Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Christine Blasey Ford Wants FBI Probe Before Testifying. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 19, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any talk of a hearing on Monday, Frankly, is premature.

[05:59:16] SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: She does not want to come Monday, we've got to move on and vote.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: If you don't want the hearing to be a he said/she said, an independent investigation by the FBI is essential.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I feel terribly for him. This is not a man that deserves this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's important that we hear from witnesses, not least of which is Mark Judge.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is what they did to Anita Hill. It's time for all of us to say end this kind of treatment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: The show starts now, whether we're ready or not. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Wednesday, September 19, 6 a.m. here in New York.

And we do start with a big question this morning, and that is will Christine Blasey Ford testify before the Senate next week? The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her decades ago says she wants the FBI to investigate before she agrees to appear before Congress.

Ford's lawyer says she has received death threats since revealing her identity and insists that asking her client to appear before that Senate panel in just days is not a fair process.

BERMAN: So this is a huge development overnight and sets up a direct conflict with Republicans in the Senate and the White House. President Trump and Republican leaders have rejected the idea of having the FBI re-open Kavanaugh's background check. They say there is nothing more for them to get from the FBI. And what's more, Republican leaders in the Senate are refusing to

allow any other witnesses at a hearing, including the man that Professor Blasey says was in the room during the alleged assault.

So who blinks here? Where will does this go? And just a reminder, this is why we keep saying "if." If this hearing happens -- we said it all day yesterday -- if this hearing takes place -- because it is very much an open question this morning.

Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Abby Phillip, live at the White House. Where are we at one minute after 6 on the East Coast, Abby?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, John.

Just yesterday, Brett Kavanaugh spent the second day in a row here at the White House, and we've learned that he spent that day preparing with White House aides with questions over his personal life in preparation for what might be a Senate hearing before the Judiciary Committee. But that hearing, as you pointed out, is now very much in question, and Republicans have to decide, are they are going to push this through on Monday, or are they going to heed the concerns of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA BANKS, CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD'S ATTORNEY: She will talk with the committee. She's not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday.

PHILLIP (voice-over): Professor Christine Blasey Ford calling for the FBI to investigate her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Judge Brett Kavanaugh in high school, before she agrees to testify. Ford's lawyers writing in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that an FBI probe will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses are assessed in a nonpartisan manner and that the committee is fully informed.

BANKS: For the last 48 hours she has been deflecting death threats and harassment and trying to care for her family and determine where they're going to sleep at night. And right now, she can't focus on having a hearing that hasn't been investigated and where nobody has talked to her.

PHILLIP: The letter also charging that the hearing would include interrogation by senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is mistaken and mixed up, an apparent reference to these remarks.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Do you believe the accuser at all or no?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I think she's mistaken.

RAJU: What did he say to you?

HATCH: Well, he didn't do that, and he wasn't at the party. So you know, there's -- clearly, somebody is mixed up.

PHILLIP: Grassley responding that the invitation for a public or private hearing still stands, before writing, "Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay."

Republican senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Corker later echoing Grassley's call for the hearing proceed as planned.

President Trump also weighing in, accusing Democrats of playing politics after expressing sympathy for Kavanaugh earlier in the day.

TRUMP: I feel so badly for him that he's going through this. This is not a man that deserves this.

PHILLIP: And rejecting calls for an FBI probe.

TRUMP: I don't think the FBI really should be involved, because they don't want to be involved.

PHILLIP: Despite repeatedly calling for the FBI's intervention in other matters related to his political opponents.

A number of Democrats reiterating their support for an FBI investigation, and calling for more witnesses to appear before the committee, including Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's classmate, who Ford classmate says witnessed the alleged assault.

Meanwhile, 24 of Ford's classmates sending a letter to Congress, defending her character. Ford's friend telling CNN, "I know from the things she has told me, including her need to have more than one exit door in her bedroom to prevent her from being trapped, that this event was serious enough to have a lasting impact on her life."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIPS: And has also learned that another of Brett Kavanaugh's classmates has written a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying that he doesn't remember attending any much party like the one that Ford describes.

Meanwhile, President Trump later this morning is heading down to North Carolina where he is expected to survey some of the damage from Hurricane Florence -- John and Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Abby. Thank you very much. Stay with us if you would.

Joining us now we have CNN senior political analyst, John Avlon; and CNN contributor and "New York Times" op-ed columnist, Frank Bruni. He has a new weekly newsletter you can find at "The New York Times" website.

[06:05:07] BERMAN: It's really good, by the way.

CAMEROTA: Fantastic. I look forward to reading that. But first this, Frank. Let's -- let's look at this where we are, and let's look at it from Christine Blasey Ford's side, right? So why would she agree to come for a political process in front of the Senate judiciary that's an interrogation but not an investigation into what really happened? That seems like the position that she has come to over the past 48 hours.

Now, when her lawyer was on with us earlier this week, she said unequivocally, yes, Christine Ford will show up. She wants to speak to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But something has changed, and if we look at her from her perspective, does that make sense?

FRANK BRUNI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I think it does make some sense. I mean, if she just goes on Monday, and it's just her and Brett Kavanaugh speaking and that's it, it becomes a he said-she said. No one -- it will be a Rorschach test for everybody watching it. No one will feel that they've gotten the truth. And it will seem like a sort of kabuki dance that wasn't meant to actually produce anything real.

I think, with more time to think about it, she and her lawyer decided, wait, if this is really going to be heard seriously, if there's going to be any attempt to get, you know, some facts here to lend illumination to this situation, it needs to be more than just two rival people testifying saying, "But I remember this," "But I remember that."

It's interesting, too. Anita Hill has come out. She has an op-ed in my paper today. And one of the main recommendations that she has made, based on her experience, is do not rush this. Do not -- she says expressly, do not go directly to a he said-she said hearing on Monday, because that doesn't represent a serious effort to find something as close to the truth as you can get here.

BERMAN: It's interesting. Jeffrey Toobin on the show said yesterday, though, what is the goal? Is the goal to get Kavanaugh confirmed, because that seems to be --

CAMEROTA: For Republicans, sure.

BERMAN: -- the goal of Republicans in the Senate and the president? Or is the goal to find out the facts?

BRUNI: I think for Republicans, the goal is to get him confirmed. And so they have a great interest in doing this Monday, just with two witnesses, letting everybody decide, "I believe him," "I believe her," go to vote. And they think they're probably going to make the vote by one or two votes.

BERMAN: The other challenge, though, now for Professor Blasey and people who support her, is what if this is the only way for her to come out and tell her story publicly before a confirmation vote? If this is all that's ever offered to her, if they don't budge at all, John, do you think she blinks?

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't know. But I was struck by the distance between what her lawyer told Ally on Monday and the position today. I understand why they would feel that way. I think Anita Hill's advice on this, based on her personal experience, should be taken very seriously.

But remember, the Republicans' initial impulse was to see if they could do this in private with a series of phone calls. Basically through dint of public pressure and opinion, they agreed to pushing this out to Monday from Thursday and to give everyone a chance to hear her in person.

Their goal, obviously, is to confirm Kavanaugh. The problem with this new position is it seems to dovetail what they believe, what Republicans believe Democrats want to do, which is delay this hearing, and therefore possibly kick it even closer to the midterms or past.

BRUNI: Well, that's exactly what Democrats want to do, because if they delay this and something goes wrong with this nomination, there's not enough time on the calendar for Republicans to come up with new nominee and for this to happen before the midterms.

And then what if, after the midterms, we wake up and the Democrats have control of the Senate? Then Trump doesn't get a nominee to his liking at all.

CAMEROTA: Ever, I mean, basically. That's how that plays out.

BRUNI: That's right. These are the stakes.

CAMEROTA: Abby, here's what Christine Blasey Ford is recommending, is let the FBI investigate this. And there's a little bit of problem with that, which is that this isn't their jurisdiction. This isn't a federal crime.

However, they do background checks. They have done a background check, they say, on Brett Kavanaugh and don't feel like doing another one. But now there's new information.

So here's the letter that her lawyers have sent to Chuck Grassley, making their case for why the FBI should re-open their background check on him, on Brett Kavanaugh. "As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a nonpartisan matter and that the committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."

As you well know, President Trump is not interested in sort of calling for that.

PHILLIP: Not at all. And, you know, there are some questions about whether the FBI even feels like this is something that is worth them weighing in on, in part because this has become such a politicized process.

But the White House has been saying since Monday that Brett Kavanaugh has gone through all of these different background checks throughout his life, not just the latest one, but when he was being confirmed to the circuit court and other prior positions that would require background checks. So that's what they're leaning on here.

And I think it's a open question, really, how much the FBI could do in a situation like this. I think there are two arguments here. You could argue that it would just allow for a little bit more due process, considering that, as Ford points out, many of the senators on the Republican side have already seemed to have made up their minds about who they believe in this case.

But at the same time, it's not clear that we'll learn a whole lot more. And there's -- and I think what we've learned from our reporting is that the White House has to be the one to say, "Hey, please re-open this background check," and there's absolutely no indication that they're willing to do that. The FBI has not taken up Dianne Feinstein's request to do the same thing, so I think we're in a stalemate unless the political dynamics change, forcing the White House to change their tune.

BERMAN: Don't hold your breath on the White House asking the FBI to investigate this, which by the way, you will note, the president has asked the FBI to investigate any number of things.

In fact, all things, practically, under the sun I'm going to read you: Hillary Clinton and her private e-mail server; the Uranium One deal; Russian collusion; alleged corruption; surveillance from the Obama administration; James Comey; on and on and on and on. The president has no problem asking the FBI to investigate anything.

This isn't an issue of can or can't, though. The FBI absolutely can investigate this and has and does do background checks under certain situations, which is what Dianne Feinstein is arguing in a tweet this morning. You have that?

CAMEROTA: "Fact check: The FBI can investigate Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations as part of its background investigation. That is their job. To say otherwise is false. It investigated Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas. It should investigate this, too."

BERMAN: They went and asked Anita Hill questions, the FBI did. They asked Clarence Thomas questions. They could go ask questions and answer Abby's point there, what could they do here? They could try to find out which house this party was at. They could try to talk to the people who own that house. They could --

CAMEROTA: There were other people there.

BERMAN: They could try to find the other people, that they could talk to prolific author Mark Judge, who has a big willingness to talk about his high-school drinking --

CAMEROTA: I guess.

BERMAN: -- in books and journalism and whatnot, but not now --

AVLON: To a point.

BERMAN: -- and not under oath before the Senate. They could ask him questions.

PHILLIP: And John, I think the other key thing here is that the way that the Senate Republicans have decided to do this is to not even ask for other witnesses to appear.

Mark Judge has said he doesn't want to testify, and they could subpoena him. They could force him to be a part of this process. But there are a lot of ways in which, on the Republican side, they are demonstrating that they are not really -- even if they -- even if they don't want the FBI to look into it, they don't necessarily want to look into it particularly deeply.

And that's why, you know, Ford is sort of backing off of this process, because even in the Anita Hill case, there were so many other witnesses who were called to testify as part of this process. In this case, the one-on-one is exactly what the White House wants. They think the he said-she said will end up being a wash in the court of public opinion, clearing the way for Republican senators to take a vote on this in a fairly guilt-free manner.

AVLON: Yes. Look, to be clear, Republicans want the minimum viable product, to show that they've given a chance for her to tell her story, to not have a political backlash that hurts them in the fall.

Politics, we're less than 50 days out of the election. Politics is overriding this. The deeper principles at stake, though, are the extent to which this is about a search for the truth, and the extent to which truth is knowable when you're dealing with a high-school party 35 years ago. And what may be two very different truths.

I think the reason this is especially complicated, FBI investigation aside, is that we're dealing with the imperative we've understood culturally to take women's accounts seriously. It has not been done historically, compared to and competing with another fundamental principle, which is an assumption of innocence on the part of someone being accused. Those two things are in contradiction. That's difficult ground to navigate.

Legally with an FBI investigation, although it would presumably help figure out which truth gets the upper hand, so to speak. But this is a -- this is why this is so difficult for us to deal with as a society, and it's going to play out, and it should play out.

CAMEROTA: And Frank, one of the other things is that as we have seen over the past two years, that everybody from Harvey Weinstein to Roger Ailes, what often happens is once somebody comes forward, the floodgates open. And so the fact that that has not yet happened here -- it's early days, but it has not yet happened here. If this is a single -- if this happened, if this is a single incident, if this was if he was blind drunk and doesn't remember, then I think that everybody has to decide is this disqualifying?

BRUNI: I think -- I think everybody is holding their breath and waiting to see if any other woman comes forward, because you're right. That is typically what happens.

And I think people who want to believe in Brett Kavanaugh, people who want to vote for his confirmation, they feel, if no one else comes forward, they can say, "Well, you know, usually where there's one, there's more than one. This makes me wonder about the accuracy of her memory, et cetera." And so I think the clock is sort of ticking on that.

Something else is happening, though. It's not just about people coming forward. I guarantee that the best investigative reporters at every news organization -- this one, my news organization and the country -- over these next days and for the last 48 hours have been looking to see what else might there be from this period of Brett Kavanaugh's life. And so the next 48 hours, the next 72 hours, we could be having an entirely different conversation.

[06:15:17] BERMAN: And I know this is not a game, so I'm using the word "gamesmanship" here, but it's not a game. There's a lot of gamesmanship here, and one of the things that Republicans have to be careful with, if they try to get this vote very soon, is that something else does come out. That's one of their big risks.

And again, the risk for Professor Blasey is that she will never get to tell her story unless she does it, perhaps, on their terms.

CAMEROTA: All right. Thank you all very much, Abby, Frank, John.

So what are the challenges of investigating an alleged sexual assault from decades ago? Two former federal prosecutors who have prosecuted sex crimes, even cold cases, join us next with what they would do.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Christine Blasey Ford is calling for the FBI to investigate her sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before she agrees to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So how would investigators begin here? How would they look into a claim like this from decades ago?

Joining us now are two women who know: CNN legal analyst Laura Coates and legal analyst Cynthia Alksne. Laura and Cynthia are both former federal prosecutors with a record of prosecuting sex crimes.

[06:20:09] Ladies, thank you very much for being here. It's great to have your expertise with us.

Laura, let's play this scenario out. Somebody comes -- a woman comes to you and says, "Thirty-five years ago, I was the victim of a sexual assault at a party. There's a lot of details I can't remember, such as where the party was or the exact date. But I felt that I would have been raped if this assault had gone as far as it was intended."

Where do you start?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I start first with the limitations period. Is there some rule or law that says that I cannot prosecute in a certain amount of time?

I also would look to figure out, is there any way to corroborate any of the details and whether this person, in fact, is credible? We often have cases of he said-she said or a lapse of memory, not just 36 years but even five years out, one year out. There's all sorts of interesting scenarios where someone could not have the full recollection.

But the job as the prosecutor to look at these cases is whether or not they can actually convince a jury, and they have the requisite amount of details to be able to say this is a credible witness, who has a credible story that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The amount of time can be a factor. But if she can recall things like it happened around the same time, certain details no one else would know -- did somebody see her outside of the party who may recall her emotional reaction in some way? Did she tell anyone: a therapist, a diary entry, your friend, let alone an officer? All that can go towards building that case.

CAMEROTA: OK. But Cynthia, let's start with the very -- one of the first factors that Laura just brought up, and that is what are the laws here?

So this is not -- this is a state law. I mean, wouldn't you have to look at the statute of limitations in Maryland? nd as I understand it, but you guys are the experts, the statute of limitations has passed for a crime like this, which would be attempted, I guess, sexual assault. And that was, I think, statute of limitation in Maryland is one to three years.

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this is, as much as we talk about it, the statute of limitations has passed. And that's because it's really a misdemeanor case. I mean, let's be honest about it. This is an attempt, and it's a misdemeanor and limitations has passed.

So if you were the prosecutor, and she came into your office at the United States attorney's office in D.C., the case would not be prosecuted. I think we need to be honest about that.

Now, on the other hand, this is not a case that we're looking at a criminal prosecution. We're looking at whether or not this person is entitled to a Supreme Court seat. And so the investigation needs to go forward, because that's such an important position. It's a different standard of proof and a different thing we're looking at.

I would spend a lot of time finding out who -- who was in their circle of friends. It would be important to know, for example, did she know Judge Kavanaugh before this party happened? Because the chances of her ability to identify him as the perpetrator increase if she knew him before.

If this was the first time she'd ever seen him, that makes a big difference. So I would need to know and speak with everybody in her circle of friends and his circle of friends. The other thing that's very important in this case is his response.

You know, there's a difference between, "There was a misunderstanding between the two of us and everybody was drunk," and "I wasn't at the party." And particularly interesting here, when nobody even knows when the party was. So it's hard for me to understand how he can make a denial that "I wasn't at the party" if he doesn't even know where or when the party was. And that would factor into my decision about whether or not somebody was telling the truth.

CAMEROTA: Laura, very quickly, do you agree that you could never prosecute this if somebody walked in because of the statute of limitations?

COATES: Well, technically in Maryland, there is no limitations, period, if it's a felony offense. So there is not that one to three requirement.

CAMEROTA: This would be a misdemeanor, right?

COATES: Well, it could be a misdemeanor if the facts actually suggest that it was -- it was limited to that. One of the reasons that people often downgrade a case to a misdemeanor is because of the inability to prove to a jury in front of a jury trial. But a bench trial is available for the misdemeanor. You can have that option there.

But I will say, that's why an investigation is often so important, because the notion that somebody closed a door, if it's true, covered one's mouth to prevent her from screaming, and then had a second person come into the room, I would need to have more information to conclude definitively that this would not and could not have been a felony.

But she's absolutely right, the notion that most of the time when you're talking about a nonpenetration-related sexual assault, as this is, you often don't see this as a felony offense.

CAMEROTA: OK. So let's move on to what can happen. So Cynthia, do you believe the FBI should re-open a background check, given this new information?

ALKSNE: Absolutely. The FBI -- the idea that the FBI is not capable of investigating this is ridiculous. And who is surprised that the president of the United States, who's been accused of numerous sexual assaults, doesn't want the FBI investigating a sexual assault? Nobody.

The FBI is perfectly capable of doing this. They do it all kinds of background investigations. They do all kinds of sex trafficking investigations. They have people who specialize in exactly this type. If the FBI can't handle a simple case like this, then we might as well all go home. It's just ridiculous to me that we're putting forward that argument that they're not capable of doing it.

[06:25:14] Moreover, Chuck Grassley would do it? I mean, let's look at what the alternative is. The alternative is that the Senate, who does not have investigative experience, and now 25 years after Anita Hill, doesn't even have a protocol on what to do next. They can't be in charge of this investigation. This should go to a neutral investigative body, and the best body to do that in the United States of America is the FBI.

CAMEROTA: So Laura, does the president have to authorize reopening the background check, or can the FBI do it on its own?

COATES: Well, technically, the president of the United States is in the position to actually say, "You can do this background check."

But remember, the FBI, their investigation is no longer complete. If they have a background file, which they would on a judicial nominee, and they have for every person even seeking a security clearance. Let's remember Rob Porter and the background investigation that led them to give information to the White House, and then to put it in their corner of what to do with it.

They absolutely now have some indication that their investigation is not complete. Their background check is no longer complete. And so even without the president expressly stating to them that they must continue, they now have reason to believe there is additional work to be done.

But one of the reasons that there is not an interest in trying to have this case pursued, not just what Christine was talking about, the notion of sexual assault, but also remember, the Supreme Court term is set to begin in October. And the Supreme Court padded and loaded up their docket with the expectation of a conservative revolution of justices, and they have a full October of very important cases that, if they do not have a full empaneled Supreme Court of nine justices, they could risk having a lot of liberal-based decisions, as they call it, stand the test of time.

And so they have a rush here, not just because of the FBI's ability, which they do, to investigate, but because they want nine Supreme Court justices and the balance to tip in front -- in favor of a conservative majority, including what could be issues related to women's rights.

So I want everyone not to be hoodwinked this is a matter of process and protocol and just about the FBI's ability. There's a reason they would like to rush somebody through on this particular Supreme Court.

CAMEROTA: That's really helpful context, Laura, because often we talk about the midterms, but it's important to keep the court docket in mind.

Laura Coates, Cynthia Alksne, thank you both very much for your expertise -- John.

COATES: Thank you.

BERMAN: Well, we have breaking news from the Korean Peninsula this morning. The third summit between the leaders of the two Koreas. Public pronouncements of an agreement, but does this really move the ball forward? We have a live report next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)