Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Grassley Sets Friday Deadline for Notification from Accuser about Testimony; Trump Rejects FBI Reopening Kavanaugh Background Check. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 20, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: If she refuses to testify Monday, Kavanaugh is getting confirmed.

[05:59:16] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She is being threatened, not to mention she is not getting a fair deal.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE (via phone): It's not fair to Judge Kavanaugh for her not to come forward.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If she shows up and makes a credible showing, we'll have to make a decision.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This isn't a P.R. stunt. The Republicans are not buying it any more.

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D), NEW YORK: I stand with her. She is being bullied by this committee. It's outrageous.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Thursday, September 20, 6 a.m. here in New York.

And this morning, Professor Christine Blasey Ford faces a stark choice. Tell her story on Republican Chuck Grassley's terms or not at all.

Yes, she can appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the world and state her allegation that she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. She can do that but only if she agrees to do it with no additional independent investigation and not a single witness other than the man who she says pinned her to a bed, groped her and held his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming. That's the choice she faces.

And add to that the knowledge that even if she does do it, Judge Kavanaugh might very well be confirmed. Also, it has to be Monday or not at all. Also, she has to decide within the next 27 hours. ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Now, Ford's attorney says that Grassley's rush for a hearing next Monday is, quote, unnecessary and, once again, calls on the Senate committee to call other witnesses to testify about this alleged assault.

Meanwhile, President Trump who is the person, who has the power to ask the FBI to re-open its background check into Kavanaugh, is rejecting that idea. Instead, the president says it's, quote, "hard for him to imagine" that anything happened. So will Ford testify or will the Senate vote to confirm Kavanaugh without all of the information?

Let's begin our coverage with CNN's Abby Phillip. She is live at the White House -- Abby.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Alisyn.

Well, to date, the Senate Judiciary Committee has said that they've received no communications with Ford or her attorney, and they are moving along with plans to confirm Brett Kavanaugh in the Senate.

The committee chairman on the Republican side, Chuck Grassley, has said that Democrats are not helping them with this investigation, and he is planning to move forward with plans for a hearing on Monday.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP (voice-over): Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, setting an ultimatum for Kavanaugh's accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, telling Democrats that Ford and her lawyer have until 10 a.m. tomorrow to let the committee know whether she will testify at a hearing Monday about her sexual assault allegations, claims Kavanaugh denies.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I'm not worried about anything other than just focusing for the next few days on encouraging her to come.

PHILLIP: Grassley rejecting Ford's call for an FBI investigation, but giving her the option of a public or private hearing and offering to send his staff to California to speak with her directly.

Ford's attorneys responding in a statement to the media, writing, "The committee's stated plan to move forward with a hearing that has only two witnesses is not a fair or good-faith investigation. The rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth."

Ford's lawyers also reiterating that Ford needs time to deal with ongoing threats.

LISA BANKS, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: She has been dealing with hate mail, harassment, death threats. So she's been spending her time trying to figure out how to put her life back together, how to protect herself and her family.

Sources tell CNN that if Professor Ford chooses not to testify, the hearing will likely be scrapped and a confirmation vote could occur next week.

President Trump growing more vocal in his defense of Kavanaugh.

TRUMP: He is such an outstanding man. Very hard for me to imagine that anything happened.

PHILLIP: But also encouraging Ford to testify.

TRUMP: If she shows up, that would be wonderful. If she doesn't show up, that would be unfortunate.

PHILLIP: Ford's resistance prompting skepticism from some Republicans who had initially called for a hearing.

COLLINS (via phone): I don't think that she can reject, having made all of these serious allegations, I don't think that she can reject all those options. I think it's not fair to Judge Kavanaugh for her not to come forward and testify. Both of them need to testify under oath.

PHILLIP: Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to rush Kavanaugh's confirmation before the mid-term elections.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: Leader McConnell delayed the filling of Justice Scalia's seat for ten months. And now they're saying we can't take an additional few weeks to get the truth in a very serious allegation? What a hypocrisy.

PHILLIP: And throwing their support behind Ford's request for an investigation.

SEN. DOUG JONES (D), ALABAMA: Dr. Ford is being reasonable. I think she needs to have the respect of the committee to let this play out.

GILLIBRAND: She is being bullied by the committee. It's outrageous.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP: And there has been a lot of talk about the fact that the FBI did investigate Anita Hill's claims against Clarence Thomas back in 1991, but Republicans are rejecting that comparison, saying that the FBI investigation was carried out before Anita Hill's name and allegations became public in a confidential setting. They say this is very different. Meanwhile, President Trump today is heading to Las Vegas for a campaign rally later in the day. And we can be sure this will be top of the mind, Alisyn and John.

BERMAN: All right. Abby Phillip, stick around at the White House. We appreciate it.

Want to bring in CNN senior political analyst John Avlon; and CNN political analyst and Washington bureau chief for "The Daily Beast," Jackie Kucinich.

It seems to me, now that we're about five days into this, that we are in the middle, if not the end, of a well-planned-out strategy, from the lawyer for Judge Kavanaugh, Beth Wilkins, and one of the best lawyers in the world; and Mitch McConnell, one of the best political strategists in the world.

[06:05:09] And what they've managed to do is to corner Professor Blasey and present her with this choice, which is now more stark than ever. You have this very narrow option to tell your story, but we're going to give you that option under terms that are excruciating.

Jackie, you can tell your story but only if there are no other witnesses, only if there is not or never an independent investigation and only with the knowledge that the president of the United States is telling you, "I'm inclined to believe the judge. All of these things are stacked up against her this morning as she weighs this decision. And add to that that, even if she does tell her story, Judge Kavanaugh, she knows, will likely get confirmed.

KUCINICH: All of that is -- is accurate, John, but the other thing she would have in her favor, should she decide to testify, is the optics.

Let's not forget what a risk this is for Republicans if she does sit down and she does tell her story, and right now they are being allowed to define her on their terms, rather than her being allowed to define herself.

And she does, obviously, have a very compelling story to tell. That said, Republicans want to get this done, and while everything you outlined is true, the fact of the matter is, it is where we are. Republicans do control the Senate. They do control the calendar. And unfortunately or fortunately, depending on what side of this you are on, those are the -- those are the rules of engagement right now.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think Jackie makes a really important point. Dr. Ford has a lot of power, potentially, by testifying, and this is something, frankly, that is not in the Republicans' interests. They want to give the appearance of an offer, but the optics are really bad. And no one can say what will come out of that hearing, how that can change the dynamics.

The dynamics have been changed around this nomination by the allegation itself. Yes, we have precedent. You know, the FBI looked at Anita Hill allegations over a 72-hour period. Donald Trump isn't interested in that. But I think both for Dr. Ford and for Judge Kavanaugh, frankly, moving forward with some kind of public testimony would be in both their interests.

Otherwise, I'm concerned that people saying Dr. Ford is lying will feel vindicated by the lack of coming forward, even in the limited options, and for Kavanaugh, there will be a stain hanging over his entire tenure on the court as the sexual assault judge, fairly or unfairly. Because there wouldn't have been due process.

CAMEROTA: But John, here's the part that I don't understand. If this is about getting information, why not call other witnesses? Why has Chuck Grassley decided that it's just going to be truly he said-she said? If this is about information, and they're tasked with investigating all the information that's out there, you must call other witnesses.

So this doesn't make any sense. "No, we're just going to limit it to two people." La, la, la. Don't hear anything else.

AVLON: Especially because, in this specific case, there seems to have been a third person in the room.

CAMEROTA: And other people at the party.

AVLON: Right.

CAMEROTA: And she knows their names.

AVLON: Yes. So no, that makes no sense. The Republicans, as we said yesterday, are trying to get away with the minimum viable product. Because Lindsey Graham said, you know, the classic Washington gaffe where you accidentally tell the truth. This was a drive-by shooting at Judge Kavanaugh. I'm willing to listen to the lady, but then let's get this done.

BERMAN: Well, look, "I'm willing to listen to the lady" is as offensive --

AVLON: Yes.

BERMAN: -- as the drive-by shooting part, if not more so. Because what you're seeing is this stealth intimidation campaign. I really think that's what's going on here, is to send a message to Professor Blasey that the world is aligning against you, or at least the power structure of the world is aligning against you in this case.

And Abby, you've seen it at the White House. I think there is every reason in the world that it is leaking every day. Judge Kavanaugh is in the White House for nine hours a day behind closed doors.

CAMEROTA: Doing murder boards.

BERMAN: -- with Jeff Wilkinson and the best lawyers in the world.

CAMEROTA: Fascinating phrase. Intimidation.

BERMAN: And they are ready. The message to Professor Blasey is "We are ready for whatever you will bring," and again, you are only you allowed to bring it under the only very narrowest of circumstances.

PHILLIP: Yes. I think the White house has been trying to signal from the very beginning that they're not backing down on their nominee. They're going to prepare him. They're going to stand by him. They're bringing him physically into this building, which they certainly don't have to do in order to do this kind of preparation.

And I think the White House has calculated, again, since the very early days of this, that the only way out for them is for both of these allegations to be laid out side by side, you know, all things being equal and allowing folks to evaluate them side by side. I think they thought that what would end up happening was that it

would be very difficult for some of the senators who were the most nervous about this to make a definitive decision about who they believe and who they don't believe coming out of such a hearing.

[06:10:05] So I think, you know, it's true that Judge [SIC] Ford is in a tough position. I'm sorry, Dr. Ford is in a tough position. If she doesn't testify, then it kind of creates a vacuum. And it allows them to move forward with the vote by saying she didn't even want to lay her allegations out there.

But I do think that Democrats have also walked into a trap here, a kind of process trap, which is exactly, actually -- Republicans have started the week in a process trap by complaining that this was all revealed in all the wrong ways. And now the Democrats are the ones -- the ones complaining that this is all unfolding in the wrong ways.

And Republicans are pinning them to the wall by saying that they are stuck on this issue of the process here and not on giving these folks the time to speak on their allegations.

Republicans are also complaining that Democrats aren't participating in the investigation, and that might have some merit, that if there as a Senate Judiciary Committee, an effort to interview more witnesses behind the scenes. And Democrats should participate in that and should be pushing to get those people before the committee by Monday.

But I think as it is, I think they are kind of on -- back on their heels right now, and it's not clear how they're going to get back into the game in time to really turn the momentum around here.

CAMEROTA: Let's hope that's happened. Let's hope that behind the scenes there are investigators from the committee who are doing all -- the committee is tasked with investigating this.

BERMAN: I don't know why they should assume that they're talking to any witnesses here.

CAMEROTA: I'm not assuming it.

BERMAN: When they got a letter from Mark Judge saying --

CAMEROTA: I didn't say I assume, I hope.

BERMAN: -- they didn't see it. And they just settled for that. They're like, that's a no.

CAMEROTA: I mean, again, they have the staff. They have the staff, they have the resources. They have a fund in order to try and investigate this, let's hope that that's what's happening here. On -- on Chuck Grassley's side, here's what he would have everyone know.

These are the options that he has laid out for Christine Ford: "I recognize that testifying publicly about sexual assault allegations may be difficult for Dr. Ford. So I have offered her the opportunity to testify in any of four possible venues. No. 1, a public hearing; No. 2, a private hearing; No. 3, a public staff interview; or No. 4, a private staff interview. I am even willing to have my staff travel to Dr. Ford in California or anywhere else to obtain her testimony.

Jackie, I think those are all interesting options to weigh, but she has to decide, he says, by 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

PHILLIP: Right, because he -- they do need to plan the hearing, should she decide to come in, and that's what Republicans have said.

Yes, they are -- they are exerting a lot of pressure here. Just to jump on something Abby said about some of the things the Democrats have done, the other trap that they falled into -- fallen into is that, at the very beginning, before these allegations were even made, they were trying to slow down this process, saying the Republicans were rushing things. They're rushing things. And they were throwing everything at it in order to try to slow it down.

Remember, the first day of that hearing where there were, you know, all of these points of order. Well, now they actually have something that's real, that's serious. And they're making a lot of the same arguments.

And so you have Republicans saying, "Oh, now it's this. Now you're moving the goal post." So the political optics here in the meantime, this poor woman in California is getting death threats, which is disgusting and having her life turned upside-down.

So the stakes here couldn't be higher. And both sides are exerting pressure on this person that really is in a difficult position now.

BERMAN: And I want to make one thing clear, is that that menu of options provided by Chuck Grassley, you can testify publicly or privately. You can testify in D.C. or California.

But no matter where you testify, there won't be a single other witness other than Judge Kavanaugh. No matter where or to who you testify, there won't be any FBI investigation. And that's just the facts.

CAMEROTA: Yes, that's the part that makes no sense if you're looking for information.

BERMAN: It is. It is.

CAMEROTA: If you want information, there's more information out there.

BERMAN: And this is about the control that Jackie and Abby point out the control that the Republicans on the committee absolutely have. And if their goal is to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed, which it is, this is the right way to do it.

And if their goal is to make this difficult decision for Professor Blasey, they have done that, as well. Because why should she? You said she owes this -- I don't know who she -- She's got to do this for herself. She's got to make this decision for herself, and she's got to make clear to herself that it's worth it, to just turn her life upside-down under these very narrow circumstances and even with the knowledge that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

AVLON: John, I think her name is out there now. It's going to be very difficult to unring this bell. And in this context, with the stakes of a lifetime Supreme Court appointment, it is larger.

We're in a different arena, where personal considerations have to be done in the context of public obligation, which the argument, effectively, is she and her lawyers made, that she felt an obligation as a citizen to come forward at this time, where she said on -- the lawyer said on air to Ally, yes, she is willing to testify.

Things are moving fast. I get that this is intense, and it is horrific that she is receiving the death threats she is. But the idea that this is all a fait accompli, he's going to get confirmed anyway, if she testified, whatever the circumstances. I agree the Republicans are trying to narrow it in a way that's unconscionable on this.

That itself creates the conclusion that she apparently would like to see avoided for the country, in her perspective.

CAMEROTA: All right.

BERMAN: I don't know if it's courage to testify or lunacy for her to testify. Under the circumstances that have been provided.

CAMEROTA: I'm sure that's what she's calculating, as we speak.

John, Jackie, Abby, thank you very much.

President Trump claims it's not the FBI's thing to investigate the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. Really? What is the FBI's role? Don't they do background checks? What would it take to get the bureau involved? We have experts, in fact, FBI experts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: President Trump is standing by his Supreme Court nominee and rejecting the idea of having the FBI re-open their background check into Brett Kavanaugh in light of these sexual assault allegations that have surfaced from Christine Blasey Ford.

So let's bring back John Avlon and Abby Phillip. We also want to bring in CNN counterterrorism analyst and former FBI senior intelligence advisor, Phil Mudd, the perfect man to answer our questions.

BERMAN: He's really a perfect man for everything. He's a man for all seasons.

CAMEROTA: Perfect man. OK. So though he has a cold, we understand.

So Phil, does the FBI have a new duty, now that new allegations have come to light, to re-open their background investigation?

[06:20:09] PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: No, I don't believe they have a duty to do this. And I wouldn't pay attention to what the president is saying.

Let me give you some context in a simple judgement, Alisyn. Be careful about allowing politicians to say who should or should not be investigated in this country. The president of the United States said we should reopen the investigation on Hillary Clinton. A politician is saying this is what the Department of Justice should do in a case.

The president of the United States said we should not have an investigation led by Robert Mueller into allegations that Russia involvement with the Trump campaign, he doesn't have the right to do this.

We have politicians once again saying we want to use our Department of Justice. Democrats have one view. Republicans have another to re- open an investigation that we initiate.

I would be really cautious. I know this is a sensitive case but really cautious about allowing politicians to direct the Department of Justice and the FBI about what to investigate and what not. I don't want politicians telling investigators what to do.

CAMEROTA: Fair enough. Can the FBI on their own reopen a background check with these allegations?

MUDD: I presume they can. This is the subject of background investigations. If something came forward late in the investigation I presume the FBI would re-open it. It's not clear to me whether this came up in the initial investigation or not.

But we're avoiding the real question here, Alisyn. If they re-open it, I'm sorry to tell you, this is 36 years ago. There's an allegation of sexual assault by three people who are between the ages of 15 and 17 or 18, at a party where, presumably, beer was served. We will never get an answer to the facts of what happened there. I think that's the bottom line here.

PHILLIP: I do think --

BERMAN: Well, no -- go ahead, Abby.

PHILLIP: I think that's -- that's an important point here in all of this. I mean, the FBI can re-open the background check part of this, which is the fact-finding part of this.

But there's -- there are real questions about whether they are going to uncover something definitive or not. And I don't know that they -- that they could or that they even should. There is not necessarily an allegation of some kind of federal crime happening here.

But also, the FBI would just create some kind of report and pass it along to the appropriate parties, and most likely, I think, on the Democratic side, there's an argument that, if you lie to the FBI, that in itself can create problems for you.

So it discourages people from making false statements in that respect, and that's a little different from talking to committee staff members. But at the same time, I'm not sure we're going to get, you know, the smoking gun out of these allegations.

CAMEROTA: Hold on a second. The FBI -- since there were other people at the party, so if the FBI could find those other people, I hear you, Phil and Abby, that you'll never know exactly what happened in that bedroom.

But let's say that there were three other people that said, "Yes, I remember that party. Yes, I remember Brett Kavanaugh being there. Yes, I remember Christine Blasey being there." Wouldn't that be helpful? I mean, that would be different than what Brett Kavanaugh has said.

PHILLIP: Yes, I do think that might be helpful.

MUDD: I agree.

PHILLIP: Yes, that might be the -- the helpful thing that they could do. But I think that there are some people out there who believe that the FBI can solve this case, and they probably will not be able to. They can find additional people who might have information, but they're not going to be able to solve it.

BERMAN: But by definition, what is being asked here is not for the FBI to solve this case at all. Al that is being asked is for the FBI to re-open a background investigation, which is to talk to people around that might surround this incident.

We know the name of one person who is alleged to have been in the room during that time, and he has not been asked any questions under oath, for instance.

Yes, he provided a letter. Mark Judge has provided a letter to the Senate, but that's a little different than asking him questions, especially when we know that the Senate Judiciary Committee has no intention of calling Mark Judge to testify on Monday -- John.

AVLON: Yes, I mean -- I think that's really on the Senate and the Senate investigation.

I think what we're coming into is this. The FBI has conducted multiple background checks on Brett Kavanaugh, as many as six for different positions he has held, including staff secretary at the White House and for this.

This issue has never come up, or at least a pattern of behavior. Typically, the FBI would cover around ten years, you know, recent relevant past. This goes back 35.

To Phil's point, the search for the truth in this particular circumstance is going to be difficult. Can you get more context? Can you, for political purposes, perhaps, say that Brett Kavanaugh is saying nothing like this ever happened definitively. Strains credulity. You probably could.

But it's not only not a federal crime. If what is being described is accurate, it would apparently be a misdemeanor under Maryland law and outside the statute of limitations. This is a really complicated, specific case.

But the fact that the FBI has done multiple background checks on Brett Kavanaugh to date and this hasn't come up, and more folks haven't come out to date also seems significant.

[06:25:01] CAMEROTA: Phil, do you have anything to add to that?

MUDD: Yes, let me make this a little simpler, because there is a solution here that we won't see. Whether or not there's a federal violation isn't necessarily related to the background investigation.

For example, when I was investigated for multiple jobs, if somebody in my background investigation would have said he gets drunk a lot or he talks a lot about what he does at the CIA, that's not a federal violation, but the background investigation would have -- would have revealed that, and somebody might have said we shouldn't give him a job.

The solution in this case -- let me get technical for 30 seconds here. There's branches of government, obviously. The legislative branch is trying to -- that is Congress is trying to tell the executive branch what to investigate. That shouldn't happen.

The right answer in a mature world, which we will never see, would be the executive branch. That is the man who leads the executive branch, the president of the United States, might go to the Department of Justice and say, "Can we conduct a fair conversation with at least three people related to this background investigation behind closed doors, keep it confidential so that we don't embarrass the other witnesses, and come up with an answer in a couple weeks."

So the executive branch leader is telling them so, but it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen.

PHILLIP: I think it's also worth asking why the White House won't do this. I mean, I actually do think that -- that it can be done very quickly, as we saw in the Anita Hill case, in three days, two days, but that the White House has refused to do it doesn't really make that much sense, in the sense that it's not clear that they would lose all that much. They're not going to get, as I said earlier, a smoking gun out of this.

So it's almost as if, if they want to clear Brett Kavanaugh's name quickly and, in some cases, in a more definitive manner that would allow him. He is confirmed to go onto the court without this cloud of sexual assault under his name. They could do this in order to create more of a body of evidence that's out there, perhaps in his favor. That being said --

BERMAN: You know who else? You know who else?

PHILLIP: It's unclear what they will find.

BERMAN: You know else would call for the FBI to investigate? Brett Kavanaugh, if he wanted.

CAMEROTA: Could he?

BERMAN: Sure. He could -- it's not -- he can't enforce it, but he can say, "You know what? I actually think that, to clear, you know, any suspicion at all, it would be better if the FBI went and asked questions as a political matter." He could do that --

CAMEROTA: He could suggest it.

BERMAN: He has chosen not to. I would suggest that his lawyer, Beth Wilkerson, has told him not to do it, because who knows? But he could. He could.

Hey, Phil, while we have you there, very quickly, the president ordered the declassification of all kinds of things, including the FISA application on Carter Page and also text messages sent by James Comey and Andrew McCabe.

You're already shaking your head no. He told us -- he told us the reason he did it was because of cable news, which is interesting. He says he has heard from Sean Hannity and good people on FOX News, and that's why he's done it. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: The president has the power to demand they be literally unredacted and released. Why doesn't he do that?

But the president has the power to go through these documents, through the FISA and -- he can make it unredacted and make the American people see --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president will get it Monday.

HANNITY: -- declassified.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president absolutely should --

HANNITY: For months right here on this program we have been asking for the unredacted FISA documents to be released. Now the president has done it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So you -- you happy with that process, Phil?

MUDD: Happy? It's 6:20 in the morning. I'm never happy at 6:20 a.m.

Let me be clear. I got kicked by this mule once. The mule is simple to understand. Do not use intelligence as a weapon. We did that before the Iraq War. People on the Democrat side and the Republican side cherry-picked intelligence and refused to tell the American people the full story.

The president 15 years after that incident wants to cherry-pick intelligence the evidence and try to persuade the American people that the investigation after dozens of indictments is a hoax. Let me give you a clue, John. Don't cherry-pick intelligence and use it as a weapon. If you're going to tell the story, tell the full story. Don't pick one piece.

CAMEROTA: Do you want to write that down?

MUDD: Thanks for irritating me at 6:20, by the way.

CAMEROTA: I'm not sure what hour you are happy, Phil.

BERMAN: Yes, I know. I irritate you at 6:20? Like you needed me, Phil Mudd, to get irritated. I appreciate it.

All right. Abby, John, Phil, thanks for being with us. Phil, you've got about an hour to get yourself happy, because we're coming back.

The leaders of North and South Korea wrapping up their summit in Pyongyang. Will any of the pledges they made become a reality. We have a live report, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)