Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Conditions Raised by Christine Blasey Ford's Lawyers; Michael Cohen Cooperating with Robert Mueller Investigation. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired September 21, 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: Dana Bash, transporting from Colorado to Washington. Stick around. We'll talk to you in a second.

[07:00:07] Thanks to our international viewers for watching. For you, "CNN TALK" is next. For our U.S. viewers, NEW DAY continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Christine Blasey Ford does not want to testify on Monday. This hearing could happen later on in the week.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To take a man like this and besmirch, I don't think you can delay it any longer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dr. Ford and her attorneys have set forth conditions that I think are absolutely feasible.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's not going to be anything there, and he's going to be confirmed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In some ways, it's going to be a David verses Goliath, and that will be very tough for her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She wants the committee to subpoena Mark Judge and these other alleged witnesses.

KELLYANNE CONWAY, COUNSELOR TO DONALD TRUMP: Is it possible that something terrible happened to her and that Judge Kavanaugh was not there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're not taking this seriously. They don't want the facts. They don't want this investigation done.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What we are heading for is a hyper partisan hearing without a judge.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, and welcome to your NEW DAY.

Major developments overnight on if and when Professor Christine Blasey Ford will tell her story to the U.S. Senate. She says she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, 36 years ago. He says it did not happen.

Professor Blasey's lawyers have issued some terms for her testimony. She wants senators, not lawyers, to question her. She wants witnesses, but the only demands that seem nonnegotiable to her team are that she doesn't want to be in the same room as Kavanaugh, and she does not want to testify Monday.

Everything else might -- might be up for discussion. Also overnight, a big shift from the president, who had been praised for his so-called restraint on this subject. The professor launched an attack on Professor Blasey's credibility, using a refrain often employed to try to taint sexual assault victims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Why didn't somebody call the FBI 36 years ago? I mean, you could also say when did this all happen? What's going on?

To take a man like this and besmirch -- now with that being said, let her have her say, and let's see how it all works out. But I don't think you can delay it any longer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: All right. Meanwhile, a Republican senator and one of the president's closest advisers, Kellyanne Conway, have raised the possibility that perhaps the assault happened, but it was by someone other than Brett Kavanaugh.

Professor Blasey vehemently denies that. So we'll speak to Kellyanne Conway live in our next hour about that and so much more.

Also this morning, President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is giving critical information to Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, according to his lawyer. ABC News first reported that Cohen had met with them for hours and for multiple interviews.

BERMAN: All right. Joining us now is Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, now a CNN senior political commentator.

Senator, thanks so much for being with us, John. There appear to be active negotiations between Professor Blasey's team and Senate Republicans on this testimony that could take place next week. We understand the only nonnegotiable terms to her team are that she doesn't want to be in the room, the same room as Brett Kavanaugh. Not ever sure that that was going to be an issue. It seems to me they were always going to be kept separate.

And she just says she's not ready to do it on Monday, perhaps later in the week. If that's the only sticking point, do you think that Chuck Grassley and the Republican Senate should give and postpone it by a few days? RICK SANTORUM, FORMER PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR: I think they will. If

it's clear that it's a matter of a day or two or maybe, at most, three, if it's next week sometime, I suspect that it would be prudent for -- for the Republicans to go ahead.

And frankly, to give Brett Kavanaugh the opportunity to face his accuser and -- and to be able to deal with this. I don't think -- I think it's in everybody's best interests to have the hearing, and as long as it's -- you know, this is not a bait and switch that, well, you know, I can't do it then, and not then --

So we'll give -- I guess one chance to delay it, and then if it looks like this is a pattern where they're just trying to play politics with this, then you have to shut it down.

BERMAN: Monday's not a hill to die on. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

SANTORUM: I don't think it is. I think as long as it's next week, they should -- they should accommodate it.

BERMAN: One of the terms that has been suggested, and again, our understanding, is that this is not nonnegotiable is that Professor Blasey's lawyers don't want the questioning to be done by lawyers or staff members, they want it done by U.S. senators. Why do you think that is?

SANTORUM: You'd have to ask them, but this -- it's not unusual, as you know, in these types of situations to have counsel come in and do the questioning that the -- this is really a fact-finding situation.

And you want to make sure you have somebody who is -- who's skilled and to be able to conduct that investigation. So -- and I don't think in that case -- I think the Senate should do what they want to do and not necessarily, you know, fold to that request.

[07:05:02] BERMAN: Our reporting -- our reporting has been that the Republican side, which is made up of 11 men, wanted to bring in a lawyer, perhaps a female prosecutor to do the questioning because they don't like the optics. They think the optics of 11 men --

SANTORUM: It's a legitimate -- it's a legitimate concern among Republicans. You don't want to look like 11 people are ganging up on -- on this woman who says she's a victim. So look, there's -- I think that's a reasonable thing for Republicans to be concerned about.

The optics do matter, and obviously, all of this is about optics, because we're never going to get to what actually, the truth was 36 years ago, that we have to -- you have to give -- you're giving each the opportunity to sort of present their case, and you want to do so in a way that is -- that is, at least in the best light of what you're trying to accomplish.

BERMAN: That's not just optics, right. It's not just optics when you are allowing them both to present their case, and the senators in that room and the Senate, writ large, needs to make a judgement on who they believe more. And that's not just based on optics. SANTORUM: But it's not just who they believe, but it's what's being presented to the public. I mean, I think that's, and that is, in large measure, optics. Because again, we're not going to get to the -- to what actually happened. We don't know.

BERMAN: But we could -- we could find out more, and I'm not going to go into the FBI investigation. We do know that, if the president wanted, the FBI could do -- go renew the background check. They could.

Look, this was yesterday's point, two days ago. If the president wanted to do it, they could go ask more questions. One other thing that could happen is that the Senate could ask for another witness, Mark Judge, for instance, whom Professor Blasey says was in the room. They could ask for another witness. If they wanted to try to find out more information than just the two stories, they could do that. They say they don't want to do that.

SANTORUM: Well, my understanding is that -- that there certainly -- those potential witnesses are actually talking to the Judiciary Committee, and I think they know what the testimony is. So I'm not sure that there's really any reason to trot them out in public.

BERMAN: Well, but if you know what someone -- you often know what someone's testimony is. So why have any hearing at all ever on any subject if you've been told beforehand what they're going to say?

You put them there, because you want to ask them different questions under oath and get the stories out to the public so the American people can see it. The Republicans said, and I think we agree on this based on what we both report and know, they do not want to have Mark Judge do that, correct?

SANTORUM: Again, we'll find out. I mean, I don't know whether they're ultimately going to have him come and testify or not, but at least at this point that doesn't seem to be the case.

BERMAN: The poll numbers that came out overnight are very interesting. NBC News and "The Wall Street Journal" have new poll numbers on approval for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and it's dropped substantially. Now just -- again, I have a hard time reading this. Thirty-four percent support; 38 percent oppose this.

The point here is that it's a big drop. It's a huge drop since August in support for Brett Kavanaugh. Should that be concerning to supporters of the judge?

SANTORUM: Sure. I mean, you know, you want to make sure that -- you don't want to be out there voting for someone that -- that is controversial. It's certainly -- Brett Kavanaugh's support among Democrats was never -- was never strong. It was -- it's always been uniformly opposed by -- by the Democrats and driven pretty hard as to what Brett Kavanaugh's nomination means.

But, you know, you have to -- I haven't seen that poll as far as, you know, how independents and Republicans -- BERMAN: Oh, no. I can tell you. We don't have that number here.

But Republican support for the judge hasn't wavered.

SANTORUM: Right.

BERMAN: In some cases, increased; but independent support has plummeted.

SANTORUM: Yes, and that's what I -- if I was a Republican, I'd be concerned about that. And that's why, I think, you need to proceed with the hearing and give the judge the opportunity to face his accuser.

BERMAN: And one thing that has really changed, is that the people who don't care or say they don't know enough, that has dwindled. So people now do care. They're much more interested, and they are focused on this, which I does think illustrate why Republicans want to make sure this is done in a way that is deemed as fair, correct?

SANTORUM: Correct. Yes, I mean, look, this is all about -- Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have, by and large, made up their minds on this. This is all about the optics and how this is being portrayed to the American public, and so having a process that looks fair --

BERMAN: OK.

SANTORUM: -- and is fair is very important.

BERMAN: Fair and optics are two different things. Again, it's just -- all I was saying -- I don't want to get stuck on this point -- is ultimately, when somebody is telling a story of sexual assault, it's not just about the optic. It's about what he or she says and about the defense against it. It's not just optics. It's the story, and it's the credibility that you perceive in the story and whatever evidence or details they provide.

The president of the United States -- and again, we can argue about whether it's met it or not -- has been praised for his relative restraint up until last night on this subject, Senator. And then last night he said something. I want to play just the top of it again. It's a very typical type of attack we hear to taint the credibility of sexual assault victims or accusers.

Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[07:10:05] TRUMP: I think it's a very sad situation. He's an outstanding person. And frankly, Sean, to see what's going on is just very, very sad.

You say why didn't somebody call the FBI 36 years ago? I mean, you could also say when did this all happen? What's going on?

I don't think you can delay it any longer. They've delayed it a week already.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Why didn't somebody call the FBI 36 years ago? He's saying why didn't this then-high-school girl call the FBI if she was sexually assaulted? Again, we hear that again and again to go after the credibility of victims of sexual assault, or accusers. And Brett Kavanaugh says it didn't happen. But to ask that question, why do you think the president is doing that?

SANTORUM: Well, I -- look, I think there's a -- there's a lot of frustration out there about how this was all handled. And the -- not just that this comes out, but that it's come out the way Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats have handled this.

It comes out, you know, at the last possible minute, in a way that was clearly pointed to try to tank this nomination. This was not properly vetted. This was not properly investigated. They could have done a much better job, had they looked at this in a serious light, which would have been a serious light had the committee been given this and this been reviewed, and even potentially have the FBI take a look at it. But none of that was done. And so when you look at how it was handled and the complicity, potentially, of -- of the -- of Ms. Blasey Ford, there --

BERMAN: Complicity? Sorry, sorry. Complicity?

SANTORUM: Well, you know, the -- the way that this is being handled since in asking for delays and not necessarily coming.

BERMAN: She -- she went to -- she went to -- she first raised this when he was a candidate, not even the nominee. She first went to the "Washington Post" and her member of Congress before he was the nominee and said, "Hey, there's this person's name out there." She says I -- he sexually assaulted her 36 years ago. Again, he says it didn't happen. But she says that. She did that back in July. She told her therapist years ago --

SANTORUM: It's clear --

BERMAN: -- that this happened. I'm not sure what her complicity is when once her name -- once her name leaked, she said, "Yes, this happened." Complicity to what?

SANTORUM: You don't share this unless you're -- you're trying to influence the political process. I mean, that -- you don't come forward unless -- unless you're doing so because you want to influence this process.

So -- so now how she did it and her wanting to remain anonymous, all of those things are, you know, judgment calls that she made, but she's not -- I mean, she obviously came forward, because she wanted to have an impact on the process. Let's be clear about that.

BERMAN: Well, she told the story anonymously earlier, because she wanted the senators to know. She came forward publicly because she was getting calls to her house --

SANTORUM: I understand.

BERMAN: -- and they were coming by her door, and her life was being turned upside-down.

SANTORUM: Understood.

BERMAN: And she wanted to take them on directly. And again, you agree. I just want to be clear here that if you are a victim of sexual assault, which she says that she is, you have a right to come forward and tell your story.

SANTORUM: You have a right to come forward and tell your story, and you also have an obligation, you know, if you're accusing someone of something, to come forward and tell your story, not to -- to hang back and try to influence it anonymously.

And so look, I think that -- this is a 36-year-old story that is going to be very, very difficult to find out what happened and what didn't happen. And, you know, to come forward and do so in an anonymous fashion to me, you know, I have serious questions about whether that is the proper way to handle something like this of a serious nature.

BERMAN: Understood. You do know that often sexual assault victims are scared for their safety.

SANTORUM: I understand.

BERMAN: And that's why they don't come forward, and they're embarrassed about it. They're -- again, myriad of reasons why --

SANTORUM: But you have to be fair to the person being accused, too. Anybody can come forward and make these accusations. And it's not fair to the people who have actually been sexually assaulted to do it in a way that undermines the credibility of these -- these accusations.

BERMAN: And next week, we may hear both of their stories. Senator Santorum, thanks for being with us.

SANTORUM: You bet.

BERMAN: Coming up in our next hour, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway joins us live. She had some very interesting things to say overnight. We'll press her on that.

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK. President Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is talking to Robert Mueller's investigators. The president's legal team is responding. What Rudy Giuliani told Dana Bash, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAMEROTA: Michael Cohen's attorney confirms that his client is providing, quote, "critical information" to Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. ABC News is reporting that Michael Cohen has met with Mueller's team for hours in multiple interviews.

We should note that Cohen has not been given any guarantee of leniency for cooperating, as far as we know, which seems like a big oversight on his part.

Let's discuss with CNN chief political correspondent, Dana Bash, and former federal prosecutor and CNN chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

So Jeffrey, that's the part that confuses me. Here's what Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's lawyer, says, "Good for Michael Cohen in providing critical information to the Mueller investigation without a cooperation agreement. No one should question his honesty, veracity or loyalty to his family and country over the president."

So this is just out of the goodness of his heart that he's doing this?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No, not at all. I mean, he's doing it because he wants to get a lesser sentence once he's -- once he's sentenced.

But there is also -- that is why people cooperate. I mean, that doesn't mean they're not telling the truth. But you know, his motives, I think, are mixed, obviously.

[07:20:04] CAMEROTA: Well, why didn't they hammer that out before he cooperated. Isn't that how it works?

TOOBIN: It is almost always how it works, but apparently, Cohen's lawyers felt that they could just throw themselves on the mercy of the court, come time for sentencing. As you recall, it was a very speedy process that led to his guilty plea.

It's an odd -- it's an odd situation, but if his cooperation is significant, he will get benefit, regardless of whether he has a written cooperation agreement or not.

BERMAN: It could be as simple as prosecutors had him so cleanly they didn't need to give him anything in that process.

TOOBIN: That's true. Although the agreement has advantages for the prosecution, too. You know, a written agreement. So it is -- it's unusual that they did it this way, but you know, it's not unprecedented.

BERMAN: So Dana, one might think that if the president's lawyer is, you know, singing a long all night long here to the prosecutors here that it would be of concern to the president and his legal team, but his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, tells you, "Oh, no, no worries here."

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's what they're saying. That's certainly the line. The line is that Cohen is a professional deceiver. That's a quote from Rudy Giuliani. And the gist of the argument is, you can't trust him. You can't trust him. He's somebody who taped his own client, still hasn't been disbarred, and you can't believe anything that he says. Clearly trying to chip away at his credibility. Again, that's the public line.

Whether or not they're actually worried is a whole different question. It's hard to imagine them not being worried and the president not being worried, because at the -- at the end of the day, Michael Cohen was privy to a lot of conversations, a lot of information, involved in a lot in the Trump organization, never mind the -- the campaign, which he was obviously less involved with except when it came to hush money for people who the president allegedly had affairs with. But, you know, the public stance is one thing. How they're privately feeling is something else.

CAMEROTA: Yes. Michael Cohen might have been a professional deceiver, Jeffrey, but he was the president's professional deceiver for ten years. As you have pointed out.

BERMAN: It's good work if you can get it.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, that's not a short amount of time to judge someone's character when they're in your presence.

TOOBIN: Hardly. I mean, there's a richness to Rudy Giuliani making this case to Dana, because this is the case the defense attorneys always make about floppers, about flippers, about turncoats, whatever you want to call them, if that they're horrible people.

And, you know, Rudy Giuliani when he was the U.S. attorney, used those cooperators all the time, often very successfully.

So, you know, juries ultimately have to always take all that into consideration. But the mere fact that someone has switched sides and pleaded guilty hardly makes them a guaranteed liar, that it may make them just someone who has decided to tell the truth and make a better deal.

BASH: Also, Jeffrey knows this far better than I, because he's been involved in cases like this, but you know, Michael Cohen, let's just say that he goes and talks to the Mueller team and he says x, y and z. The Mueller team is going to take x, y and z and corroborate it and try to get someone else to confirm it, whatever that is, and not take his word as gospel.

TOOBIN: And just stepping back for a minute, think about what's gone on with the Mueller team just in the past couple weeks. They have gotten access to two incredibly important witnesses who are now cooperating with them, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, both of whom were intimately involved with the Trump campaign, with the president himself. And those debriefings just began in the last couple of weeks. So anyone who thinks this investigation is wrapping up, I think is under a misimpression.

BERMAN: You know, and if you're the president, and this is, I think, probably slim reassurance to him, but if you have the cooperation to Manafort and Cohen, and Mueller can't still make a convincing case, then you know, that -- he's in a good place?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. That's what -- the other point that Giuliani has been making all along is fine, let them cooperate. They have nothing to tell; they have nothing to incriminate. And if that's true, that's -- that's a very good point in the president's favor.

We don't know what they're saying and we don't know whether there's anything incriminating, but the point that, you know, let the facts come out is always a good one if you are right about the facts.

CAMEROTA: And Dana, the president's tack seems to have been with all the people that we now know have cooperated or pleaded guilty, "Well, they weren't close to me anyway."

BASH: Look, he might have an argument there on Paul Manafort, in that, yes, he was there for a very critical time, there meaning in the campaign, helping him get over the -- over the line to make sure he got the delegates at the Republican convention. He can't make that argument with Michael Cohen. He just can't.

[07:25:11] You know, maybe Michael Cohen at the time was a sycophant. Maybe Michael Cohen at the time wasn't somebody who the president necessarily liked personally. We don't know the answer to that.

But he was there, and he was around; and he did a lot of work for many, many years for Donald Trump. Stuff that the president, you know, needed done that maybe other people wouldn't do.

And so you cannot make the argument that Michael Cohen does not know President Trump or wasn't intimately involved in a lot of critical business decisions, and at the onset of the campaign, some political decisions, too.

TOOBIN: And prosecutors just don't have to rely on Michael Cohen's memory. Remember, they searched his house. They have phones. They have e-mails. They have texts. All of that can be used to refresh his recollection or remind him of things perhaps he doesn't want to talk about.

BERMAN: Partial immunity deals with members of the Trump Organization, also. And David Pecker at "The Enquirer." Very interesting. I also say it also is interesting to me that Michael Cohen and his team want us all to know that he's cooperating with the Russia investigation. Interesting.

All right, Jeffrey, Dana, thank you very much.

Can Republicans keep control of the Congress? We've got some brand- new polling in some races which tell us the story. Just over 45 days left to go until the midterms. The key races to watch, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)