Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Grassley Sets Friday Deadline for Christine Blasey Ford. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 20, 2018 - 07:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: -- that much about maritime law.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: No. No, and I think that it is -- that is a nice silver lining if the boat does become theirs. It reminds me of the famous Jack Handy quote: "Hey, if a dummy falls out of the sky, you should just keep it because, free dummy."

[07:00:16] BERMAN: Right. And that's how I got here. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much to our international viewers for watching. For you, "CNN TALK" is next. Enjoy your espresso. For our U.S. viewers, NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: I am not worried about anything other than encouraging her to come.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's unreasonable to force her hand without doing the appropriate investigation.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're never going to prove this or disprove it. So why delay this any further?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sex offense cases, it's never just he said-she said. Somebody else knows something.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Without the benefit of witnesses being able to testify, it's a sham hearing.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's such an outstanding man and very hard for me to imagine that anything happened.

LISA BANKS, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: She has been deflecting death threats and trying to care for her family.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA: Women across the nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

CAMEROTA: All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to your NEW DAY.

This morning, Christine Blasey Ford faces an ultimatum from Republicans: show up and testify or we're heading to a vote. Ford has about 24 hours to make that decision to let the Senate Judiciary Committee know whether she will testify about the alleged assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

That deadline came in the form of a letter from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley to top-ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein. In it, he writes Ford and her attorneys, quote, "have until this Friday at 10 a.m. to let us know whether they are coming."

BERMAN: My way or not at all. So moments after Ford's legal team became aware of the deadline, her lawyer released a statement saying, quote, "The committee's stated plan to move forward with the hearing is not a fair or good-faith investigation," adding, "The rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth."

President Trump, he has the power, he does, to ask the FBI to re-open its background check into Kavanaugh. He could do so. He has rejected that idea. Instead, what the president says is, it's, quote, "hard for him to imagine that anything happened."

CAMEROTA: All right.

BERMAN: Let's bring in CNN White House correspondent Abby Phillip; CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Michael Shear; and CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson. And I jumped on you. I'm sorry, go ahead.

CAMEROTA: No. No, that was my read according to the prompter. But I'm not going to be technical about this.

You did it so well.

BERMAN: I did. I nailed it.

CAMEROTA: And it was so seamless.

BERMAN: Stuck the landing. I just stuck that landing.

CAMEROTA: No. Hi, guys. OK, let's -- Nia, let's start with you. If the -- if the whole point of confirmation hearings, OK, confirmation hearings, is to get information about a nominee and whether or not they are qualified. Why is the Judiciary Committee limiting the information and saying, "No, there can only be these two witnesses."

Now that we have new allegations, new information, it can only be Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. We don't want to hear from anybody else that may have been at this alleged party.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: They do want to rush it. They want to get him seated on the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Ideally, when the courts start. They don't want to risk lengthening this whole process, because more could come out possibly. And possibly, you would have a situation where the Senate Democrats, maybe they get the Senate after the midterms. So that's what their political calculus is at this point.

I also think they just want to make this simple. They do want to make it a he said-she said. They don't want the specter of Mark Judge testifying openly. I'm sure, given, you know, some of his writings and some of the things we know he, for instance, wrote in his yearbook and the notion that he seemed to be a pretty -- you know, kind of partier when he was in high school.

CAMEROTA: No. And by the way, I mean, just also, "Some people deserve to be beaten like gongs."

HENDERSON: Yes, so all those things would come up in a hearing, and the therapist could testify, but they don't want any of that. I think one real question is, if you're Judge Kavanaugh, don't you want a fair and kind of full hearing and maybe the investigation from the FBI? Why isn't he asking for that?

He's clearly not -- I mean he is a real pivotal part in here. He spent hours and hours at the White House, and at some point he was, you know, kind of in a mock hearing with questions.

But you know, he's a very strategic and political guy. He's been in the center of many of the biggest cases on the Republican side from Ken Starr to Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case, the 2000 election. And so, you know, he is clearly a driving force and how this is coming out and what the Republican strategy is.

BERMAN: He has been at the White House every day for as much as nine hours a day, and that has cleverly leaked every day so that people can see just how prepared he is, I think, to send a message to Professor Blasey.

[07:05:02] And again, Nia said that she's been presented with a simple choice, simple and very hard. And I think that's by design, as well, Michael. That you will be on an island, Professor Blasey.

You will go out and testify, whether you do it in public before the Senate or behind closed doors in D.C. or California, you're on your own. You're on your own. You can't have any other witnesses. You can' have any additional investigation. You're on your own.

You face us, and you face the country. And it seems to me that that's an intentionally difficult decision for her, and I can't imagine the pressure she's facing this morning.

MICHAEL SHEAR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: No, I completely agree. You know, for you and I and all of us here are used to the political and the sort of combat that goes on in Washington. She's not. She's a regular person to that -- in that respect. And so it must be incredibly difficult.

Look, I think part of what's going on here is an attempt by both sides, a really -- a high-wire act by both sides to kind of shape the narrative, right? Are people going to see this as a bunch of white guys shrugging off a woman's legitimate accusations? Or are they going to see it as a Republican committee that's, you know, committed to hearing her out if she wants to be heard out?

And -- and the outcome of that narrative debate is not going to only determine who's going to sit on the Supreme Court for, you know, a generation, but it's also going to really shape the election that's to come.

And remember, when Anita Hill happened 20 whatever years ago, there was an election, but not for another year or so. This is an election that's coming up in just a matter of weeks. And so -- so both parties that are -- you know, the Democrats and the Republicans have really high stakes in not only the specific outcome of this hearing and this -- and this confirmation fight but how people perceive both sides have treated the two people at the center of this: the woman, and Mrs. Ford, Dr. Ford, and Judge Kavanaugh.

CAMEROTA: Abby, I think Michael brings up such a good point. Not only are we more used to the rough and tumble, obviously, of the political world and Washington, but public speaking, right?

And most Americans don't love public speaking. There's a lot of anxiety around it. And so Chuck Grassley, the head of the Senate -- the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- seems to be offering her an opportunity to do this in private.

Here are the concessions that he is willing to make: "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: a public hearing; No. 2, a private hearing; No. 3, a public staff interview; 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."

That's nice, but that's not actually what she's asking for.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right.

CAMEROTA: What she is asking for is that the other people at this alleged party also be interviewed.

PHILLIP: Yes, I think that's exactly right. I mean, she could do it privately, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issues that she has with the way that this is being done.

And I think that we need to keep in mind here that, if Ford testifies before the Judiciary Committee and Kavanaugh testifies before the Judiciary Committee, they're under oath and they are required to tell the truth.

But there are other people who we already know about, including two people who we know -- who have acknowledged they were implicated in this story in some way. They have not necessarily acknowledged that they were -- they are aware of the party or at the party. But they've been implicated in some way, and they've denied in private letters to the committee that they remember anything about it.

But those individuals probably should be, you know, brought before the committee so that they can testify under oath. Again, the threat of -- of perjury is a really important force. That's the reason why that exists for the Senate.

So I think that what she's probably asking is for those other individuals to be under the same kind of pressure that she is, and that Kavanaugh is, so that all things can be equal and laid out there.

And also, I just want to make a quick point on what Michael was saying earlier. One of the other issues that we -- that this election brings up around this issue of Kavanaugh's confirmation, is that we actually don't know how much the Supreme Court fight is galvanizing Republicans and Democrats.

It could very well be that this could be a galvanizing force for Democrats -- for Democrats in the sense that how this turns out will force some of the people who have already been riled up by the #MeToo movement and other issues out to the polls. But if Kavanaugh fails, I think we've already seen President Trump signaling that he wants to use this as evidence that Democrats are not playing fair in Washington and jeopardizing the biggest single factor in his election: the Supreme Court.

So I think that, on either side, this could turn out to be a wildcard for the mid-term elections, which are just weeks away at this point.

BERMAN: Yes, and if you're Professor Blasey, though, the one thing I will say is that I imagine that who wins in the mid-term elections isn't weighing on her mind this morning. Nor is what is weighing on her mind whether they serve tea or coffee while she testifies, which is essentially the proposition that Chuck Grassley has made.

[07:10:11[] "You can tell us in California. You can tell us in Washington, D.C. But you can't have any other witnesses, and you can't have any other investigation."

Again, it seems as if it was by design to isolate her and make this choice as difficult a choice as possible. Look, we just don't know. We don't know if the story is true or not. We do know that she has a story.

CAMEROTA: And we also know that, historically speaking, people whose stories are not true, people who are lying don't call for the FBI to investigate.

BERMAN: Yes, yes.

CAMEROTA: And there are FBI experts and agents have told us that does not happen.

BERMAN: And again, I just want to make one thing clear. It is that people who are victims of sexual assault often -- often, maybe even more than not -- do not come forward with their stories for years, decades even. So, you know, again, who knows what the calculation is this morning?

Nia, to you, we have seen a lot more writing over the last 24 hours, including in Michael's paper that does shed some light on who Professor Blasey is, and the career she's had and her time in high school that gives you a sense of the environment that this is alleged to have all happened with.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that's right. I mean, she basically went to the D.C. prep school, obviously. Judge Kavanaugh, when he was a kid, he grew up a sort of privileged kid, as well. His mother was a judge, somebody he has talked about as being an inspirational figure in his life.

So you do hear more people coming out and talking about that environment, talking about her.

The other thing that I think we hear, which must make her even more afraid to go before this Senate committee, is people like Lindsey Graham, you know, talking pretty dismissively about her. At some point he said on FOX News that one of his questions would be who paid for her lawyer, who paid for the law -- the lie detector test, as if she's part of, you know, some sort of Democratic plot, as if she couldn't afford her own counsel.

You heard Cornyn, for instance, saying the fact that she might not want to testify is telling. So -- and even Grassley, this whole idea that she sounds mixed up. So that is what, you know, she's facing. Even though Grassley is giving the appearance that he's being accommodating, saying he wants to make her comfortable, I think it's very easy to see that the GOP Republicans are Kavanaugh's sponsors. They're his biggest fans. And they are much more prone to believing him than believing her. And that's why I think they want to set up this sort of he said-she said and then just take his word for it and just move forward with it.

CAMEROTA: So she has 24 hours, Michael. She has basically 24 hours. The deadline is 10 a.m. tomorrow for her to decide if she wants to do this.

And then if she does not, it sounds like the Monday hearing is canceled for Brett Kavanaugh as well. It sounds like that's the direction that Chuck -- that Chuck Grassley would lean in, and then they go to a vote. And so they would, by definition, be voting without all the information.

SHEAR: Right. I mean, that appears to be the dynamics here. And if she decides not to appear, the Republicans, not only the Republicans on the committee but the sort of handful of Republicans that have always been seen as the sort of deciding -- the sort of deciding votes on whether or not Kavanaugh will get on the court, have all signaled -- and this is Lisa Murkowski, Senator Collins, Senator Flake, Senator Corker -- those four senators have all indicated that, if she doesn't appear, they're inclined to just say, "Well, let's go ahead and vote."

And so it would look, you know, barring other revelations, it would like that would clear the decks, likely, for Judge Kavanaugh to become the next justice on the Supreme Court.

And imagine the pressure on this woman, right? She -- she's not only facing all of the kind of Washington back and forth between the official parties, but she's facing a torrent of criticism and support on social media, which of course, you know, heightens everything, intensifies everything.

And now she's, you know, looking at a clock ticking down 24 hours or so to make a decision that's going to affect millions of people in the country. That's a -- that's a hard choice to put somebody into. Now, she put herself, in some ways, into that. I mean, she came forward herself. Nobody forced her to do that. But that said, that's incredible pressure.

BERMAN: Yes. Yes. And she knows that, even if she does testify, Judge Kavanaugh could very well be confirmed. And she's listened to people all week, saying if it did happen, well, maybe it's just that he was 17 and drunk, and we all can't be held accountable for those types of things. That's all got to be weighing on her this morning.

Abby, Michael, appreciate it.

So what is the FBI's role in investigating this type of situation? There is a lot of spin out there. We're going to parse through it with two former FBI agents next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:18:51] CAMEROTA: Senate judiciary chairman, Chuck Grassley, insists the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be investigated by his committee, not the FBI. But President insists the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh s

Joining us now, we have Phil Mudd. He's a former FBI senior intelligence advisor and now a CNN counterterrorism analyst. And Tom Fuentes, former FBI assistant director.

Guys, great to have both of you and all of your expertise.

Tom, I know you worked with the FBI more than 20 years. Does the FBI have a duty now that new allegation come to light to re-open their background check into Brett Kavanaugh.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Alisyn, with regard to background checks, they are initiated by the White House, the president, so there are hundreds of people that get nominated for positions that have to be confirmed by the Senate, ambassadors, U.S. Attorneys and judges and Supreme Court justices, and in all of those cases the FBI does a background check for the White House and then the report of the investigation is given to the White House or the senior counsels at the White House.

In this particular case the allegation is of a state crime that occurred more than three decades ago, and the FBI would not have jurisdiction to investigate it as a criminal matter, but they could investigate as background investigation -- CAMEROTA: Right.

FUENTES: If the president chooses to extend the back ground.

CAMEROTA: Right. But the president is not going to do that. As we all know, the president has no interest in that. So Phil, I mean, I guess we can move on. This is a nonstarter. This is never going to happen, right? Case closed, the FBI is not going to reopen a background check.

PHIL MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: That's correct. There are two things that aren't going to happen here. I think Tom has got it dead on.

Look, you don't want members of Congress, that is politicians, telling the executive branch whether they should or shouldn't investigate Hillary Clinton or whether they should or shouldn't investigate this case.

They are going to be driven by political concerns that shouldn't be involved in investigations. That said, the president, though he's a politician, is the head of the executive branch. Tom is right, if the White House were to say in a real world that I hope exists -- but it doesn't -- to say this is a serious allegation from a credible witness. I would request that you re-open the background investigation. The Department of Justice is going to do it.

Even if they did, though, let's be clear. This is 36 years ago, 35, 36 years ago. And remember, before the digital age, there were no text messages. There's not going to be phone messages where you're going to have a few high schoolers who talk about being drunk at a party. Even if they reopen, I think we'd end up in the same place. We will never know exactly what happened.

CAMEROTA: Of course. It's just people's memories. But people might have memories of that day. It might be worthwhile hearing from the six or so people who were at this alleged party.

I hear you. It's a nonstarter. The president is not going to do it. So let's move on. Let's move on to what the president does want to do.

And Phil, I want to start with you, because you think we may not be living in reality. And I just want to explain, the president wants to declassify the FISA warrant for Carter Page. He also wants to declassify text messages in the FBI from Comey, from Peter Strzok, from Lisa Page. He wants the world to be able to see all of this.

However, he admits that he has not seen the contents. He doesn't know what these are, though he could if he asked for them.

Here's what he told "The Hill" yesterday: "I have not reviewed the documents. I've been asked by many people in Congress, as you know, to release them. I have watched commentators that I respect begging the president of the United States to release them."

Here's what he is referring to in terms of the people he respects. Here is Sean Hannity.

(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?

The president has the power to go through these documents, through the FISA and make it unredacted and let the American people see.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm hoping he will get that on Monday.

HANNITY: The president needs to unredact and declassify.

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)

CAMEROTA: Phil, what do you think of the president of the United States, Sean Hannity, calling for this?

MUDD: Nuts. This is nuts.

CAMEROTA: You're missing my joke.

MUDD: Let me give you a simple reason why.

CAMEROTA: That he is the strategist. Clearly, he is the strategist calling for this. But go on.

MUDD: Strategist? The president is the strategist? When did that happen? Look, let me be perfectly --

CAMEROTA: No, Sean Hannity is the strategist.

MUDD: Oh, sorry, I missed that. Let me be clear about -- about what's going on here, because I lived this game. Fifteen, 16 years ago, we go into the Iraq war, and Republicans and Democrats decide, "I want to give the Americans a partial picture of the intelligence. I want to use intelligence as a weapon so that I can support my case.

If you want to discuss the Russia investigation, please give the American people a full picture of what's going on. Don't cherry-pick small bits of intelligence, in this case the Carter Page FISA application, to persuade the Americans to your view. Don't use intelligence as weapon. We did that going into Iraq, and that didn't work out too well, that strategy. Sean Hannity probably has a view on that, as well.

CAMEROTA: I'm sure. Tom, what's your perspective?

FUENTES: Well, for my side, I think the problem is that the Department of Justice has cried wolf many times over the last year, year and a half, in maintaining redaction, and releases of text messages and other documents related to investigation.

And I think that, when those documents were forced, in many cases, to be unredacted, in some cases by judicial watch legal process, you came to find out that there wasn't a serious national security issue. It was trying to hide an embarrassment of the FBI or the Department of Justice.

And, you know, we're under strict rules within the department do you do not classify -- and I had classification authority, as Phil would have. You're not supposed to classify material only because it will embarrass you if it gets out. You only classify something that would be a threat to national security if released, such as sources and methods.

CAMEROTA: But Tom, aren't you rolling the dice since we don't know what's in there and the president doesn't know?

FUENTES: No, I am not.

CAMEROTA: Not you. I mean, isn't the president rolling the dice by saying, "I don't know if it's going to reveal sources and methods or just be embarrassing."

FUENTES: No, that would be wrong. What I think he should do is bring it in. Have a meeting with those documents, and have the director of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, department -- national intelligence, and have them sit down. And if you have to go line by line, paragraph by paragraph and have them explain why that redaction should remain before the documents are released to the public. And at least go that far with the review.

CAMEROTA: Phil, quickly, your thoughts on that process?

MUDD: Yes, but still you're going to end up with the same problem. I agree with Tom. The government overclassifies all the time. But I still would go back and say, don't the American people want to know what's going on in the investigation as a whole, instead of cherry- picking one FISA application by a chump-change advisor who doesn't really matter? Why are you picking that?

The president is clearly picking it, because he thinks it's going to embarrass the investigation, not because he thinks it's going to educate the American people. This is not rocket science, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right. I have learned that from you, Phil. Thank you, Phil Mudd.

Tom Fuentes, thank you both for your expertise.

John.

FUENTES: You're welcome.

BERMAN: It's a shame it's not rocket science, because Phil could handle it. He's a rocket scientist.

CAMEROTA: He is certainly a scientist of some sort.

BERMAN: As the chaos surrounding Brett Kavanaugh unfolds, what has the Senate learn since Anita Hill's hearing? An official who helped prepare Anita Hill for testimony joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Chuck Grassley says Christine Blasey Ford has until 10 a.m. tomorrow to let him know if she plans --