tv Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer CNN September 25, 2018 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
woman in the senate is pushing back. sparing the record. white house officials say the president may not fire the deputy attorney general when they meet on thursday, but mr. trump's allies in congress appear to have a different sort of punishment planned for the man over seeing the russia investigation. the cosby sentence. the disgraced tv icon is ordered to prison, and is officially declared a sexually violent predator. take a closer look at bill cosby's sentence and the reaction. and rebuking trump. after the president's boasting at the united nations prompted laughs by world leaders, a crucial u.s. ally is slamming his isolationist message tonight. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." ♪ this is "cnn breaking news." we're following breaking news on brett kavanaugh's
supreme court nomination as republicans get more combative in their defense and more dismissive of his accusers. tonight senate judiciary committee republicans are again refusing to delay a thursday hearing with kavanaugh and christine blasey ford. they've now hired an outside counsel to ask questions, something ford specifically opposed. this as the president is attacking the credibility of the second foaccuser, deborah ramir, suggesting she is part of a con game by democrats. lisa murkowski, a potential swing vote, urging them to take the accusers seriously. he will be confirmed possibly this weekend. i will get reaction from democratic senator merkley. our correspondents and analysts are standing by. first to our white house correspondent jim acosta. he is in new york covering the president. jim, the president's u.n. speech
was overshadowed today once again by the kavanaugh controversy. >> reporter: that's right, wolf. overshadowed by events back home, and the president today offered his most stunning comments to date in the fight over brett kavanaugh,, raising doubts about the second woman to accuse the supreme court nominee of sexual misconduct. the president appears to be running out of patience with the nomination process, accusing the accusers of being part of what he called a democratic con game. on the world stage at the u.n., president injected himself into the court of public opinion on the fate of brett kavanaugh, all but dismissing allegations made by a second woman, deborah ramirez, who told "the new yorker" the supreme court nominee sexually abused her at yale university. >> the second accuser has nothing. she doesn't even know, she thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. she admits that she was drunk. she admits time lapses, there are time lapses. >> reporter: the president told reporters too watched kavanaugh's interview on fox,
offering the judge his full support. >> you know, when he said that really what he was focused on was trying to be number one in his class at yale, to me that was so believable. his wife is devastated. his children are devastated. i don't mean they're like, oh, gee, i'm a little unhappy. they're devastated! >> reporter: mr. trump's comments seemed to run counter to press secretary sarah sanders openness to hearing ramirez testify next to kavanaugh's first accuser, christine blasey ford, at a hearing set for thursday. >> certainly we would be open to that, and that process could take place on thursday. >> i'm not going to let false accusations drive us out of this process and, you know, we're looking for a fair process. >> reporter: the white house is firmly behind kavanaugh whose personal life has been exposed in full detail. >> i never sexually assaulted anyone. i did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years
thereafter, and the girls from the schools i went to and i were friends. >> so you're saying -- >> reporter: the kavanaugh saga temporarily overshadowed the other white house melodrama, whether the president will fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein after he allegedly offered to secretly record mr. trump. >> i'm meeting with rod rosenstein on thursday. today i'm doing other things, as you probably have heard. >> reporter: at the u.n. there was a clear signal of how some parts of the world view the trump presidency as the president bragged about his accomplishments, foreign leaders couldn't help but laugh. >> in less than two years 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 okay. >> reporter: it was a reminder
there is a trump tweet for everything. when barack obama was president, mr. trump tweeted, we need a president who isn't a laughing stock to the entire world. we need a truly great leader. during the president's u.n. speech, german officials could be seen chuckling when mr. trump accused them of being dependent on russian energy. >> germany will become totally dependent on russian energy if it does not immediately change course. >> reporter: the president later insisted he didn't mind the laughter. >> it was meant to get some laughter, but it was great. >> reporter: and the trump administration is ramping up the rhetoric on iran's. the national security adviser earlier today, john bolton, said the iranians would have hell to pay if it crosses the u.s. that came after iranian president essentially accused the president of having what he called a, quote, nazi disposition. wolf, i think it can be argued those were not the most shocking comments of the day as the president once again in this brett kavanaugh saga stood with
the accused and not the accusers. wolf. >> all right. jim acosta, new york. thank you. we have more breaking news on brett kavanaugh's reaction to the second woman now accusing him of sexual misconduct. let's go to our congressional spornlt phil mattingly. what is the latest? >> reporter: a congressional source said this afternoon brett kavanaugh, the supreme court nominee, had a phone call with republican staff on the senate judiciary committee to explicitly discuss the allegations from deborah ramirez. a source says he denied those allegations, much like he did in the "fox news" interview last night. the source also made clear the committee has been going back and forth with deborah ramirez's lawyer, trying to set up a conversation there as well. at this point nothing has come to fruition on that front and it is worth noting at this point the committee has no plans to invite deborah ramirez to testify at the thursday hearing. however, they have had the discussion with brett kavanaugh and, wolf, brett kavanaugh once again denied all of the allegations that have been laid out. >> as republicans, phil, close
ranks around kavanaugh, at least most of them, one republican senator is clearly signaling she may break ranks. >> reporter: yeah, that's right. that's senator lisa murkowski. it is no secret in the capitol she is a spriwing vote, that sh wasn't settled on brett kavanaugh before the nomination and she is waiting until thursday before she decides now. she has taken a distinctively different approach from what you have heard. she believes deborah ramirez should be heard. take a listen. >> if she has serious allegations that she is willing to come forward on and request the opportunity to be heard, as dr. ford did, i think that there is a process for all of that, a process before the committee. i don't want to see further delay. >> reporter: now, wolf, it is worth noting lisa murkowski is not calling for delays right now. she is not calling for it to be postponed or pushed off like
democrats are, but she is differ from republicans who say that that second allegation is a smear and she is very clearly a keen example of somebody who will be watching the thursday hearing very closely. >> you're absolutely right. phil, the senate judiciary committee has now hired a female outside counsel to question dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. this is something that ford's legal team did not want, so what has been the reaction? >> reporter: yeah, it was a significant point of disagreement. we have seen it in letters back and forth. we heard readouts from sources familiar with the call from deborah katz, the attorney for christine blasey ford and the judiciary committee, but republicans decided to go forward which they said was their prerogative. they've decided to do that. the reason is two fold. first and foremost, there are 11 republicans on the committee. all 11 are men, and republican officials that i've been speaking to for the last week or so are keenly aware of the optics of that given the sensitive issue they will be discussing. there's also the issue as senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley put it of
depoliticizing this hearing. they recognize how it is all going to look, the circus atmosphere it might contain, and they want somebody not only who is outside of the committee ranks but also somebody with professional experience to do the questioning. now, senators will still have the opportunity to question, but, wolf, not unlike christine blasey ford's lawyers, democrats have taken the same position. they believe this makes this look like a trial, not a hearing, and they're very opposed to this idea, wolf. >> yeah, 11 republicans, all male, on the judiciary committee, 10 democrats, four of home are women. we'll watch this thursday very, very closely. joining us one of the united states senators who will have a final vote on the kavanaugh nomination, democratic senator jeff merkley. thanks so much for joining us. >> you're welcome, wolf. good to be with you. >> the second most senior republican on the judiciary committee, senator oren hatch, says kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. do you think anyone is going into thursday's hearing with an open mind or is this hearing just for show? >> it seems like the 11
republican men are not going in with a desire for any sort of a fair process. if they wanted a fair process as kavanaugh actually called for a fair process, then both kavanaugh and the 11, the republican 11, would say, we want that fbi investigation. we even did that with anita hill back there in 1991. well, here we are a generation into the future and we have a more extreme version of republican men saying they don't even want any form of fairness in this process. >> you include senator jeff flake, republican of arizona on who is a member of that committee as part of that list? >> i have not heard if senator flake has said, i will not vote in this committee unless these women are treated fairly, and that includes the fbi investigation that they have requested. if he has said that, i have not heard that. >> what message does it send for republicans on the committee to have a female outside counsel do
all of the questioning instead of the republican senators themselves? >> they're turning this into a trial setting. she agreed to come and answer the questions and address the issues raised by the members of the committee, not to be come and put on trial. it is completely inappropriate. >> republican senator lisa murkowski, who is not a member of the committee, says an fbi investigation could answer the questions about these accusations and she thinks perhaps the second accuser should also come and testify as well. why doesn't the republican leadership seem to be listening to her? >> i think the republican leadership has one goal, and that is to jam this individual who is anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-reproductive rights, also finds on behalf of the powerful, they are seeking to put him on the court come hell or high water. we have now information
regarding the freshman roommate who says that kavanaugh was, and i quote, excessively and incoherently drunk, that he witnessed this, that the circumstances certainly add to that. we have michael avenatti who says he has a client with additional information about activities, inappropriate activities that kavanaugh was involved in. we have ms. ramirez, dr. ford. there were a lot of people who testified in 1991 during the hearings on anita hill. how is it that we can be a generation in the future and we can't have a fair examination of a set of sources, a set of individuals with information to bear on the question? do we want the truth on someone who is getting a lifetime appointment to stand in judgment, the most important judgments about the application of the constitution in the lives of ordinary individuals? do we want that to be an unfair, jammed-through process? right now apparently the r-11
are saying yes. >> judge kavanaugh went on "fox news" last night, as you know, to deny the allegations. but the way kavanaugh portrays himself is clearly very different from the picture we are getting from some others, including from his own yearbook, his high school yearbook, from some of his own classmates at yale university, a roommate described him, as you point out, as aggressive and blej rent -- quote, aggressive and belligerent drinking. what do you make of that? >> it comes back to the fact that there's a portrait that is emerging of an individual who did not treat women well. you mentioned the yearbook. we've heard about the reputation of his fraternity. we've heard from two women directly affected. we've heard that there are others that michael avenatti is ready to bring forward. we've heard from the freshman roommate. this is why you have an fbi investigation. this is not a criminal investigation. this is a background investigation, and it is standard that when new information comes regarding the vetting of an individual, the
fbi steps in and says, well, we'll get the facts on this and help present them. they are the appropriate folks to do it. the white house ordered just such an investigation with anita hill when there was additional information. why is the white house not doing it now? the president is attacking the victims, and that is just horrific in this day and age. i guess it is what we have come to expect from this individual in the oval office. certainly kavanaugh as somebody who is presenting himself as appropriate to serve on the court should be the first person to stand up and say absolutely have the fbi check into it, have them talk to my colleagues in college who were there when this event is alleged to have occurred, or have the other associates who were involved in high school. he should want clarity to -- in order to make his case.
when he says he wants a fair process, well, then stand up. stand up, mr. kavanaugh. stand up and demand a fair process, not stand up and deny a fair process. >> senator merkley, thanks for joining us. >> you're welcome. good to be with you just ahead, the president has abandoned all restraint when it comes to brett kavanaugh's accusers. will that have an impact as thursday's important hearing looms? and will the deputy attorney general of the united states be fired, triggering turmoil potentially for the russia probe? we're getting new insights into the trump team strategy just ahead of rod rosenstein's meeting with the president on thursday. for the financial world to stop acting the same old way. in today's complex world, you need a partner that is driven to provide you with better solutions for these challenging times, one that is willing to disrupt the industry, and break free from conventional thinking. (thudding)
we are a different kind of financial company. we are athene, and we are driven to do more. not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here.
we're following the breaking news on the accusations against judge brett kavanaugh and the fight over his nomination to the u.s. supreme court. right now let's turn to the fate of the deputy attorney general of the united states, rod rosenstein. white house officials say he won't necessarily be fired by president trump when they meet at the white house on thursday, but the fate of the man who oversees the russia investigation is still very uncertain tonight. let's go to our justice correspondent, evan perez. what are you learning about the strategy behind those calling in the house of representatives for him to appear and testify in the coming days? >> reporter: well, behind the scenes right now, wolf, some of the people are telling him not to fire rosenstein at this meeting on thursday. instead, to let some of his allies in congress sort of soften the ground for him.
one of the things you are seeing is mark meadows, matt gates going out and saying that they want rosenstein to come testify in congress about these comments that he allegedly made about wire tapping the president, and they believe that he'll perform so badly at that hearing that it will at least, you know, if he doesn't resign it will make the case a little more politically palatable for the president to get rid of rod rosenstein. as a backup, by the way, mark meadows is talking about perhaps impeaching rod rosenstein at the end of all of this. >> yeah, they don't have the votes to impeach him, i can tell you that, in the house, certainly not the two-thirds necessary in the senate. let's talk a little bit about robert mueller, the special counsel. if he thinks that the man he reports to, rod rosenstein, is about to resign or be fired, what, if anything, can mueller do to protect his entire russia probe? >> there's a lot of what mueller is up to that we still do not know, but we do believe based on all of the signs we have seen that this investigation has a
few more things to come, more indictments to come. so we may well see those come in the next few weeks or perhaps right after the midterm elections, but it is one of the things that mueller is doing is he's speaking through these indictments, the allegations, the findings of his investigation are coming out bit by bit in these indictments that come forward, you know, these charges that they bring in this investigation. so it is one way that even, for example, if the findings of his report somehow do not go forward to members of congress, they'll be able to see a lot of what robert mueller has found through the work that he is presenting in these indictments. >> evan perez reporting for us. thank you very much. joining us now, congressman jerry connolly, he is a democrat who serves on the fortunate affairs committee. thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you, wolf. >> we know president trump was deeply angered by james comey's testimony before congress, so do
you think that this effort by some of your republican colleagues in the house could be successful? >> i don't know how we pressure success. i mean, you know, this trio, gates and jordan and goodlatte, sort of are a triumvirate that would rival the inquisition when it comes to destroying testimony and testimony that doesn't go where it is intended to go. meanwhile, of course, they see and hear no evil and have subpoenaed no members of the trump administration for the scores of ethical conflicts and scandals that are real. so clearly there's a double standard. it remind me, wolf, of the old expression of a friend of mine, if you're going to be a phoney, at least be sincere about it. >> yeah. can rosenstein ignore the president's attacks on him the way his boss, the attorney
general jeff sessions, has apparently ignored the humiliation and attacks on him by the president? >> you know, it is never easy to be the subject of public scorn, but for the sake of the country and for the sake of the job he's doing at the department of justice, he has to sort of suck it up and bear that burden. >> if rosenstein is fired or forced out one way or another, does that put the entire russia investigation in peril? >> well, we don't know how far along mueller is in reaching conclusions. clearly it interrupts that investigation and potentially, yes, it threatens the whole investigation. my hope is mueller has been shrewd enough to back it up and to make sure that there are some exits that allow the investigation to continue even without his or rosenstein. >> thank you for joining us.
>> my pleasure, wolf. just ahead, we are getting new information about republican efforts to push through brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. plans they're putting in place right now, even before thursday's hearing. and the man once known as america's dad is ordered to do time in prison. we'll discuss the significance of bill cosby's sentencing for sexual assault. your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown
to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions,
kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
breaking news. we're we've just learned that the senate judiciary committee has now scheduled a vote on judge brett kavanaugh's increasingly troubled supreme court nomination for 9:30 a.m. friday morning. let's get more with our analysts. david swerdlick, what is your reaction to this timeline? the hearing is going the take place thursday morning and now they've scheduled a vote in the committee friday morning. >> the fact they've scheduled a vote so early right after this hearing is supposed to take place does suggest to me that they want to get this over with, the republicans get control of the judiciary committee and control of the senate, and a lot of the senators' minds are made up regardless of what they hear in this testimony. you would expect ultimately judge kavanaugh to be confirmed unless the story changes significantly based on what senators have said, but the idea that it is like, oh, we're so confident that we're not going the hear anything that would change our mind we're going right to it, i think it is a little bit -- it does not reflect well on the republicans. >> you know, gloria, you know,
the number two on the senate judiciary committee oren hatch tells us, kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says the same thing. do you think anyone is going into this potentially explosive hearing on thursday with an open mind? >> no. probably not the people sitting on the commit. there are two people we ought to look at, which is susan collins and lisa murkowski. they may be going into it with an open myself. susan collins said earlier she would be glued to the television set, ms. murkowski said she wanted the hear from the second woman. they're key votes. hatch and mcconnell are optimistic but it comes down to these women and what they decide. they will be listening. are people on the committee going to change their minds? i doubt it, not at all. but i do believe that the testimony will be very important for the people actually who do have open minds about this.
>> you know, it is interesting because the president earlier said -- he was sort of restrained in going after the accuser and now the accusers, but that went away completely today. listen to this. >> i think it is horrible what the democrats have done. it is a con game they're playing. they're really con artists. they don't believe it themselves, okay. they know he is a high-quality person. they don't believe it. 36 years ago? nobody ever knew about it, nobody ever heard about it, and now a new charge comes up and she said, well, it might not be him and there were gaps and she said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up, and she doesn't know it was him but it might have been him. oh, gee, let's not make him a supreme court judge because of that. >> what's your reaction? >> i don't think it is especially surprising. i think a lot of people probably understood that this really was the way the president felt deep down. after all, he has faced his own accusations and responded in a similar way. you know, the way the president
is talking about allegations of sexual assault, that she was drunk, that she doesn't remember, this is the way that we -- we would expect people to talk about sexual assault 20 years ago, 30 years ago. so i do think that the women of this country are listening to the president's words and, you know, we talked a lot about the president's ability to get away with things. you know, i really do think november is going to be the first time for the american people and, frankly, for the women in the united states of america to decide whether or not saying these kinds of things is acceptable in our public political life. >> you know, he is not helping the case. mitch mcconnell as we know wants him to be quiet. i don't think mitch mcconnell watched that performance today and was very happy with it. >> yeah. >> i can't imagine he was. >> i'm sure you're right. you know, phil, you work at the cia but also at the fbi. if the president, which he's not going to do, or anyone said to the fbi, you know what, investigation these allegations from 30, 35 years ago, could the fbi do that? >> sure, and i think to be clear there's no equity in this country. if this came up during my
background investigations -- and i had many over the years, i can't believe the fbi or others, i worked for director mueller, would have said, let's give him the job without investigating. they wouldn't be able to look at digital data going back 35 years, but you can go back and talk to school mates. you can look at the environment in the school and see who was there. by the way, the republicans could have won out of that. they could have said, we're putting a cap on it, it is a two-week process, the attorney general says they can do it in two weeks. if you want to talk to michael avenatti first, you can do that because we're not going to do it on the hill. they could get a report out and they would be able to proceed without this nonsense. yes, they could investigate this. >> as you know, david, in his interview with his wife last night on "fox news", brett kavanaugh denied the allegations and he tried to portray a picture of the time at school where he was working on being an excellent student, an athlete, his friendships, going to church, and the community work that he did. that's not necessarily the
complete picture you get from taking a look at the yearbook, the high school yearbook or conversations reporters have now had with other classmates, including his freshman roommate at yale university. >> right. you would expect him to have come out in the interview last night and vehemently denied, as he did, the allegations. you would expect that. but then he went on, as you said, wolf, to portray himself as being sort of arms-length from a lot of drinking and a lot of carrying on among high school students but not involved in it. and then you look at his yearbook, his senior quote or his senior paragraph and you say, okay, either he was being a little -- he was downplaying in the interview or he was upplayiu up-playing something in his yearbook quote, which is understandable for a teenager but it suggests there is an inconsistency. >> you have a letter from the college roommate who says he was drunk a lot of the time. so what i don't understand is the strategy of trying to
portray himself as a choir boy when he was in high school or when he was in college when he clearly wasn't. he could say, you know what? i regret that i drank too much in college. i think that was terrible, but i was a young guy and i did. i never -- he could say, i never sexually assaulted anybody, if that is his truth and that's what he wants to say, but why deny the kind of obvious things that are already out there if you want to be believable? because his portrayal is so different from the portrayal of people who were around him a lot. i just don't understand the rationale here. >> and the fact he is being obviously dishonest now does undercut the broader denial. if he is being dishonest about this, what else is he being dishonest about. >> i don't get that. >> to the extent people are talking about his conduct in high school separate and apart from the assault, but the drinking and callous treatment of women, he could say that's in the past. but lying about it, refusing to
accept responsibility, that's something he is doing now. that reflects on his judgment right now. >> let's snapshot this. i think there's a critical point here. the president is talking about referring to something that happened 35, 36 years ago. in the past week or so the story has changed. it is not just whether someone was touched inappropriately more than three decades ago. it is whether a potential supreme court justice is honest today. when he went on tv last night, i'm sitting back there saying, why are you doing this? you are throwing out red meat for people who can poke holes in every bit of your presentation and say, that's not the high school that we went to and that's not the high school student we saw. >> so that's the question about why not just be more honest about mistakes you may have made when you were younger? remember, george bush, you know, said -- you know, apologized for mistakes he made when he was drinking too much. so i don't understand why you wouldn't be more honest about it and why you present this picture of yourself that is clearly at odds with what other people say. while you can still say, look, i didn't sexually assault anyone.
you know, i might have been a bad boy and i regret it. i just -- >> it is a little late though for him to change it after he has already made all of these statements. >> it is. >> including private q & a with members of the committee and all of that. >> yes. >> what do you make of the republican notion that they've hired a female outside consultant to basically go and ask questions instead of the 11 republican men on the committee? >> well, there are some limited circumstances in which it might be a good idea for congress to use an outside counsel to sort of develop the truth but that's not what is happening here. they're not using this person because they want to get to the truth of what happened. they're using this person because it is a woman, because it is apparently someone who is a trained prosecutor, and because they want to have the political arms-length from what's about -- what they intend to do to dr. ford, which is attempt to attack her, impeach her credibility. so i do think that it is sort of a sign of, one, the ugliness of what is about to happen and,
two, they are ashamed of themselves and understand how poorly it is going to play politically. >> would it be a double standard if she, the outside consultant, only did the questioning for her, for professor ford as opposed to judge kavanaugh, let the senators ask the questions to kavanaugh? >> it would be relatively strange strategy. one of the issues is we actually don't even know who this person is. the republicans continue to be secretive about the person they're bringing in, so everything makes it sound like it is not good faith. it is sort of a political optic. >> can i quickly add? >> yeah. >> they're also just abandoning their duties as senators. each of the senators represents an entire state that they're essentially saying they can't handle examining dr. ford as a witness. it says something about their ability to do their job. >> everybody stick around. there's much more as the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein faces possible firing. some of president trump's congressional allies want him to testify. so what's behind this strategy? plus, there's breaking news. bill cosby heading to prison
from office. david swerdlick, what's behind this strategy from those conservative house republicans? >> i think it is to bring the topic of the deep state and the establishment being against president trump back to the front burner of our discussions. look, if these weren't some of the same congressmen who had already made efforts or made moves to try and get rosenstein impeached earlier or introduced legislation to get him impeached, there might be a little more credibility with the idea that, look, we just want to bring him in to ask about this limited instance where according the "new york times" he talked about wearing a wire when he went to talk to president trump. but since it is some of the same congressmen, you have to wonder what the real motivation is. >> how do you see it? >> credibility? are you kidding me? in one place the congress says media reports from the fake news like "new york times" and cnn are so lacking in credibility we tell multiple women with
accusations that we're not sure they need to be heard because we can't stand the media. now there's media reports on rod rosenstein and they're so compelling we think without investigation that the deputy attorney general, who has been confirmed by the senate, needs to come down immediately. i know what is going on here. this is a witch hunt. we're in salem and rod is the warlock. they're going after him. >> it is amazing, susan, when you think about it. the deputy attorney general com nated by the president, confirmed by the senate. the deputy attorney general nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate. the president clearly doesn't like him. now these house conservatives are going after him. >> right. this is the president's own justice department. he wants the paint this as there are people, political actors out to get him. the thing he doesn't like is the institution of the department of justice, the rule of law. that's the thing that he is chasing against here. i think what we're really seeing is a breakdown of congressional oversight. ordinarily we expect members of congress, even republicans, to discharge their regtilegislativ
responsibilities and check the executive branch. we are seeing republicans in the house essentially aligning themselves with the president in order to offer these pretense reasons to impeach rod rosenstein, bring him in, attempt to get this testimony they think obviously is going to result in his firing. i think it is something we haven't quite seen before. >> you know, the president has set the stage for this big meeting he's going to have when he comes back to washington. he's at the white house thursday, meets with rod rosenstein, and a lot of us will be watching what is happening in the senate judiciary committee with the kavanaugh hearing. all of a sudden we might get word on the future of rod rosenstein and the impact on the russia probe. >> just from our own reporting, my reporting, my colleagues' reporting, it seems to me that the president has been convinced not only from his friends over at "fox news" but from other -- from other attorneys that this would not be a great time to fire rod rosenstein. we all know he's going to do it. it is not if but when.
and will that be after the election? that was always my presumption. then i think rosenstein kind of got out over it yesterday and sort of ran in with whatever he had, offering to resign verbal -- we're not sure how it occurred. but i think that he and the president are going to have a come-to-jesus meeting where the president is going to ask him about this. we know that donald trump doesn't like to fire people in person. so it may remain completely unresolved. rod rosenstein doesn't want to leave his job right now. he's overseeing this mueller investigation. and maybe his friends on capitol hill will help him say, i have no choice, i have absolutely no choice because look at the congressional hearing. look at what they found. so we'll have to watch it play out. >> we'll see what the president tweets following that meeting. we'll learn a little bit more. guys, stick around. there's more news. there's breaking news. the comedian bill cosby
transferred to prison tonight after being sentenced for sexual assault. nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation.
pennsylvania where the sentence was handed down tell our viewers what happened. >> i was in the courtroom it was packed, and before sentencing began it was early silent, the victim and family in the front row and accusers all throughout the courtroom. bill cosby huddled with the attorneys in the end to talk and judge then came in and began sentencing. he said this is an extremely serious felony, a serious sexual harassment. the planning of bill cosby, getting pills, knowing he had those pills applying them and giving them to her victim and rendering her unconscious and sexual harassing her. he told bill cosby no one is a bhof t above the law and will be required to take a course in
prison. they said they valued great decision. he said andrea included she had taken her young life and spirit and absolutely crushed it. he cannot go before the parole board until three years, may not be getting out in that three years, he should be arriving at state prison. he took off his jacket and tie in the courtroom and we were all ushered out then he was handcuffed and taken to the correctional facility in monroe county. >> he's 81 years old going to spend at least three years as much as ten years in prison. tell us what this means. >> the icon has fallen, think about it, america's dad is in jail. to be fair, for andrea constand
think about what it means for all those throughout the proceedings that uplifted her. a culmination of a long battle. it started in 2004. you heard bill cosby and team talking about there being tremendous racism and lack of fairness and multiple witnesses allowed to testify for prior bad act in perspective of the me too movement this is tremendous victory of our times, think about the accountability in that courtroom. is a historic day for bill cosby to be going to jail, state prison, you know, it's just a tremendous day, compelling court testimony and court experience. and you know what, accountability has come to bill cosby as he goes to jail today. >> yeah pretty amazing sight to see him handcuffed and escorted on the way to prison for at
least three years. thanks to you both very much. other important news we're following at the united nations today extraordinary moment, the french prime minister macron in the speech reapproached the trump administration policies on iran, climate change and migration and a whole lot more. >> right, right. there was anybody here going to openly troll donald trump on his speech and not shy away from bluntly hitting him on specific points among u.s. alleys will be the prench president emannuel macro he was hammering his hands on the podium saying things like
u unilatterism and protectionism does not solve the world's problem and are not stronger to close borders. to make the theme into protecting nation's sovereignty said he uphelds the sovereignty. >> brandishing sovereignty as a way of attacking others. >> macron urged nations to stop doing deals with nations that don't support the climate change, the united states, no doubt who he's talking to. this is one more example how the u.s.'s closest friends at the u.n. are using this time
together to find work around and counters to some of the things u.s. is doing, most notably the iran nuclear deal, they are working to keep doing business with iran even in the face of continued u.s. threats and sanctions even against u.s. alleys. >> allies. >> there were awkward moments at the beginning of the speech when he talked about how great the economy is in the united states and a lot of world leaders started to laugh at him, opposed to with him. he clearly wasn't happy about that. >> you heard the rumble start up in the crowd. it takes a few seconds for the translation to go through but once it did you heard laughter and he seemed to be taken back, handled it well saying he didn't expect that reaction but unmistakable how many felt about those words. >> i'm sure not many are pleased
with these leaders gathering nearly 200 countries leaders so many laughing as he boasts about the economy like it was a campaign if rally but he handled it as you pointed out. michelle thank you for covering the president in new york. i'm wolf blitzer in the situation room. erin burnett starts now. >> up next, the world laughs, president trump boasts the u.n. met with ridiculed now he says he was in on the joke, really? plus seek rel lawyers hired to question brett kavanaugh and accuser. why not reveal her name? and in trump company where a district trump won by double digits now a toss up. let's go up front. good evening everyone i'm kate baldwin in for erin burnett. out front. the world