. There's no way to prove it, John. I mean, that's the whole thing.
And, Sen. Feinstein could have come out in July with this. Instead, she sat on it.
BERMAN: OK, OK.
KREMER: She could have questioned Kavanaugh herself in those hearings. She could have questioned him privately when she met with him. He met privately with 65 senators.
BERMAN: Kellyanne Conway -- Kellyanne Conway, I'm told, moments ago on Fox News, says that this woman, Christine Blasey Ford, should be heard. Now, I don't know if Conway is selling -- if Kellyanne Conway is saying she should be heard in public before the Senate, but Kellyanne Conway says that she should be heard.
KREMER: Well, this is what I'll say is that I said, too, that she should be able to tell her story the way that she wants to. If the Senate decides to let -- to have a public hearing then, by all means, have it. I don't have a problem with that.
But what I do have a problem with is these last-minute allegations --
BERMAN: OK.
KREMER: -- being launched when it's an attempt to derail this nomination -- this confirmation.
BERMAN: Just to be clear -- again, you keep saying last-minute and she did go to "The Washington Post" and her member of Congress months ago. She did not want to go public. She only went public --
KREMER: Well --
BERMAN: She only went public when people started digging around her house and she thought her name might leak.
Amy Kremer, thank you for being with us. I have a sense this going to develop --
KREMER: Thank you.
BERMAN: -- over the next hour so we'll have a lot more --
KREMER: Thank you, John.
BERMAN: -- developments shortly. Thanks, Amy.
KREMER: Have a great day.
CAMEROTA: OK. So, very interesting. I mean, obviously, I think that she represents what so many people say who want to cast doubt on her story and that's certainly, I think, an important perspective to hear.
But she did start talking about it.
BERMAN: Yes.
CAMEROTA: She did six years ago. She started talking about it six years ago to her therapist, to her husband. Her husband knows this story.
BERMAN: Yes.
CAMEROTA: Her husband heard Brett Kavanaugh's name, he says. And then, the therapist knows. She also has -- and has released, I think, to Dianne Feinstein.
BERMAN: And I'm not even sure Amy was casting doubt on her story. What she was saying is that even if her story is true, it shouldn't have been leaked like this at the Eleventh Hour. That's an argument that is hard to count in this.
CAMEROTA: Right, because by the way, Dianne Feinstein didn't leak it. Reporters caught wind of it, as reporters do. Reporters started circling, reporters started trying to make contact. They started asking questions.
[07:45:07] That's what has prompted her for wanting to tell --
BERMAN: And one more thing --
CAMEROTA: -- her own story.
BERMAN: -- and I can't stress this enough. Your interview with Debra Katz, the lawyer here, has moved this forward to an enormous extent.
Now, we understand that Christine Blasey Ford wants to publicly testify before the Senate. Republicans in the Senate are going to have to explain why America should not hear her story if they don't want it to happen.
CAMEROTA: OK. Meanwhile, there's some international news to get to.
A new report says that North Korea is still building its nuclear program despite what the Trump administration says they agreed to. So we will talk to the reporter behind that story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: All right. New this morning, "The New York Times" is reporting that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un continues to actively build nuclear weapons, but the way in which he is doing it is different than before.
Joining us now is CNN political and national security analyst, and national security correspondent for "The New York Times", David Sanger, the reporter behind this story.
What is Kim doing, David?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, he's doing what he's always done, John, in one way, which is that since he came into power seven years ago he's really put the pedal to the metal on building up both their nuclear weapons and the fuel that goes behind them and, of course, the missile program.
[07:50:00] What's different now is that his reading of President Trump -- American intelligence officials tell me based on that meeting in Singapore in June that you and I so many others were at -- has led him to conclude that President Trump is unlikely to go respond harshly to anything he can't see publicly. So production of material, production of weapons, as long as it's hidden, is fine.
It's tests that Kim has held off on, really since last November. And it may be that he thinks now that the can get away with building up the nuclear arsenal as long he just doesn't test it.
BERMAN: You flatter, you hide, you build.
You note in your piece there is some historical precedent for this in Pakistan. That Pakistan has had a nuclear weapons program for a long time, they just haven't bragged about it the way that Kim was before he met with Donald Trump. SANGER: Well, the last Pakistani test was in 1998. It was in response to some tests in India.
India, Pakistan, and Israel are the three countries, other than North Korea, that are outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have not publicly tested -- the Israelis have never publicly tested. The Indians and the Pakistanis have not for many, many years.
And I think Kim is looking at this, John, and saying well, nobody's pressuring them to give things up.
Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, went to Pakistan two weeks ago. He barely mentioned the nuclear program.
BERMAN: And, in fact, you note in this piece that in the Singapore meeting and then immediately after, words that the president spoke out loud in public have really opened the door for Kim to get a lot more of what he wants.
SANGER: That's right. So, as you and I have often discussed in the past, the idea of going to Kim Jong Un -- the man who makes all the decisions in North Korea -- was probably a pretty bold and good diplomatic initiative on the president's part.
When he left Singapore, the president tweeted out that the nuclear crisis in North Korea is solved, and that ended up being the excuse that China and Russia have used to resume trade and I think has led Mr. Kim to believe the pressure's off. He can make this negotiation go on forever.
So three months later, he hasn't even taken the first step of providing the inventory of all of his nuclear materials, and sites, and missiles.
BERMAN: David Sanger, terrific reporting. Thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.
SANGER: Thank you, John.
CAMEROTA: All right, John, listen to this.
New research says an aspirin a day could do more harm than good.
BERMAN: Oh, no.
CAMEROTA: Yes. I hate when this happens.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here to explain, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:56:47] CAMEROTA: New research finds that an aspirin a day may not keep the doctor away. Three studies just published in "The New England Journal of Medicine" says a low-dose aspirin a day -- that regime -- provides no significant benefit to healthy, older adults, and it could actually cause more harm than good. CNN's Chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us now. I'm
so confused, Sanjay.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I know. Look, this is a -- this is a big one, Alisyn. I think it's big. It's reverberating in the medical world, certainly among patients.
There are millions of older people out there, 70 years and older, who are healthy -- older healthy people who take an aspirin a day with the hopes that it will prevent their risk of having a heart attack or stroke and prolong good health.
That's what they hope. That's what they've been told, as you say. That's been the wisdom.
This study -- a good study -- nearly 20,000 people -- says that is not the case. That is not the case.
And again, this is a surprise, I think, for a lot of people but I think no one is questioning the veracity of the study. I think it's going to change how doctors recommend things to their patients.
And as the author said, I think in a telephone interview to somebody, he said sometimes the ugly facts slay a good theory. And that's the case here. It's been a theory for a long time but the facts now really do make a difference here in terms of how medicine's going to go forward.
CAMEROTA: So who should be taking an aspirin a day?
GUPTA: So think about it like this. People who have had a heart attack or stroke in the past, they're the ones that are probably going to have the most benefit. The issue is that blood clots could actually cause a second heart attack or stroke. A low-dose aspirin could prevent that from happening.
Also -- you know, they also say adults 50 to 59 -- 10 percent or greater 10-year risk of having heart disease -- cardiovascular disease -- they also should take an aspirin. Even if they haven't had a heart attack or stroke yet, people who are 50 to 59 should.
You may say well, why 50 to 59 but not people older than 70? As you get older, your blood vessels become more fragile. You think it's just a low-dose aspirin.
You've got to -- you've got to get the mentality that a low-dose aspirin in an older person could pose some real risks. That's the thing. And the risks don't outpace the rewards here.
CAMEROTA: OK. So what about people who were not in that list that you just outlined? What if -- what should they do if they've been taking aspirin? Stop right now?
GUPTA: Well, I think that the issue is that if you -- your doctor recommends that you start taking aspirin, I think you've got to talk to your doctor first and make sure that there's not some other reason that they're recommending this.
I mean, obviously, I think a lot of people are going to end up stopping their aspirin here, but I think you should do that with -- in consultation with your doctor.
The big advice -- don't start taking an aspirin just to prevent heart disease or stroke, especially if you're 70 years or older and you don't -- and you're healthy. That -- the risks, again, just are greater than the rewards here.
And people actually have significant bleeding as a result of this, so I think that's why the authors were so concerned.
CAMEROTA: OK, that is a big headline.
Sanjay Gupta --
GUPTA: It is a huge headline.
CAMEROTA: -- thank you very much for explaining it to us.
All right, we're following a lot of news this morning so let's get right to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA), MEMBER, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: If the Judiciary Committee goes forward with this vote it would be an insult to every woman in this country.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: I was very surprised. I'm going to be talking with my colleagues.
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Republicans want to shove it on through but the perception is that they've been stiff-arming.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge Kavanaugh has categorically --
