Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Ford Offers Four People Who Corroborate Her Kavanaugh Assault Claim; GOP Chooses Sex Crimes Prosecutor to Question Ford & Kavanaugh; World Leaders Laugh after Trump Boasts at U.N. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 26, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's nothing -- (INAUDIBLE) has nothing. She admits that she was drunk.

[05:59:05] SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D), CONNECTICUT: These disrespectful comments are an insult to the entire survivor community.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: They knew about this since July the 30th. For them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was no place that he likes to be as much of a disrupter.

TRUMP: So true. Didn't expect that reaction, but that's OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty grim when the world is, indeed, laughing at a U.S. president.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our viewers in the United States and all around the world. This is NEW DAY. It's Wednesday, September 26, 6 a.m. here in New York. Alisyn is off. Erica Hill with me again this morning. Deep breath.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Hoo, yes.

BERMAN: All right.

HILL: Six a.m. Here we go.

BERMAN: Dramatic developments overnight that could affect the possible confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. "USA Today" reports that four people have come forward with sworn statements that Christine Blasey Ford told them of her alleged sexual assault 36 years ago. Ford says Brett Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, tried to remove her clothes.

In these sworn statements just revealed overnight, four people included Ford's husband say she told them she had been assaulted in high school by someone who is now a federal judge. Two of these statements say Ford identified Kavanaugh by name, and all four of these people say that Ford told them this said it before Kavanaugh was even nominated to sit on the Supreme Court.

Now, Kavanaugh denies an assault took place. "USA Today" has also published pictures of Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar, given to the Senate by his lawyers which they say show no indication that Kavanaugh was at a house party where Ford says that she was assaulted.

President Trump, he is launching new attacks on the second woman who says she was assaulted by Kavanaugh, which again, Kavanaugh denies. The president says that Debbie Ramirez was messed up and drunk at the time of the alleged incident. That attack came shortly after the -- the president's attack came shortly after he spoke to the United Nations and was flat-out laughed at by world leaders.

HILL: So all of this as we're learning more about tomorrow's high- stakes Senate hearing, where Kavanaugh and Ford will both testify. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have brought in someone new. They have a female attorney, a sex crimes prosecutor, who will question both witnesses. They say they don't want it to appear politicized or to turn into a circus on Thursday.

Even before Ford is heard at tomorrow's hearing, though, the GOP leadership, already scheduling a hearing vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. That is set for Friday, and that, as you can imagine, angering Democrats.

One crucial Republican swing vote, Senator Lisa Murkowski, is warning her fellow Republicans, meantime, not to prejudge the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

Let's begin our coverage this morning with CNN's Abby Phillip, who's live at the United Nations here in New York.

Abby, good morning.

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

President Trump is continuing his week here at the United Nations. A series of high-profile meetings with foreign leaders, but that is all being overshadowed by drama back in Washington involving his Supreme Court nominee. The president is lashing out at Democrats and increasingly, he's lashing out at Kavanaugh's accusers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP (voice-over): In advance of tomorrow's high-profile hearing, "USA Today" reports that lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford have provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with sworn and signed declarations from four people who corroborate her claims, that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school.

The new development coming after Kavanaugh adamantly denied the allegation in the FOX News interview on Monday. BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I have never sexually

assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever.

PHILLIP: According to "USA Today," the declarations are from Ford's husband and three friends, who say Ford told them about the alleged assault both in person and on e-mail as far back as 2012 and as recently as June of this year.

"USA Today" also obtaining these pages of Kavanaugh's calendar from the summer of 1982, which his lawyers intend to use to help support his claim that he was not at the house party where the alleged assault occurred.

Still, Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley pressing forward with Kavanaugh's confirmation, scheduling a vote for Friday morning, less than 24 hours after Ford testifies.

BLUMENTHAL: The message very clear. They are less interested in the truth, in the facts and evidence, than in putting ideological extremists on the court.

PHILLIP: Grassley insisting that he is following regular order. The chairman also announcing that the all-male GOP majority has hired Arizona sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Ford and Kavanaugh, despite Ford's objection to using outside counsel.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: We want this hearing to be handled very professionally, not a political side show.

PHILLIP: The development coming as President Trump continues to lash out over the controversy surrounding Kavanaugh, accusing Democrats of trying to destroy his Supreme Court nominee after attacking Kavanaugh's second accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

TRUMP: The second accuser does nothing. The second accuser doesn't even know. She thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. He admits that she was drunk.

PHILLIP: Ramirez told "The New Yorker" that Kavanaugh thrusts his genitals in her face at a party in college, an allegation Kavanaugh denied yesterday to the Senate panel.

TRUMP: She was all messed up. And she doesn't know it was him. It might have been him. Oh, gee, let's not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that?

PHILLIP: A senior GOP aide tells CNN that the president's remarks were not helpful and made it harder for moderate Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh. Ramirez' attorney voicing frustration about how his client's allegations are being handled, telling CNN that Ramirez has been cooperating. But the Republican majority isn't taking his client seriously.

JIM CLUNE, DEBORAH RAMIREZ'S ATTORNEY: Every time we try to set up a phone call, the majority party either changes the rules of the phone call or they want additional information. Feels like there's a lot of game playing that's going on right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP: And President Trump this morning is going to be chairing a U.N. Security Council meeting on nonproliferation this morning. A key point of discussion in that meeting will be Iran, but he will also later this afternoon have a press conference, amidst all of this drama going on back in Washington. It will only be his fourth press conference his entire presidency, Erica and John.

BERMAN: All right. We're going to be watching that very, very closely.

Joining us now is CNN senior political analyst, John Avlon; CNN legal analyst Laura Coates; and CNN political analyst and senior political correspondent for "The Washington Examiner," David Drucker.

Laura, I want to talk to you about these four people who have come forward with sworn statements now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which corroborate that Christine Blasey Ford told them of a sexual assault that happened 36 years ago. In each of these conversations, each of these four people say that these conversations took place before Kavanaugh was even nominated to sit on the Supreme Court.

The significance?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's important to note, especially how you said it, John. They're corroborating what they were told by her, not necessarily what they knew at the time to corroborate that it actually occurred, but still you can use that to bolster the credibility of her statement.

Because one of the things that's been used against her and many people who have delayed reporting of sexual assaults is "Why didn't you say anything at the time?" And "You must have some either an axe to grind or some other nefarious intent in some way to bring it forth now."

So that she brought it forward to them, these four individuals, prior to this being a confirmation hearing, does lend some credence to the fact that she did not have an axe to grind, that she wasn't simply trying to gain notoriety in this odd way, if anyone would try to do this in as perverse way as this. So I think it does bolster that,

Having said that, there's nothing better than actual testimony, the actual credibility of a witness to be tested and have a third person in the room who could corroborate back at the time what she had said in the allegation, including Mark Judge. Without that, you still have the battle of the he said/she said, although her credibility has been bolstered.

HILL: Laura, I'm going to stick with you for a moment. I want to get your take on this. The fact that, when we will hear from her, she will be questioned by an attorney that Republicans are bringing in. She's a woman, we know that. A sex crimes prosecutor. A, is that the right choice, do you think, for them o bring in. We knew they wanted to bring in outside counsel. And B, how will it actually be different to have her asking the questions versus the senators?

COATES: Well, of course, they're concerned about the optics of it, and there is some real patronizing going on and condescension to suggest that she couldn't possibly be asked questions by a man, because it's a woman who speaks woman. There's that patronizing element of that.

On the other hand, it's a double-edged sword, because the optics of having 11 men undergo an interrogation of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, does not play well for Republicans who, much to their own fault, have never had a woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee representing Republicans.

But in terms of how it will actually play out, Erica, remember, each senator is going to have, according to reporting, five minutes to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. They can defer and give that time to the special -- the prosecutor who was assigned a special interrogator, if you want to say, to ask her questions, which means that she can almost an hour of straight questioning from somebody who sees it enough to understand how to dismantle someone's credibility, if they choose to do so.

But also, on the flip side, remember, a sex crimes prosecutor if often there to advocate for the victim, advocate for the person who is -- made the allegation, not simply to undermine their credibility.

So it could play both ways, but I do think that -- that will question is going to be, will they suddenly stop asking questions when Brett Kavanaugh begins to speak, and how will it play if the Democrats who elect not to use this option?

BERMAN: That's the thing I'm interested in now. Because there's no question what they're doing, the Republicans responding to the criticism from all those years ago in 1991, that it was all men questioning Anita Hill. And yes, there's the optics. And yes, she's a professional.

My question is, why don't the Democrats just do the same? We've heard from Ron Klain, among others, who went through it as a Democrat in 1991, who said this would be better handled by professionals. We've watched Senate hearings on a number of subjects, and you often think gosh, maybe these questions would be better by someone who knew what they were doing.

HILL: Maybe there'd actually be a question this time.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: As opposed to -- as opposed to political grandstanding, which could really, you know, backfire. And for Republicans, the danger is obvious.

You know, it's extraordinary that there has never been a Republican woman on the Judiciary Committee in its history. That is stunning. And so they almost have to default to the more professional option.

The Democrats have a very diverse bench, and people who have prosecutorial experience and sensitivity on these issues, particularly senators Klobuchar and Harris.

So it will be interesting to see whether they take the lead or whether it's evenly dispersed. But I do think that if it becomes an act of political grandstanding, that will backfire on the party in question.

[06:10:05] HILL: What's fascinating, too, is what we're hearing from Lisa Murkowski, who obviously -- who has even canceled meetings, we learned, on Thursday, because she wants to make sure that she can pay full attention to what's happening.

She's telling "The New York Times" -- I'm quoting here, we are now in a place where it's not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified, it is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.

She goes on to say how difficult this place is because the conversation is not rational on either side. So much of what she has said, both of her points there have been completely lost.

DAVID DRUCKER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, the whole game has always been about Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and one of the reasons the president's comments yesterday were so unhelpful is because you've seen a lot of Republican unity around this idea of confirming Kavanaugh, because the allegations against him, they believe, are scurrilous and politically ill-motivated, even though nobody actually knows who to believe.

So when the president interjects himself in this way, which early on, he did not, and lately, he has, it has the possibility of impacting the votes of the two senators -- the only two senators, really, that were a possible "no" on Kavanaugh. It is all going to come down to who appears more credible in the Thursday hearing.

And as long as Republicans decide, and as long as the circumstances don't change, wherein we have two people who could be telling the truth, but we don't have any firsthand corroborating witnesses in the "USA Today" story noted none of them had first-hand knowledge of having been there.

The way Republicans will react is to say, most likely, "We can move forward with this confirmation, because the --"

AVLON: Yes, they'll say the tie goes to the judge.

BERMAN: Correct.

AVLON: But I think the Murkowski quote is very significant. Look at the way she's framing that, is that it's no longer a question of his fitness to be a judge. It's a question of whether the woman is to be believed. That is a very -- you know, that is a very clear statement.

If that's the decision, then I think that could move her in a very different direction. But it also speaks -- this is not going to be a pro forma hearing. The margin is tight enough in the terms of the vote count that what happens on Thursday really will matter. BERMAN: Well, David, you cover Washington. You cover the Senate day

in and day out. Is that true? Do you really think Murkowski and Collins are on the fence? Some of Collins' language over the last month, prior to this, indicated she wasn't as much on the fence as you think?

DRUCKER: I never have believed that they were on the fence. They expressed a concern about Roe v. Wade and about precedent. But they really like being in the majority.

And there's a great story about Murkowski. The night of the 2014 midterm elections, four years ago, once it was clear Republicans had won the Senate majority, she gets up on a chair and she starts screaming, "I'm in the majority. I'm going to be the chairman of the Energy Committee." And she was thrilled.

None of them want to go back to the minority. It doesn't mean they wouldn't vote "no." But it is to say that they understand how important this has now become to the Republican base, who at this point have rallied around Kavanaugh and have decided this is a proxy war against the left and the mainstream media. And they know that, unless it is so clear that they can vote against him and explain it, I think they want to vote for him and are more likely to do so than not.

HILL: You know, I know it's an interesting tweet from you, Laura. One of the things that you pointed out is that on Thursday this will be -- I'm paraphrasing a little bit your tweet here, an opportunity to hear that it will be an opportunity to listen.

But not an opportunity to listen. We know from hearing from other senators, this may not change anybody's mind. They are going, "Yes, I'll listen to you." Really?

It's almost checking a box off. It's almost as if they believe that due process simply means that we have to physically have a hearing. I don't actually have to listen to what you have to say, because listening would require me to give myself an opportunity to process the testimony that I'm receiving to actually figure out where I want to go and whether it actually impinges the moral character of this particular judge.

And remember, if you're an attorney, you have to account for, through bar admissions, moral turpitude. It's not just about qualifications to be a lawyer. It's also about your character and fitness in the particular position.

So the fact that they've already said it reinforces this notion it's the forgone conclusion and they're patting people on the head and trying to placate and say, "We're going to have a hearing."

And just to that point, as well. I noticed over the past few days and over the past week, that there has been this thought that all of these magnanimous gestures have been overtaken by the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who have gone out of their way to say, "We'll do it in person. We'll talk to her in California. We'll do all these things. We've tried and tried." But they haven't done the one thing that most lawyers would do, which

is to just subpoena her. If they wanted her to appear on Monday, they could have simply done that. They wanted her to appear on Tuesday. They could have done that. Or subpoenaed any of the other witnesses who are involved, including Mark Judge.

So I think there is a lot of pretense here to pretend as though they are having a full-comprehensive hearing that includes listening, but in reality, this seems like like more of a box to be checked and a head to be patted.

[06:15:05] BERMAN: Let me -- let me enter something else into the record that came out in the reporting overnight, this from "The Washington Post."

Remember, in his interview with FOX News, Brett Kavanaugh suggested that he spent the years in high school and college focused on sports, academics, and service projects.

AVLON: Right.

BERMAN: There are people now quoted in "The Washington Post" who were offended by that notion, that choir-boy image, "The Post" says, that Kavanaugh projected. And "The Post" quote someone named Liz Swisher who knew Kavanaugh in college, and apparently, he [SIC] drank with him, who says, "Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He'd end up slurring his words, stumbling."

So John, does this matter? Does how much Brett Kavanaugh drank in high school and college now matter because of Kavanaugh's own assertions on the subject.

AVLON: So Kavanaugh has been -- adopted the Trump standard of denial that it is absolute, it is inflexible and this creates its own vulnerabilities. Because we know from his own yearbook page that this was not Mayberry. This was not someone only interested in choirboy- like activities.

That said, it's not culturally out of context for him to have part, be part of a party culture at Yale or even in high school. The fraternity was a member of Deke, which is what George W. Bush was a member of. It is partly about those -- that culture that exists.

Folks are saying, "Look, that's not honest. I grew up with you. I knew you. That's not honest, so what else are you not telling the truth about?" But is that disqualifying, because typically, you know, questions about judicial fitness and even character are more relevantly related to what they've done as an adult.

It is very clear that that pretense that he was an all-football and choir practice does not comport with the reality, which is culture in the early 1980s is very influenced by "Animal House."

DRUCKER: It doesn't necessarily matter whether he was a partier in high school, but it matters to his credibility whether people believe what he says about himself. And one of he -- you know, we talked a lot about what Ford needs to accomplish, let's say, in the hearing to appear more credible than Brett Kavanaugh.

But what he needs to accomplish is to appear somewhat sympathetic and vulnerable. Here is a man who has been wronged. Here is a man who you can believe. And that is something that is a big challenge for him.

BERMAN: Apparently, President Trump, Maggie Haberman, who will be with us in a while, reporting that President Trump thought he was robotic in the FOX News interview and may not have done as much as he needed to do there.

All right. Laura Coates, David, John, thank you very much.

It is a fascinating morning. And coming up in a little bit, we're going to speak to Brett Kavanaugh's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, about her client and so many of these questions that have developed overnight.

HILL: Looking forward to that. It's a familiar refrain, meantime, on the campaign trail for President Trump, saying, "The world is laughing at us." Well, his biggest fear may have come true yesterday at the U.N. when the world did, in fact, laugh, at the president. We discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:21:47] HILL: President Trump's United Nations address yesterday unexpectedly fulfilling one of his campaign slogans: "The world is laughing at us."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: My administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country. America's -- so true. Didn't expect that reaction, but that's OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: President Trump later insisted later he actually intended for the laughs; totally thought that was coming at him.

Joining us now, Robin Wright, contributing writer at "The New Yorker"; David Sanger, CNN political and security analyst and "New York Times" national security correspondent.

In all seriousness, it is important whenever you are speaking to know your audience. And this is something that the president does well at a political rally. In fact, some of those lines sounded familiar, because we are used to hearing them at rallies. They don't play as well at the U.N., David Sanger. And in this case, clearly, the president did not know his audience.

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, talking about, you know, misjudging the thoughts sitting in front of you, this line usually gets big, big applause, right, about the economy and so forth.

The group he was looking at and the group that was taking in this line was thinking about two years that they view as one in which he's been running a wrecking ball, in which he's pulled the United States out of the Paris Accord, the Iran agreement and threatened NAFTA, and the list is long.

But everybody in that room had a completely different image of what these two years have been about. They've been about the United Nations pulling back from everything that they have been accustomed to.

BERMAN: And just when we're talking about the president personally and the fact that he was laughed at, there is irony there. Because as you noted, the president has claimed that the world has been laughing at the United States for some time. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The world is laughing at us, folks.

They're laughing at us at our stupidity.

They laugh at us. They're laughing at us. It's just crazy what's going on.

Everybody is laughing at us. They're laughing at us. We don't know what we're doing.

They're laughing at us because they think we're stupid.

The whole world is laughing at us. They're laughing at what's going on in our country.

The world laughs at us, folks. The world laughs at us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right. So yes, irony alert there. Robin, you've covered the United Nations and the world for a long time. What did you make of that moment?

ROBIN WRIGHT, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE NEW YORKER": The gasps, the giggles that swept the cavernous General Assembly were so striking.

The president had a serious speech he was trying to give, and he has the one enduring image out of this address was the global reaction. And it was a microcosm in many ways of the gap between the Trump White House and the world on the bigger issues, whether it's on climate change, on the Iran nuclear deal, on NAFTA, on global alliances and how you deal with global threats, global challenges.

And he was trying to send a message about how to do it, to be strong and go it alone. And the world was laughing at his -- his claims about how much he has achieved and also his approach to solving the problems that all of these nations face.

[06:25:08] HILL: And part of that, too, was coming out of, you know, just history in general, right? I mean, learn your history or you're doomed to repeat it, as we all know.

But the president even talking about aid. We're going to give aid to our friends. We are going to give aid to those who share our values, and yet, if we look at history, oftentimes the U.S. has been more successful in giving aid to those they would like to bring over to the U.S.'s way of thinking.

SANGER: That's absolutely right, Erica. You think about the most successful single aid package the United States ever had. It was, of course, the Marshall plan. And that was the case, post-war we're not in that situation now.

But that was a case in which the United States was trying to make sure that the money went to bringing countries over to being nascent democracies, and pull them back away from the Soviet Union, which was then on the rise and on the march. And they didn't necessarily fear American interests, and they didn't necessarily count themselves as friends. They may now.

And so you do aid to pursue American interests. You don't do it necessarily because the country is already friendly with you. That's one of the reasons we provide so much aid right now to Egypt to keep them within the peace agreement that was signed so many years ago with Israel. We don't do it because of great shared values.

BERMAN: I have to say, most generals or military leaders you will speak to, and I have spoken to, say that foreign aid is one of the most valuable and useful weapons they have in their arsenals.

AVLON: And the cheapest.

BERMAN: And cheapest, exactly. Cheapest because it's a lot cheaper than a tank or a missile. That said, Robin, you were talking about how the world thinks that President Trump is on an island and has separated himself.

And I happen to think the people in the White House have said, "Yes, uh-huh. Yes, we have. This is intentional; this is America first." The whole speech was about -- as he put it, sovereignty and the desire to put patriotism, again, as he put it, above globalism. I'm not sure there's always -- needs to be a distinction there, but it's a distinction that he and the White House are making.

WRIGHT: Absolutely. But what's so striking is that this is really in contradiction to what the United States, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has tried to do for the last 70 years, is build these international institutions to be part of a global community to set the model politically for democracy and for peace, and this is basically withdrawing from that system.

One of the things that was so striking yesterday was really listening to Trump and then President Macron of France, where he talked about this is not a world where -- that is dominated by the most powerful -- or we're the most powerful succeed by going it alone.

And so you're seeing, increasingly, the divide, the two different ideas that are on the world stage. And the American one clearly is not appealing to many, reflected in the reaction to President Trump and particularly on the sidelines.

The interesting thing about this week in New York, when everybody is supposed to gather to talk about big issues, is that the discussion among diplomats is as much about what's happening to the fate of the American presidency as it is to the fate of the world.

BERMAN: We have Emmanuel Macron. Let's listen. You can translate simultaneously.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT, (through translator): I shall never stop upholding the principle of sovereignty. Even in the face of certain nationalism, which we're seeing today, brandishing sovereignty as a way of attacking others.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: What's also interesting is what we're hearing from -- from leaders this time around, right? So last time there were concerns about what President Trump would say. Would it be undiplomatic? Now, we're actually hearing more reaction, and leaders aren't as reticent to come out and say something, not as concerned, perhaps, about what President Trump will do or say next. And that's a big change.

SANGER: It is. There's a sense of pushing back here now. You're hearing it from many.

Robin and I were both at a session with President Rouhani of Iran the other night, and he basically was taking the position, "I'm not going to pull out of the Iran deal just because Donald Trump did. I'm going to separate Donald Trump away from his European allies, from the Russians, from the Chinese and see how that works."

And he was pretty explicit about it. And you're hearing other countries being explicit about it, too. And maybe it's that they sense some weakness. Maybe they're looking at the Mueller investigation, and maybe they're looking at the other threats. But last year it was "We have to steer clear of this president," and now it's "We can take him on a bit more."

BERMAN: I will note when the president was laughed at at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, it may have helped him decide to run for president. Laughed at at the United Nations, maybe he will become president of the world.

Robin, David, thanks for being with us. Really appreciate it.

HILL: Heard it here first.

BERMAN: That's right. Prediction time. Bill Cosby waking up this morning in prison after being sentenced for

sexual assault. We have new details, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)