Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Accuser Insists FBI Should Investigate Her Sexual Assault Allegations Before She Testifies to Senate. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired September 19, 2018 - 8:00   ET

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

[08:00:00] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY. It is Wednesday, September 19th, 8:00 in the east.

Christine Blasey Ford says she wants the FBI to investigate the allegations that she has made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that he sexually assaulted her decades ago at a high school party. That is her condition before she agrees to appear before Congress. Ford's lawyers says he 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.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This major development really does set up a direct conflict for Republicans in the Senate and the White House. Republican leaders, they have rejected, flat out rejected the idea of having the FBI reopen Brett Kavanaugh's background check. They say there is nothing more to get from the FBI.

And what's more, the Republican Senate leaders are refusing to allow any other witnesses at the hearing, including the man that Professor Blasey says was in the room during the alleged assault. So who is going to blink here? Will this hearing happen?

Joining us now CNN legal analyst, Laura Coates, Chris Cillizza, reporter and editor at large for CNN Politics and author of "The Point with Chris Cillizza," and senior correspondent for New York magazine and co-author of "Notorious RBG" Irin Carmon. Thank you all for being with us.

Laura, I want to start with you here. On the showdown, this face-off that really has developed over the last 11 hours. Professor Blasey says she will not testify on Monday unless there is an FBI investigation, that they go back and reopen this background check on Judge Kavanaugh. The FBI says it's not going to do that. Senate Republicans said they are not going to ask for it. The president says he will not ask for it. What would the FBI background check do? What more could it provide here?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Remember, one of the things that her attorney said very importantly last night on CNN is that the hearing cannot be a substitute for an investigation. And so the investigation would have to actually conduct interviews with people, including Mark Judge, who says he has no recollection of the event or that his friend at the time, Judge Kavanaugh, now Judge Kavanaugh, would ever have engaged in that behavior. They have an investigation about asking her questions about what she remembers, whether there is a credibility assessment to be made on her, and of course through Brett Kavanaugh who has already interviewed by the FBI as part of the background investigation. Has he been told about this in advance? Did he make any misstatements or lies or nuances to his statements he made in the Congressional hearing.

All that can be actually investigated by the FBI. And they have really an ongoing duty frankly to conclude that their background investigation is complete and comprehensive. But really the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is not the same as the investigative fact finding mission of the FBI, and that's what's important in an investigation.

CAMEROTA: And Laura, I just want to stick with you for one more quick second. If this is the duty of the FBI, why are they saying they won't reopen the background check?

COATES: That is really the question here. Maybe it's because the people who are controlling the ultimate resolution, including the president of the United States who is charged with nominating and trying to secure that appointment of Judge Kavanaugh has no interest in having it expanded beyond that.

And of course they obviously have no interest in having an expedited hasty investigation process where they are told they have less than a week to conclude on all the information they're now hearing about. So I suspect on the one hand it is about whether or not they like to take the directive from somebody else that doesn't want them to, and also what they're able to do. Efficiency does not always comport with being able to do it quickly.

BERMAN: There are major political implications in all this, which we will get to in just a moment, who perhaps has the upper hand now on where this goes. But I do want to talk for a minute, Irin, about the history here and what was learned from the Anita Hill hearing. And one of the things that was learned then and there is general agreement on is that it was rushed and that it happened too fast, and that she was put in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee without the proper investigation, although the FBI did investigate in that case, without the proper preparation and without the proper context or other witnesses there. That is instructive, as Professor Blasey says, wait a minute, help me out here.

IRIN CARMON, CO-AUTHOR, "NOTORIOUS RBG": John, I think it is really interesting that we have heard again and again that there were problems with how the Anita Hill matters is being handled. But in fact, what Dr. Blasey Ford is being offered here is essentially less than what Anita Hill got.

As you say, the FBI did investigate it. In fact, I went back and I looked at the timeline. President George H. W. Bush asked for the matter, asked for his FBI investigation to be reopened. The FBI investigated for three days, which seems actually, frankly, short, but it does suggest that this isn't necessarily something that would significantly delay the proceedings. There were 22 witnesses that were called in the Anita Hill proceeding. So, in fact, saying it had to be Monday, saying that only two people are going to be called when she's named multiple people. Two of those individuals have sent letters to the committee saying that they don't remember anything, but will those individuals will questioned? Will they actually provide more details under oath or to a law enforcement professional?

[08:05:08] So I think the circumstances under which Dr. Blasey Ford were exposed were not ones of her choosing, which I think is problematic. And I think when we talk about due process, we should be thinking about what's due process for all sides here? And that includes the person making the allegations.

CAMEROTA: So Chris, are Republicans going to press on with this hearing on Monday?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Well, so I was surprised, alysn. After we got the letter that was sent to the Senate Judiciary committee from the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford saying essentially we need an FBI investigation before she's going to sit down, Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came out within the hour, I believe this all happened between 10:00 and 11:00 last night, and said we're doing it Monday. She's had her opportunity.

You then saw Jeff Flake and Bob Corker who are not exactly -- they're willing to rebel at times, certainly against Donald Trump, occasionally against Senate Republican leadership, saying, and there tweets, saying, this is her chance. She needs to do it. If not we need to proceed to a vote on Brett Kavanaugh.

That's a giant gamble politically speaking because what it's saying is put up or shut up to a woman who is saying she was sexually assaulted by someone who is the nominee for the highest court in the land. They're saying this date, if you don't show up by this date, we don't need to hear from you. It's no longer important. That's a big, big bet, to hope that you keep Senate Republicans in line, number one, on that. And then remember Donald Trump's approval rating in the CNN poll among women is 24 percent. So this is -- this is a potential political toxic brew that they are taking a gamble on. I think we should highlight that.

BERMAN: They are, but should and shouldn't are one thing. Is and isn't can often be a completely different thing. And the subject of is, the sense I get this morning is that Republicans feel that Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation is closer than it was prior to 8:00 last night. The fact that Professor Blasey will not testify Monday, apparently, means that they are closer to confirmation because it is more likely this vote will happen sooner without hearing from her.

CILLIZZA: In their mind, they had took the ball that she had whacked over to their side with this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee and whacked it back to her side, saying essentially it's Monday or the highway. I know I'm mixing my metaphors. And so they now believe the burden is on her. Will she say, OK, I won't have this investigation and I will testify because I want my story publicly, or will she not? And they believe, and this is a critical point, I think, John, they believe that if she says no, they can and will move on to a vote. Again, I think that's a very risky political proposition. Forget all the other pieces of this. But it appears to be the proposition that they have taken out.

CAMEROTA: Laura, the other problem is that if they move on and take a vote quickly, then what if someone else comes forward? We often look for a pattern of behavior, obviously, with these things. And we have often seen over the past two years that after one person is brave enough to make an accusation, then the floodgates open and other people feel that that gives them the courage, frankly, to talk about if they have had a similar experience.

COATES: That has been the trend here, Alisyn. And you think about this issue. Number one, just because she's reluctant to testify on the terms that have been set by the Senate -- and by the way, it's only the 11th hour because senators have actually said what the 12th hour is. There is no real deadline when you have to have someone appointed or confirmed, although the Supreme Court term is looming.

But the idea that if she does not speak on Monday I think is really a presumption that she is not credible all along to people, that if you are not willing to tell your story under the parameters we have set, then clearly you cannot be believed. And that's not the case for most people have a reluctance towards exposing themselves to the fire and the lion's den and being questioned about sexual assault allegations.

And number two, part of the rush and why there is a political gamble paying off for them is because, remember, the Supreme Court term is starting in a matter of days, which means that the conservative revolution that was expected to take place by having the scales tip in favor of having five conservative justices is upon the Republican Party as they are willing to gamble there may be an asterisk by his name. But it did pay off to have that asterisks by for Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice. So for them, you've got all these cases that are looming in the wind. They want to have him confirmed before the October term set. If he does not hear some of the key cases that are coming, he can't vote on them and you will have a four- four split in favor of lower court, liberal rulings. They don't want that, and that's why they're gambling.

[08:10:05] CAMEROTA: Irin, my point is the fact that no other women have come forward speaks, I think, to his case. That really helps his case.

CARMON: Alisyn, it's been four days since the "Washington Post" story came out, right? And let's think about what the letter that CNN reported on last night says. It says that this woman has received death threats, that her e-mail has hacked, that she's had to move out of her house. It is possible that there are more people out there. It is also possible there are not. But in order for people to come forward, they have to feel safe and they have to feel listened to.

So I think that there are serious questions in this process whether the groundwork has been laid for that to happen. And I would also add that each individual allegation has to be investigated. So there is not one freebee as a lawyer interviewed yesterday said. It's not like, OK, you're just accused of assaulting one person. Let's look at each allegation and see on the merits, let's fully investigate it, let's have a neutral process, and then we'll be able to say, OK, we're a little bit closer to the truth here.

BERMAN: I think the FBI should investigation how it's only Wednesday in this story. Really, so much more to come. Irin, Chris, Laura, our thanks to you. Appreciate it.

The controversy surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination draws echoes, obviously echoes, blatant echoes to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing back in 1991. We're going to speak with one of two female members of the Senate at that time. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:00]

BERMAN: The woman accusing President Trump's Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault, her name is Professor Christine Blasey Ford. She is saying at this point she will not appear at this hearing which has been scheduled for Monday. Professor Ford - Professor Blasey she likes to be called - says she wants the FBI to fully investigate this before she will agree to sit down.

Joining us now by phone is someone who has been through this before, a similar a situation, of course, we're talking about 1991, the Clarence Thomas confirmation process. Joining us now is former Republican senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas.

Nearly 30 years ago, Senator Kassebaum was one of two female members of the Senate. She voted yes to confirm Clarence Thomas. Senator Kassebaum, thanks so much for joining us with us. I appreciate it.

NANCY KASSEBAUM, FORMER SENATOR OF KANSAS: I'm happy to be able to talk about it, although I don't have inside information.

BERMAN: We know you would give us all the inside information if you did have it, so I appreciate you for that. Listen, what did you learn from the Clarence Thomas confirmation process in the Anita Hill testimony?

KASSEBAUM: Well, I think there is one similarity that is equally intense in both. It was sprung at the very last moment by the Democrats in both cases, and it was something not known by, I assume, most members of the committee in both instances in 19 - the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearing and this one.

However, in this - in the earlier hearing, Anita Hill was an extremely creditable witness. She had told friends about it, but she - what had happened, it was a case of this happening suddenly without any real knowledge about it forehead.

And the same thing in this instance, although evidentially not wishing to be known, she had sent a letter to Senator Feinstein.

BERMAN: Right. KASSEBAUM: I guess my own view at this point is it shows how emotionally intense the political aspects of it have become.

BERMAN: I do think -

KASSEBAUM: And in all fairness to her -

BERMAN: Sure.

KASSEBAUM: - she should have her hearing, but she wished first for it to be unknown and then she wished to be known, and now she wishes the FBI to be heard first before she testifies.

BERMAN: No question that it's politically intense. Any Supreme Court confirmation battle is politically intense -

KASSEBAUM: Well -

BERMAN: - and then you add the element of alleged sexual assault, which adds -

KASSEBAUM: Yes, but it complete surprise, too.

BERMAN: Right. A complete surprise -

KASSEBAUM: It evidentially, supposedly it leaked out by someone's staff on the Democrat side. I don't know about any of that. It seems to me now, though, that it falls upon the committee and particularly Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, both of them senators that I admire to come together both of them and make a clear statement of exactly how and when this will continue.

BERMAN: Right. She wants to tell - Professor Blasey says she wants to tell her story, she wants to testify, but she feels as if it will not be fair unless the FBI reopens their background investigation. They would also, I think, like to see other witnesses up there that day.

Again, based on what you learned from 1991, what protections in this case do need to be afforded to a woman who is going to come forward in an incredibly difficult situation and tell her version of a story, her story of an alleged sexual assault?

KASSEBAUM: Well, one, Anita Hill, had friends that she had told at the time that she had been - there had been implications of comments by Clarence Thomas of innuendos and sort of sexual harassment. She had told friends. In that case, Clarence Thomas had a strong supporter of - was Senator Jack Danforth, and he had been on his staff at some time.

There were differences there and differences in how it was handled.

[08:20:00]

CNN - NEW DAY - 190820 It was ready to go to the floor. It had been sent without recommendation because it was a tie vote.

In this case, I think it's up to the Judiciary Committee to say, the FBI can summon and they should summon the witnesses that they know who were there.

That one who has said he does not want to testify and he really doesn't remember, well he should be summoned and to testify any other witnesses that she name.

The FBI, I -- hey, I suppose he'd have to go through names that were -- I don't know if they know anybody remembers the home where this was held.

BERMAN: Right and that would be one of the things. That would be one of the things, presumably, the FBI could do here. And just to be clear, what you're suggesting the FBI do is something the president has said he's not in favor of and the Senate Judiciary Chair, Chuck Grassley, says he is not in favor of. And the FBI says they're not in favor of it. But that's where they're ...

KASSEBAUM: Well, I don't think the FBI -- it's not a criminal case.

BERMAN: It's not. It's not. And background checks are not criminal cases, background checks are just that, background checks.

KASSEBAUM: And that can be done very quickly on the part of the FBI and it seems to ...

BERMAN: Can I just ask you ...

KASSEBAUM: ... me she should have realized that when a month ago this came forward.

BERMAN: Senator, while we have you, I just want to ask you again, because you were part of history in 1991 and you voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. A lot has happened since then, we've learned a lot more about the relationship or the case between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, do you regret your yes vote from 1991?

KASSEBAUM: I -- I did not, at that time, I had made a decision and said so after the hearing was completed. When they re-opened the case, I only felt there were surely (ph) behavior that wasn't -- it was bad behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas.

I did not think it would necessarily change my views that he had done something that he should not be held accountable for and not serve as the Justice on the Supreme Court.

What I look back on, and really regretted, was he was not someone with the intellectual and judicial presence that I believe should been considered in my own mind more thoughtfully to serve as the Justice on the Supreme Court.

BERMAN: Senator Nancy Kassebaum.

KASSEBAUM: This case should be clearly resolved by the two committee chairman. Immediately resolving how many days they should allow this to go forward. They've offered this opportunity to be heard on the part of Professor Ford and she should be allowed to be heard.

BERMAN: Senator Kassebaum, it is a pleasure to get a chance to speak to you again. We appreciate your time. Thanks so much for your knowledge and your historical context in all of this. Appreciate it.

KASSEBAUM: Thank you. Bye.

CAMEROTA: All right, John, another story we're covering. President Trump standing by his decision to declassify some documents related to the Russia investigation. What are the risks? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:25:00]

BERMAN: President Trump is defending his order to selectively declassify secret documents and text messages related to the Russia investigation. The documents include portions of the FISA application on former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, along with interview notes, which are normally closely guarded by the FBI.

Joining now is David Kris. He work at the Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for National Security. David, thanks so much for being with us. You built minced words here (ph). You say the release of FISAs like this is off the charts. What do you mean?

DAVID KRIS, FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: It's a radical departure from the traditions that have governed in this area. We've never released to the public FISA applications. Still less have we had the president overrule the considered judgments of his subordinates to such an extreme degree and apparently without a really deliberative process.

This is a very extreme departure from the rules and norms that have governed this field.

BERMAN: So departure and unprecedented are things we often heard about this president in all areas of his administration. The question here is why, in your mind, is the departure in the unprecedentness (ph) bad?

KRIS: Well, it's interesting. Reasonable minds can differ about the appropriate balance between secrecy and transparency, and that's a difficult balance to strike. One of the most troubling aspects of this is that the balance is being struck here by a person who is a subject of the investigations to which these materials pertain.

It would be one thing if a president really struck that balance as a broad policy judgment in the national interest. This has every indication of being something done by the president solely in pursuit of his own personal interests, and that's especially troubling about the way this was done.

BERMAN: It's a curious situation, isn't it? Because there's no dispute, and I don't think you would dispute, that he has the power to do this, but it's unclear whether or not when the framers when they granted that power had in mind something along the lines of being the subject of an investigation under which you are classifying or declassifying something.

KRIS: You have it exactly right. The president, I think, clearly has the literal authority under Article II of the Constitution to make decisions about what is and isn't to be classified. He can certainly overrule his subordinates in the Executive Branch. They are, after all, his subordinates.

But I think it is fair also to say that they framers of our Constitution and the American people today expect public servants from the president on down to serve the public interest and not their own personal interests, and that's what the president appears to be doing here.

BERMAN: We had General Michael Hayden on last hour who suggested that he were at the eye (ph) of Director Wray or DNI Coats that perhaps this would be a demand that would be worth quitting over. What do you think?

KRIS: Well, that's a very difficult question that each official has to answer for themselves

[08:30:00]