Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh Until FBI Investigates; Kavanaugh Angry, Emotional During Testimony. Aired 6- 6:29a ET

Aired September 28, 2018 - 06:00   ET

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: OK. We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. This is NEW DAY. It is Friday, September 28, 6 a.m. here in New York. What a day it is. What a day yesterday was.

[05:59:35] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: What do you think this will be?

CAMEROTA: Absolutely. Also, less than four hours from now the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination. Will it advance to the full Senate? They have some tough decisions to make after that history-making hearing that featured emotional testimony from Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who claims he sexually assaulted her in high school.

If the Republicans get the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee, do they have enough votes in the full Senate to confirm him? All eyes on four key senators: Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Flake, and red-state Democrat Joe Manchin. All of them were seen meeting after that hearing.

BERMAN: And that's what this comes down to this morning. These four people have to decide what they saw yesterday. They have to decide: do they believe Professor Christine Blasey Ford, who says she was 100 percent certain that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh? Or do they believe Kavanaugh, who says 100 percent he did not do it?

We're waiting on four people. Block out the yelling and the screaming yesterday about partisan attacks. Yelling and screaming, by the way, by men. Who do you believe?

President Trump called the process a sham, but does that mean Christine Blasey Ford was a sham? Remember, she is the one who claimed she was attacked by Brett Kavanaugh, not Dianne Feinstein.

Major developments overnight. Former president George W. Bush is reportedly calling Republican senators to rally support for Kavanaugh. That matters. The American Bar Association is calling on Judiciary Committee -- on the Judiciary Committee to delay the Kavanaugh vote until there's an additional FBI background check. That matters.

So this morning, is there some middle ground for this on-the-fence four? Might they say, "We won't vote until there's more information." They could do that if they wanted.

There's a lot to cover this morning, so we begin our coverage with CNN's Sunlen Serfaty, live on Capitol Hill -- Sunlen.

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

That's right. Republicans here on Capitol Hill are, indeed, pushing forward with this nomination. Later this morning, we will likely see the Senate Judiciary Committee hold that first vote in the committee on his nomination, the first step at advancing Brett Kavanaugh.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell telling CNN that he is confident, but at this very moment, it is still very unclear if, indeed, the votes are there, especially after that emotional and historic hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: You may defeat me in the final vote, but you'll never get me to quit.

SERFATY (voice-over): Republican senators moving forward with a vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, after an extraordinary hearing that began with Christine Blasey Ford emotionally recounting her alleged assault.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, ACCUSES BRETT KAVANAUGH OF SEXUAL ASSAULT: I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life.

SERFATY: The proceedings later dissolving into bitter partisanship after Judge Kavanaugh angrily took the stand in his own defense.

KAVANAUGH: My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated hit, revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

SERFATY: The focus this morning on four undecided senators who met privately after the hearing who could sink Kavanaugh's nomination. Senator Susan Collins tight-lipped as she left the Capitol after a day of testimony where both Kavanaugh and Ford stood firm.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (R), ILLINOIS: Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?

FORD: One hundred percent.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R), LOUISIANA: None of these allegations are true?

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

KENNEDY: No doubt in your mind?

KAVANAUGH: Zero. I'm 100 percent certain.

SERFATY: Ford testifying first, rejecting the idea that she's part of a left-wing conspiracy against Kavanaugh. FORD: I am no one's pawn.

SERFATY: And describing the lasting impact of the alleged assault.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: What is the strongest memory you have? The strongest memory of the incident?

FORD: Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter -- the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.

SERFATY: The all-male Republican majority ceding their time to sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who noted that the hearing's format was not well-suited to a trauma investigation.

Republicans later taking back the floor after Senator Lindsey Graham's furious denouncement of the proceedings.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open. Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.

SERFATY: "The New York Times" reports that Mitchell later told Republicans privately that she did not believe there was enough evidence to prosecute, but the White House was reportedly questioning the decision to hire Mitchell, and President Trump was concerned after Ford's testimony.

However, Kavanaugh's combative opening statement encouraging the president, who later applauded his nominee's testimony as powerful, honest and riveting. Kavanaugh's defiance on display as he repeatedly dismissed questions about his history of drinking and partying.

[06:05:06] KAVANAUGH: You're asking about blackout. I don't know, have you?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did the world "ralph" you used in your yearbook refer to alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: I already answered the question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did it relate to alcohol?

KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I don't know if you do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

KAVANAUGH: Do you like beer, Senator, or not? What do you like to drink?

SERFATY: And about whether the allegations should be handled through an FBI investigation.

DURBIN: Personally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do? You won't answer?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SERFATY: And breaking overnight, the American Bar Association has called on the Judiciary Committee to delay their vote until an FBI investigation. This is such a significant development and, certainly, a significant statement, specifically about Kavanaugh, because you're reminded, John and Alisyn, many times during the hearing yesterday he leaned on them, and held up their past endorsement as evidence of his credentials -- John and Alisyn.

BERMAN: The gold standard, the gold standard, we heard from supporters of Kavanaugh, that ABA statement, now the ABA saying, "Hold on, wait."

Joining us now, CNN's legal analyst, the former federal prosecutor Laura Coates; CNN political director David Chalian; CNN senior political analyst John Avlon.

It was a cultural moment yesterday. It was a historic moment yesterday, and this morning at 6:06 a.m., it's a political moment. And we are waiting on four U.S. senators. Political director David Chalian, where are they?

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: They're not saying where they are right now is where they are. You know, we had been focusing so much on the Republican swing votes, and Joe Manchin reminded us yesterday there are these deep-red-state Democrats that have not made -- who are up for re-election this year, by the way. Three of them, remember, voted for Neil Gorsuch, who haven't made their intentions clear either.

And clearly, Joe Manchin wants to group himself with these Republicans. So I wonder if they're going to move as a block, you know, now that they are convening together.

But you are right, John, this is the ball game. It was a massive cultural development yesterday. It was an emotional roller coaster, no matter what side we're on, and how you want to think about it. But now, it is Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump's hunt for the 51 votes to make sure that they are there, and that -- that is the entire focus of Washington right now.

CAMEROTA: Laura Coates, Dr. Blasey Ford said she was 100 percent certain that she was assaulted, sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15. Brett Kavanaugh says that he is 100 percent certain it was not him. Where does that -- how will senators be able to make a decision?

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I mean, wouldn't it be great, Alisyn, if there was a third person who could, I don't know, sway their opinion in either direction, somebody who may have been there, including a fourth person we learned, Dr. Blasey Ford, a man named P.J. who apparently was downstairs at the time, as well.

You know, you have to wonder why, if there is this -- this really contrasting certainty, one person saying unequivocally it was him, and this is what happened. Another person saying unequivocally saying, "I don't know what happened to you. It wasn't me who did this."

CAMEROTA: You have a statement. Just to be clear.

COATES: -- have somebody there.

CAMEROTA: Of course, look, I think that everybody -- all of us, certainly, in the information business would love to hear from Mark Judge, who she says was in the room, who she connected eyes with, who she believes tried to, I guess, help her in some way by pouncing on them both or, ultimately, even accidentally, helped her so that they rolled off the bed and she was able to escape.

So we do have this statement. This is a new statement after the testimony from Mark Judge. He says, "As I stated in my attorney letter, I did not ask to be involved in this matter. Nor did anyone ask me to be involved in this matter." He says, "We have told the committee, I do not want to comment about these events publicly. As a recovering alcoholic and a cancer survivor, I have struggled with depression and anxiety. As a result, I avoid public speaking. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school, but we have not spoken directly in several years. I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony."

And then he goes on to say, "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford described." So how could it be helpful?

COATES: Well, the same reason that there was testimony and a hearing that was called for two people who had already also both issued statements, also both issued written statements, one in particular, Dr. Blasey Ford, who also indicated that she did not want to be involved in this publicly, and by virtue of her request to be anonymous, and by virtue of her request to delay the hearing until a full investigation was there.

And yet, until the Senate Judiciary Committee felt it was important and compelling to actually test their credibility and to ask questions, albeit through a particular special prosecutor in this case.

And so the idea that you say, "Well, I simply wanted to write my statements," we are testing this, essentially, in the court of public opinion. I know it's not the court of law. We would have subpoenaed them, had they been there, regardless of their preference, but by virtue of the fact that they were there to try to test the credibility, well, then perhaps the onus would have been on the committee, as well, to say, "I'd like to test his."

[06:10:10] Having said that, you're absolutely right about the notion of their being an absence of corroboration of physical evidence or corroboration of somebody at the time. And yet, and still there was still an absolute opportunity to do this and to resolve even the notion that, to confirm once and for all this was truly going to be a he said-she said.

BERMAN: "I do not recall" is not "yes" or "no." And one question you could ask is "What do you recall"? What do you recall about Christine Blasey Ford? They cannot ask any questions to Mark Judge, and that's what they're saying.

And John, again, this gets down to what these four U.S. senators choose to believe. And they can get into the yelling and screaming. They can talk about partisan this and partisan that and process this, process that. They have to decide, do they believe Christine Blasey Ford or do they believe Brett Kavanaugh?

There is a middle ground. There is a middle ground. If they want, they can claim, "No, no, no, we don't want to wait." But they could say this morning, FBI, additional background check, they could say subpoena Mark Judge. They could do that and that is within their power.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: They absolutely do, because they are the balance of power in this vote. It's the three Republicans who are in question and these red-state Democrats have disproportionate power.

And as you pointed out, the ABA has given this process an off-ramp. That gold standard by saying there should be a delay. There should be a full investigation, and that may fit very nicely with the Democrats' designs for delay. It may not ultimately change any outcomes, but at least it will help put to rest some of the bitter questions that exist.

Yesterday -- we've seen high-stakes debates before. This was so emotionally raw on both sides. And you know -- you know, Dr. Ford came in very cool, very self-effacing, very convincing. Judge Kavanaugh comes in hot with outbursts that were, frankly, partisan for anything -- anyone normally who has aspired to showing judicial temperament, that wasn't on the map. So for those senators who were caught in the middle, the ABA option gives them a real off-ramp. And I'd be surprised if they didn't try to push that forward today.

CHALIAN: I just want to say, the partisan piece was actually the most surprising thing to me yesterday. We knew he was going to come in hot. We knew President Trump was not pleased with how he was defending himself and wanted him to come in.

I was very surprised, because his partisan past was such a part of the original confirmation hearings that Democrats were trying to get him on, that he had sort of bent over backwards to shed himself of that partisan past. And he embraced it wholeheartedly yesterday as part of his anger, his clear anger, but saying that, "You guys are doing this revenge of the Clintons."

I just thought that is really surprising for somebody who very well may end up on the highest court in the land, who wanted to engage in a partisan battle, in addition to the other brawling to clear his name.

CAMEROTA: And what about that? I mean, the fact that he was so baldly partisan, aren't Supreme Court judges supposed to be open- minded, be fair-minded? What about that, that he went after the Clintons? He was lecturing the Democrats?

COATES: Well, certainly it was surprising, especially if there was any notion or any wavering on the behalf of the American people to think, "We've got this ideological divide in the Supreme Court." We know there are four conservative and four liberal justices. I wonder if he will be the swing vote that Kennedy was? It seems pretty clear that he will transform the composition of the Supreme Court to the conservatives.

And so, I think it was very clear in respect. And he had gone to great lengths, you're correct, in his confirmation process to show that he would have a temperament that was fair, that was going to be judicious and diplomatic.

And so I don't think he is in way going to be an advocate on behalf of those who he perceives have tried to harm him. Having said that, I think there is a misperception in the community that all judges who don the black robe are very kind individuals on that bench. When that white noise machine goes on and the husher is there, they're not talking to you about your day. They're talking to you out of the presence of the jury, and oftentimes they can be antagonistic, and they can be denigrating and in the pursuit of trying to have the reigns in the courtroom.

But so I'm not too surprised that a judge has some other side of them. What I was surprised is the notion that he wasn't aware of the fact that his temperament and his bombasticness really did mirror the president at times, would be considered by those four key votes that you talked about, John and Alisyn, at the beginning. Because those are the people that have to be convinced.

BERMAN: Well, let me tell you. I have two points on this. No. 1, what we heard yesterday from Brett Kavanaugh and particularly Lindsey Graham was all this complaining about the process, yelling about the scam. President Trump tweeted about that also.

And they're doing that because they can't yell at Christine Blasey Ford. They're attacking the Democrats --

COATES: Right.

BERMAN: -- because they don't feel like they can attack her directly. And pay very close attention to that. Pay very close attention to that.

The second thing I'll say is that where we are this morning, I think, we're all focusing on President Trump and how Brett Kavanaugh was trying to please an audience of one. The more important president this morning might be George W. Bush, and he's been on the phone with many of these reluctant senators. And he has sway. He may have more sway with Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski than President Trump.

[06:15:21] AVLON: This is sort of the ironies of Kavanaugh's nomination, how it has become so politicized. Because out of that Federalist Society list, Kavanaugh was the most establishment Republican, staff secretary to President Bush. His -- you know, his decisions had not been incredibly ideological, despite his ideological past as part of the Starr commission. And all that came roaring back to the fore yesterday and undercutting

those claims. But it does raise the question twofold. One, does he become radicalized as a result of bitterness around this process? As some have suggesting Clarence Thomas was.

CAMEROTA: It seems like it from his defiant tone yesterday.

AVLON: Yes. Yes, and that's a real -- real question. But also that he has been representing a more establishment Republican face to this nomination process, rather than a more ideological Tea Party Trump nominee. And all that is that exposed right now, and that's going to be key in folks' decision.

BERMAN: It is one thing as we go forward this morning. And thank you all for being part of this discussion. And I think it is worth saying, it does looks as if, perhaps, the way he went about this testimony may have been effective.

CAMEROTA: To whom? I mean --

BERMAN: To the four Republican senators in the mix.

CAMEROTA: Only because they said that they haven't decided yet? How do we know?

BERMAN: Yes. Yes, because they went behind closed doors, and we understand that the leanings are, or the signs are that, you know, it wasn't a definite no. Let's put it that way.

CAMEROTA: Well, that's true. But I think that maybe his 100 percent certainty goes farther with them than his sort of defiance and lecturing tone. Who knows? But that was stunning.

It was stunning to see him take such a partisan tact after how he had comported himself during the confirmation.

AVLON: If it's rewarded that will be extraordinary.

BERMAN: John, David, Laura, thank you.

So Brett Kavanaugh, how was it perceived inside the White House? We know President Trump was watching this very closely. We'll discuss with Maggie Haberman next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:20:39] CAMEROTA: OK. In about three hours, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold that crucial vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It comes not even 24 hours after he forcefully denied the allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: My family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. You have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, revenge on behalf of the Clintons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: President Trump calling Kavanaugh's testimony powerful, honest and riveting.

Let's bring in CNN political analyst and White House correspondent for "The New York Times," Maggie Haberman.

Maggie, President Trump liked that? I mean, there were so many times that Brett Kavanaugh was crying, that he was choked up, that he couldn't go on. He was -- it was very emotional testimony. He was angry. He came out guns a-blazing. And is that what President Trump likes?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Angry and guns blazing, of course.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but what about the crying part?

HABERMAN: The crying, I think, is not usually his favorite. In the context of this, you know, was not offensive to him, because it was somebody in there, in the White House fighting for his name, for his reputation, obviously for a Supreme Court seat, but for a lot beyond that. Brett Kavanaugh is certainly not wrong that his reputation has taken a very large hit.

CAMEROTA: He said his life has been completely, permanently ruined?

HABERMAN: But if he gets -- if he gets confirmed for a Supreme Court seat, then no, it has not been permanently ruined. But it is certainly true that this will always be an asterisk on him. It's not like we don't talk about Anita Hill anymore, even before all of this, in terms of Clarence Thomas.

So he's right about that. And he did what the president wanted. The president was very upset with his performance on FOX News. And even before that, the president having anxiety, about what -- the president is many things, and one of the them -- one of the things he is, is he's very savvy about how things are going to look on TV to a viewing audience.

And he has been saying for a week and a half to aides that he thought that Blasey Ford could have a story to tell, and it could be compelling to people, and this was clearly concerning to him. He did not think Kavanaugh had done enough. He did here.

BERMAN: To be clear, where are we -- now I'm doing a time check. And just to be -- I keep on checking my computer, because if there's any information about Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake and Joe Manchin, that's all that matters this morning. You were watching this very closely.

What does the White House and the president think? We know that the arc of their emotions yesterday was that after Professor Ford testified, they thought they were in real trouble? HABERMAN: They were extremely concerned. And then I got several

texts from people in the White House: this is a disaster, and this was during the questioning where the sex crimes prosecutor was talking to Blasey Ford. That had been anticipated to help them. Because it was going to remove it from this all-male Republican Senate Judiciary Committee panel and allow it to be something a little more stayed.

What ended up happening was, when you have a sex crimes prosecutor doing it, then you're talking about the facts of what might have happened. And so --

CAMEROTA: But they were in a no-win situation. I mean, didn't they have to outsource this to a female sex crimes prosecutor? Because hadn't they, otherwise, you would have seen that kind of anger that Lindsey Graham unleashed. And that isn't a good look either.

HABERMAN: I don't know that you would have -- I don't know that you would have seen that kind of anger in her. I just don't. I mean, I think that -- I agree with you that I think that they were in a bind.

But I think that the way the format went for them, and this is what the president and a lot of his aides were upset about, these five- minute chunks of time where they would -- she would start asking questions, the sex crimes prosecutor, and then she'd stop, and then they would have to move onto something else.

So when she would start to build toward a line of questioning, it got redirected pretty quickly. They were all very upset watching the first half. They felt as if it was likely to go South.

I was getting these questions from people, saying, "Do you think the president will pull him?" I think there's zero chance of that.

And indeed, Brett Kavanaugh came in and saved it for himself in the minds of the White House. Now, look, the White House is feeling good. They're feeling confident, but they're not feeling completely over the top. They -- you know, are certain they know that they don't completely have the votes yet. That may change in a couple hours, and they'll learn something new.

But as of now they don't, and they also felt like this was all wrapped up and then the allegation came out a couple weeks ago. So they're not counting their chickens yet.

The one thing that I was struck by yesterday is the number of people who kept talking about the audience of one. And I heard this from a lot of sources. I heard this from a lot of people.

[06:25:05] It is true this was an audience of one in terms of not having the president cut bait on Brett Kavanaugh, which the president left himself an opening for in his press conference the day before.

But there's still an audience of senators, right? There's still the Senate math. And so this isn't just about does President Trump like how you did on television? There are other factors at play here.

BERMAN: The audience of four.

HABERMAN: Correct.

BERMAN: It's the audience of Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake and Joe Manchin. And it may be that George W. Bush is the more important president than President Trump here, and Bush has been making calls, who has -- he's got a sway. Look, he's got a lot of sway with those senators.

HABERMAN: Yes, that's right.

BERMAN: One thing we do know this morning, we talked about what the president thinks, is that people close to the president have been falling all over themselves in praise for Lindsey Graham.

HABERMAN: They have. He delivered the message that -- a couple of things. He delivered the message that Graham has said privately to people for several days. He delivered a message that many in the White House felt, they believed that this had gone too far.

What I think is interesting if you take the aggregate of Lindsey Graham's comments, Brett Kavanaugh's testimony, and President Trump's own press conference the day before, which I think gave Brett Kavanaugh something of a permission structure to draw a line.

They're attempting to draw a line at how far the "#MeToo moment, which has been sort of rolling and not completely clearly defined. They're trying to say this is as far as this goes, you know, if this -- Graham said it. If you vote for this then and you're endorsing this process.

I mean, I think the flip side of that for Collins and Murkowski in particular, is if you vote for Brett Kavanaugh, then you are endorsing not just that version of events. But you're endorsing what he said about this all being a -- some kind of a vendetta by the Clintons. That nothing is actually on the level or on the merits, that it's all about personal destruction.

Yesterday was a sad reflection of where our politics are.

CAMEROTA: Oh, my gosh, absolutely. It was so painful. It was so painful to watch both sides in terms of the system being broken. Go ahead, challenge that.

BERMAN: I'm not challenging that, or you. But when people say it was broken on both sides there, who was doing the yelling and screaming?

The two sides yesterday were -- was a woman claiming that she was sexually assaulted. Unless that -- unless it's wrong for a woman to come forward and say she was sexually assaulted and be willing to do it in front of the American people in the Judiciary Committee, that side was there. If you don't believe her, make that argument, but the yelling and screaming and the circus was Brett Kavanaugh, Lindsey Graham.

CAMEROTA: I guess my point is that there's got to be a better way to confirm Supreme Court justices than ruining people's lives. And so she testified that her life has been derailed by this. She's in hiding. What it's done to her family, she is emotional. He testified to how he says this has completely ruined his life, which I think calls into question is he capable of being a Supreme Court justice if his life is over?

But in any event, there's got to be a better way than that circus. There's got to be a better system.

HABERMAN: I mean, I think the problem is, is that the system has actually worked pretty effectively a really long time. I think the problem is that, No. 1, the ground has shifted between -- beneath everybody's feet, to some extent, in terms of the #MeToo movement and I think -- and again, I understand that it was complicated.

But the manner in which this complaint, this anonymous complaint by Blasey Ford was dealt with initially by Dianne Feinstein, by Senator Feinstein's office, and her office, I think, is part of what set this all in motion.

CAMEROTA: I agree.

HABERMAN: Should not divorce it.

CAMEROTA: But what is the right protocol? When somebody gets a private letter that is sensitive, what are they supposed to do with it?

HABERMAN: I think you try to investigate it. I don't think you try to just kind of move past it and wait until it gets leaked to somebody. I think that how this played out, there are many permutations of what could have happened, but what did happen was not good.

BERMAN: And I will say this. It's hard for me to imagine that Lindsey Graham would have had a different attitude if this had come out one month ago than today.

HABERMAN: I suspect. But then I think that you take away a pretty legitimate tool in their arsenal.

BERMAN: The process.

HABERMAN: The other point just that I would add about the circus that you were talking about, what's really striking is that you did have these gender dynamics at play, where you saw Christine Blasey Ford trying very hard to be calm, to --

CAMEROTA: Collegial, as she kept saying.

HABERMAN: -- essentially to please people and not interrupt and not be rude. And you had Brett Kavanaugh talking back to senators, male and female, literally yelling at various points, crying. These are things that are certainly understandable if you are fighting for your life, which is what everybody in the White House would say. These are things that, if any woman did it. they would have been called hysterical, and it would have -- it would have been, you know, a knock against them.

CAMEROTA: Such a good point. That was such stark relief of how -- the tone she took and how women are trained and socialized to be part of a group and to collaborate and to be helpful. And that he can go in and have whatever temperament he wants. At one point, Amy Klobuchar said, "Have you ever, you know, been so drunk that you blacked out?"

He said, "Have you?"

HABERMAN: The White House was not happy. There were a lot of people around Brett Kavanaugh with that exchange. He did come back and apologize afterwards.

BERMAN: Because in the break, they told him.

HABERMAN: Because -- and I think it was pretty clear to everybody around, that that was a problem, when what you are doing is facing allegations that you are boorish with women. At minimum, that's not the way to win.

BERMAN: Very quickly, does the White House, have they put any thought, or Republicans put any thought into the potential backlash of what happens if Kavanaugh is confirmed?

HABERMAN: I think that they think they don't have a choice. I think they think the midterms have been really tough anyway. And what they --