tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC September 26, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PDT
forward to a vote. >> and kcarrie sever reno, than you. and we go to andrea mitchell with more breaking news. and it is breaking news. we hear from a third accuser a day before dr. christine blasey ford is to testify, a third woman comes up making accusations and not yet verified by nbc news. and she is the client of michael avenatti who has called in just an hour ago. >> the detalils are shock, and y client stands behind them 100%. and perception problems that the senate republicans have outsco out -- outsourced questioning to to a female sex crimes
prosecutor to the aide the image of bullying. the president makes it clear today where he stands. >> i know this particular man, judge kavanaugh. he is outstanding. you don't find people like this. he is outstanding. he is a gem. he is an absolute gem. >> as we continue with this breaking news, and goodday. i'm andrea mitchell in new york, and michael avenatti is going to be joining me live later in the hour to discuss these stunning allegations by his client washington resident julia swetnick. she says that brett kavanaugh drank excessively in as many as ten house parties from 1981 to 1983 in the washington, d.c., e area, and he and his friend mark judge engaged in abusive behavior toward women, including grinding against girl's
clothing, and shifting girls clothing to expose body parts. i have seen him verbally abusive to girls, and making crude comme comments to girls that were designed to humiliate and embarrass them. he also caused girls to be inebriated or drugged so they could be gang rape d by a so-called train of boys. i have firm recollections of boys lined up outside of rooms in these parties waiting their turn for a girl inside of the room. and these boys included mark judge and brett kavanaugh. in approximately 1982, ms. swetnick writes that i became the victim of one of the gang rapes where mark judge and brett kavanaugh were present and i shared what happened with two people, and in that incident, i
was incapacitated withoutt my consent with boys rape iing me. i believe something like quaaludes was in my drink or something similar. kate snow is reporting on this. and we have been warned by michael avenatti that he would have an allegation or the series of allegation, and he put it out and he was on rachel maddow the other night, and he said it would be within 48 hours which is to place it before tomorrow's hearing, and he has said to craig in the last hour that he tried to reach the committee and tried to do this before going public on twitter. >> right. >> and so exposing these allegations in a sworn affidavit unter pe -- under penalty of pe. >> it a declaration and to be clear it is attached to to a tweet and i have retweeted it and it is katesnow @msnbc. and so, it is explosive in terms of the allegations, andrea, contained in the document.
she is saying that she was a high high school student, and that judge kavanaugh, and brett kavanaugh at the time a high school student and his friend mr. judge, mark judge, engaged in repeated inappropriate behavior to say the least, and all of the way up to gang rape and assault and drugging of women. these are incredibly serious charges, and we have of course reached out to the white house, and no response from the white house, and no statement from brett kavanaugh. i feel it is also worth noting that michael avenatti as you well know has political aspiration, and he was in iowa not long ago and toyed with the idea of running for president himself, and he is a strongly a democrat, and we are trying to find out more about the woman julie et swetnick, and all we know at this point is that it does appear that she lives in the washington, d.c., area and based on the public record, but we have not been able to reach her or verify the claims independently. >> and in the run-up to this revelation today, avenatti said that this is a woman who has had
series of jobs in government with where she had security clearance ashs wnd ve to t-- clearances, and we have to explore that more. >> and we have ever every single member of the investigative unit is out on that trying to verify employment. >> and we have senator grassley's office has confirmed that i have received this declaration. and i want to standby, kate, and we have other guests here, lawyers who have expertise in this field, but first washington democratic senator patty mur are ri is joining us now. and senator murray, i want to get your reaction and i want to pause that you are not on the judiciary committee, but you have a vote, and i nknow that from covering this, you were elected in 1982, the year of the woman partly as the anita hill and clarence thomas hearings, and what does this should we say late, late allegation late in
the process and how seriously should it be take then and how should it affect the hearing and the vote schedule ed d by the t committee already scheduled for friday? >> andrea, i just read it, and it is horrifying. it is important to note that it is an affidavit and she has sign signed it under perjury or law. so people don't do this randomly. it needs to be investigated, absolutely. but let me step back for a minute and are remind e everybody that what we do as a senate today and how we react to the allegation, and what message we send by how we deal with them is critically important. if the senate were to switch this aside and dismiss mrs. ford and do what the president said, and start to call the allegations of she was drunk, we will send a message to young girls once again as we did in 1991 to be quiet, sit down and don't talk. and what is that message to
young boys? don't worry, you will get away with it. it is serious, and it needs to be taken absolutely with every, you know, thing that we can do to make sure that the voices are brought forward and absolutely investigated. this is something that should not be rushed through and it is deeply disturbing me that this is what the republicans are doing, because we can't send the message again. we just cannot. >> senator, the republicans have been saying that this is a smear campaign and the president has said this, and it is a con job and a smear campaign and they were hold oing back and n-- holding back and nott attacking dr. ford, and then when the second accuser came forward and then the avenatti said he would have a third one, and they ramped it up, and according to kasie hunt, my colleague on the hill is when they felt that dr. ford's position was undercut by
the other accusations, because it began to seem more political. >> except that mrs. ramirez is saying that she is willing tom come before the committee and testi testify. obviously, dr. ford is coming forward and now has four affidavits showing that her story can be corroborated. this is an affidavit that we have gotten today. the message that this is a smear campaign frightens me as a woman that once again, with resaying to women out there, don't come forward, because you will be accused of smear campaigns and stop and do the investigations, and obviously, witnesses that can be called from both sides and so that we know that evidence and believe it or not, but have an investigation, but to have it rushed through right now is such the wrong thing to do. >> and one of your colleagues jeff merkley as you know who has been opposing the confirmation from the beginning, again, not on the committee, he says that
he is going to be filing a lawsuit today to suggest that the president has interfered unconstitutionality alin the advice an consekonand consent a sure if he has standing or if it will be taken up, but do you have a way legally as a mi for ti -- as a minority to stop this train down the tracks? >> i believe that there are responsible republicans who are going to share the view that it is not just a supreme court nominee that is on trial right now. it is the united states senate. in the year of the metoo movement, and we have the obligation to show this country, and we a take the allegations seriously, and investigate them absolutely, but that they will be listened to and heard. we are on trial here as well. i plead with the senate republicans to take to a breath.
having somebody on the court on october 1st is less important than getting this right. >> senator murray, i know that you have to go and thank you very much for taking the time to talk, and appreciate it. and joining me now is kristen welker, and political analyst ashley parker, the white house reporter at the post, and nbc correspondent kasie hunt, and also with us linda furnstein, former prosecutor in the manhattan office and best selling authorf. and kristen, what is the white house reaction if any? >> no official reaction but i am told that we can expect a statement some time soon and they are processing this with everyone else. as you have rightfully pointed out the new allegations coming in the 11th hour as everyone is preparing for the hearing to take place tomorrow, and there is no indication as of right now that the president, that this
white house is planning to break with brett kavanaugh, but again, we await the official statement, and there a broad sense in the trump world that these are allegations, and they want to get to the bottom of what has happened here. and there seems to be agreement, andrea, that if these allegations are true, and if they are verified and verifiable, and nbc news has not been able to corroborate them, and we have not been able to reach the woman at the center of this making the new allegations that this is something that would be disqualifying. now, president trump is going to be having a chance to say all of this himself, and are respond to questions about this, and he is going to be holding a news conference later today, andrea, but to underscore the strategy from the recent days, he is becoming increasingly dug in and increasingly trying to paint this as a political hit job and will the fact as kate pointed out michael avenatti makes no secret that he is a democrat, and will that give him fresh
ammunition to try to make his case, and that is remaining to be seen, and we are awaiting the official reaction from within the white house, and many of the top officials are with the president at new york at the united nations, and so there is a scramble with the officials there, and the folks here covering the brett kavanaugh confirmation hearing tomorrow to get on the same page and put out a response, andrea. >> and kristen, as you point out, we are here in new york because of the united nation, and trust me on this, because i have been talking to people, and ambassadors and even heads of state, and everyone is watching this drama, and has been for the last couple of days. this is not a president operating in a vacuum here, and not only is he pausing to talk about it at official functions, but it is everywhere in the media. kate snow, i know that you have to go and keep on reporting, but -- >> i don't need to go, but i was flagging you, because we did verify one, and it is a small detail, but i had said earlier that nbc news had not been able to verify anything about this new accuser, but we did verify
there is a julie swetnick who did graduate by the montgomery public schools that she graduated are from gaithersberg high school in 1980 which is what she says in the statement. she says she is a graduate, but not what year, but we have verified that she did go to the high school. andrea, you from the d.c. area, and gaithersburg is a 25 minute drive from georgetown prep. so it is not exactly the same neighborhood, but about the same distance to bethesda, and so it is not the same neighborhood that brett kavanaugh grew up or went to school. >> and not the same social circles because most of the socializing by his account was from the girls at holton arms and some of the other private schools so this is a public school graduate, and we don't know much about the socializing at that time, and we no what he said on fox news. >> all we know right now there is someone named julie swetnick who went to that high school and
graduated. >> which is putting her in that time and age cohort. i want to bring in kasie hunt before we go to other guests, but you are on the hill and we have been talking about susan collins and lisa murkowski and the heavy pressure from mitch mcconnell and the reporting is that he did not have the votes locked up, but he was pushing ahead, and of course, they are putting out that they have the vote votes. i think that there are other women as well as men and not just jeff flake, but other women senators, republican senators who have to be affect ed by thi. >> andrea, i have to -- if it is corroborated. >> yes, right, and it is still reverberating around the halls. i have talked to a couple of lawmakers who had not seen that it unfolded, and so we are very much still in the processing mode here right now, but still, as i had been reporting this out yesterday before this woman was publicly known to all of us, mitch mcconnell was projecting publicly that it was inevitable
and that is the strategy for the entire nomination process, but he has doubled down on it through the allegation, and told everyone that they need to stay through the weekend to rush this confirmation vote early next week, and et cetera. but that is only what he is pushing in public. what is happening in private is that this is still very, very difficult for him. he does not are have the 50 votes, and he did not yesterday, and this i don't think it is going to make it any easier, but he was -- and lisa murkowski was in the office 45 minutes, and she is a key, and susan collins is one of the other keys, but even before the allegation surfaced they were both having deep concerns about moving forward with this and senator corker said that he a thought that the universe of people with the concerns was big ear than the two of them plus jeff flake w who, as you have said, is another person who has been concerned about what might happen here. so, my sense is that it is still
evolving and i want to underscore that we are only just now getting the chance to report out how this is going to impact thing, but i will say that the nature of what is being alleged here is so significant, and so serious that i think that, you know, from the human perspective, that it is hard to imagine that this will not have an impact that will make it more difficult for people like susan collins and lisa murkowski to vote in favor of judge kavanaugh's nomination -- or to vote, and it is hard er for the to vote in favor of him. i think that there is clearly the political element here sh, i will say that the democrats that i talked to yesterday were frustrated that michael avenatti's name was even being mentioned anywhere near what is going on near kavanaugh and one aide said that if michael avenatti cares about judge --
about the confirmation, he would have sent his client to another attorney without so much baggage there. and so we are still trying to corroborate this story, but it is reverberating through the halls right now, andrea, and we will bring you the updates on how people are responding as we get them. >> and hugely explosive. we do have a lawyer here linda furnstein who is an experienced prosecutor here in manhattan of the sex crimes and you have seen the declaration, and what is the legal important of it? >> it is stunning. how these proceedings can go forward without an investigation, and how sex crimes prosecutor rachelle mitchell being brought in to question tomorrow is not going to elicit more information and details just from dr. ford is what a pros cue or the would do so that her whole team, the republicans behind her are saying that we will bring her in
and question and then vote friday. that and ramirez and this, and really it cries out for the need to have a professional fbi investigation. >> and one of the things that democratic critics have said is how can you have this hearing with a professional prosecutor and analogous to the your yeas s of service here in new york city without subpoenaing mark judge, and without the committee or anyone asking mark judge who was a witness or co-participant according to the allegation? it is unbelievable. one tof the most impressive things about professor ford's allegation is putting a second man, a third person in the room. it gives her so much credibility, and why would you name another person, and identify him when he could just as easy have said i was not there and i was in chicago that night. i have an alibi, but instead, she puts him in the room. and that makes him an eyewitness
to her allegation, and so, originally, if you will remember, kavanaugh said before he knew what the e event was that ford was talking about, he said that i was not there, and i did not participate. that is impossible. so you need mark judge either side and both sides would want to call him. obviously, democrats to see if the ford allegation has legs, has another witness who observed it and certainly the republicans if they were trying to exonerate kavanaugh to hear judge say this never happened and i was never there, and i don't want to the talk about it. >> one other thing is another criticism of the way that the committee has structured the hearing which is by bringing in a prosecutor and having her question dr. ford whereas the democrats or the senators who are perhaps many of them are not lawyers and many of them are more discursive in the
questioning, it seems to be setting up a context where she looks like she is on trial, and she, the victim, is being questioned by an experienced prosecutor who is usually there as a prosecutor representing the interests of the alleged victim. >> yes. the whole thing seems upside down. the prosecutor with 20 years' experience, and the first goal should be to make the witness comfortable, and these are hard allegations to bring forward. so you make her comfortable, and you trust her and believe her unless you knew or had any reason to know other wide, and you were hoping to elicit more facts, and more facts to help the senators from both sides do it. i am heart ened by the fact tha there is a senator klobuchar and senator harris who have prosecutorial experience as well. >> we will take a quick break, and ashley parker on the other side, and michael avenatti is going to be all kaing in, a -- is going to be calling n and this is an explosive allegation
that ist not yet corroborated by nbc news. we have teams working on it, but we will be right back. ♪ a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.
(door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.
this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. as we continue with the breaking news, the new allegations by a client of michael avenatti's against brett
kavanaugh saying that she in extensive declaration under penalty of perjury, a signed declaration saying that she was present at a number of house parties between 1981 and 1983 in the washington, d.c., area, the suburbs of washington, d.c., where she was then a witness to and then says a victim of a quote gang rape and that brett kavanaugh and his friend mark judge and other boys were involved. a all of this is explosive on the eve of these hearings, and nbc political analyst robert costa is a national political e report ear at the "post" and moderator of "washington week" is joining me. robert, what are you hearing from the white house or any of the advocates of judge kavanaugh right now? >> it is a critical moment right now, and decisions need to be made, and are they going to be moving forward with this nomination, and to have a hearing under oath with judge kavanaugh a talking through not only the allegation of dr. ford, but the latest allegation to
senate republicans, and do they move forward? do they need a more time or the moderate conservatives going to call for the fbi en investigation, and a lot hangs in the air this afternoon. >> and now, robert, we also have the prepared written testimony from judge kavanaugh and this is the best evidence of what he is going to say if this hearing takes place as scheduled, and he is denying the allegations, and unequivocally and categorically, and these are false accusations aired and there is a frenzy to come up with something no matter how farfetched or odious on my nomination. these are last-minute smears plain and simple and debase the public concourse, and the grotesque and the obvious character assassination if allowed to succeed would dissuade people of good and political persuasions from
serving our country. it is go g ing on for another p. and clearly, the white house, and the kavanaugh team putting this out in advance as they put him on fox the other night to try to put out a strong counter attack, defense, and mitigate gai against some senators who might be wavering and might want this nomination to be put on hold or withdrawn. >> yes, to a point. they are allowing judge kavanaugh to make his position known, but the white house needs to make a calculation, do they want to continue to stand by this nominee, and so far they believe that the whole fight against the allegations is actually galvanizing conservatives and republicans ahead of the midterm elections, and week ago they were worrying that the whole episode would alarm independent voters and even some republicans, and so they have to make a decision of whether they will continue to stand by him, and for now, andrea, the white house is saying that don mcgahn is prepping him for the hearing thursday, and the president is saying that the left is out to
get his nominee, but we have seen the president whether it is ronny jackson before, and other nominees be pulled, but they see it as much of a political fight as it is about judge kavanaugh getting the point of view out there. >> i want to also remind everyone that the accuser's name, and this accuser is julie swetnick, and he is not, judge kavanaugh n this prepared testimony addressing her in particular. it was really written in opposition to what dr. ford was alleging. wendy sherman is here, the ambassador and former undersecretary of state for political affair, and in context a member of the anita hill team when we watched that drama play out o, and of course, nbc national correspondent katet snow working to report this stor story, and then attorney fairstein from the new york prosecutor's office.
and now sh, we know that in the clarence thomas hearing it was he said/she said and because corroborating witnesses and polygraph was not allowed by the demographic evidence was not allowed and it was a play for public opinion, and they decided it was in judge clarence thomas' favor, and then and now justice thomas. >> yes, they indeed put aknee a ta hill on trial, and not clarence thomas. we are at a different point now, and i hope that the democrats understand what happened in 1991, and to bob costa's point of energizing the right, and it is also energizing the left and energizing women, and you remember that 1992 was the year the of the women, and we have a year of the woman being created this time which is going to be getting much more fuel. >> and in the context of metoo and all of this. >> yes. >> thank you, wendy, and i will have to interrupt you, because
we have michael avenatti on the phone. and tell me about julie swetnick, and what facts you have checked in the sworn declaration, and what the attempts have been to meet or reach out to the judiciary committee majority leaders and get a hearing for her. >> well, andrea, thank you for having me on. first of all, julie swetnick contacted my office within the last month seeking representation. we did not seek her out. we would have no way of seeking her out. and she asked to us represent her. we then performed an extensive vetting process relating to her allegations and her claims. you know, andrea, over the last six months my office has received over 3,000 requests for representation and host of cases and some of which we have actually pursued, and very few of which, and other wes have passed on due to the vetting
process. so she underwent an extensive vetting process by my office, and i will also say that this is a woman who is re -- who has received numerous clearances from the u.s. government and public trust security clearance s that require detailed vetting performed by the u.s. government. so while we took comfort in that, that is not the only v vetting that we have done. we have corroborated her allegations by speaking with other witnesses and before we entered the fray on this, we performed an extensive process and i am confident that she is 100% credible. so that is number one. number two, we raised these issues first on sunday with the committee, and we asked the committee to launch an immediate fbi investigation, and we also stated that she was prepared to
take a polygraph exam if brett kavanaugh would take a polygraph exam, and we also asked that mark judge be called to testify as well as other requests that we made, and the committee effectively blew us off. and they have blown us off since monday until moments ago when they have now told us that they have launched an investigation into the allegations, which i find rather ironic since we first brought them no the committee's attention on sunday night, and they set a vote in the committee on friday, but above all else, andrea, i want to be clear about two points. first of all, this is a sworn declaration under the penalty of perjury. it is a declaration that would be admissible in many courts of law, federal courts throughout the united states. so that cannot be overstated the importance of that, and so that
is my first point, and the second point is this, what is the rush to confirm brett kavanaugh? why the rush? this is not something that should be rushed, and this has to be a search for the truth. there has to be a full investigation of all of the allegations, and made within this declaration as well as dr. ford, ms. ramirez, and others. and mr. kavanaugh will have an opportunity to speak to the fbi, and he is going to have an opportunity to provide his version of events, but it is not something that you just rush through. you are talking about a lifetime ap a pointment -- lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land and it has to be done correctly and thoughtfully and done in a fair manner. >> now a statement from raj shah of the white house on behalf of judge kavanaugh, and the statement from judge kavanaugh is that this is ridiculous a
friend the "twilight zone" and i don't know who this is and this has never happened. can you respond to that? >> that is probably coming from the same brett kavanaugh who expects the american people to believe that when he was in high school, he was being, trying to be a good friend to all of the boys and the girls and, you know, i laughed when i saw this interview on ofox news the other night. andrea, how stupid does he think that the american people really are. you cannot reconcile what he told the american people on fox news with the prep schoolboy that made all of those yearbook entries, and was drinking excessively, a excessively, and this is a bunch of nonsense what he is trying to sell to the american people. i wish he would just be honest with people. and also, why haven't we heard from mark judge? i mean, these are two individuals who were joined at the hip, and no one knows more about this time period at issue
than his close friend mark judge. and now mark judge is, you know, he is in hiding in some beach community somewhere hoping that his friend is confirmed and that he doesn't have to take the stand and testify under oath. why does brettt kavanaugh not want the american people to hear from mark judge? i can assure you that if mark judge had positive thing ts to y about brett kavanaugh and could actually pass the smell test about the time period in issue, we would have heard from mark judge. >> j just now we have mark judge is vehemently denying ms. swetnick's allegations. >> good. let him appear under oath and testify. and let him meet with an fbi agent and make that statement. let's have brett kavanaugh testify under oath relating to the allegations in the declaration, and have brett
kavanaugh meet with the fbi agents and have brett kavanaugh take a polygraph examination as my client is willing to do, and have mark judge take a polygraph examination as my client is will t willing to do. and it is one thing to issue statements through spokespeople to news media outlets and anybody can do that, but they need to step up and be examined and be questioned and then let's let america decide who is telling the truth. i want to be clear about something, i will put my client's credibility up against mark judge or brett kavanaugh's credibility any day of the week. >> in the declaration, your client julie swetnick says that she shared the experience after the 1982 al alleged gang rape with two other people, and she is also aware of other witnesses who can athe toast the truthfulness of each of the statements, and 14 statements in the declaration. are you prepared to share who those witnesseses are or are you going to be putting them forward? >> at the appropriate time, we
will share the identity of these witness, and frankly, we would like to share it immediately with the fbi. so we are hopeful that chairman grassley and the committee will empower the fbi to conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding these incidents and all of the incidents that i have mentioned and then they can present the evidence and the facts into the committee and that can be shared with the american public, and that is what should happen. >> i also wanted to play ta that you said the fox interview and that you found it not credible. i want to play a brief clip of that fox interview and the white house wanted him to do that and it is unprecedented for a supreme court nominee to gone television. let's watch or listen. >> did you ever participate in or were you ever away of any gang rape that happened at a party that you happened?
>> it is totally false and outrageous. >> that is his denial of at least one of the galgss in this declaration. michael? -- one of the allegationings in the declaration, michael? >> well, i think that his credibility is shot at this point, andrea, and he stated within that interview that he was just focused in high school on i believe the basketball team, being are friends to boys and girls in trying to be a really good student. which, i mean, i have seen that clip a number of times, and it is absolutely laughable. i mean, the only thing that he left out was that he helped little old ladies across the street and the fact that he would bring an apple to every teacher that he had, the men and the women. >> and just finally, i wanted to wonder if julie swetnick knows, sarah, dr. ford? >> my understanding is that she does not know her personally, but that they have mutual
friends, and obviously, at times they ran in the same circles. >> all right. you have not yet heard back from the grassley team, correct? >> other than what i said earlier which is that i understand that from mr. davis, the kocouncil to the committee that they have finally decided to launch an investigation, close quote, but it is appearing that they are refusing to the allow the fbi to investigate these allegations and get to the bottom of this which is very disturbing. >> thank you very much, michael avenatti, and i know that this is going to continue and throwing off a bomb in the middle of the confirmation process. linda fairstein, your response to this? >> this is the way that the allegations often unfold. it takes the courage of one person like a professor ford to come forward and then you have ms. a ramirez and now you have someone who within the last month experienced things at the
time and may never have taken steps to address them, but women gain courage from the courage of the first ones to step forward. we have all seen it as prosecutors and people like ambassador sherman who has worked in the field, and look at cosby and listen to, and i am not likening kavanaugh to cosby, but i am likening the fact that women really gain the ability to address this when they see that somebody else has stepped forward and especially if that person is believed. and fortunately, there is an army of people believing professor ford and willing to watch her go forward. >> and i know that we have to take a quick break, and i want to point out that my colleague kate snow did the only interview with andrea constand who is the accuser who finally standing in for, you know, how many women? >> who is 1 of 60 by our count now, but who said exactly the point that you said that they felt that they started a movement, because one person
spoke, and then another, and then another, and there was a pattern of behavior. he has denied everybody else's allegations, but he has been convicted now, and he has gone the prison yesterday. i think that we with should note that the timing of what is happening today and with cosby's conviction, and sentencing yesterday is quite something. >> it is quite something. >> and in the metoo in the last two years, the metoo moment, and it is more than a moment, and seeing the picture of cliff huxtable in cuffs is a pretty dramatic thing. something that wendy and i have 1991 days would not have ever, ever imagined. we will have a lot more coming up. just this quick message. we will be right back.
and as we ocontinue with the breaking news, the new allegations by a washington, d.c., area woman represented by michael avenatti is saying that julie swetnick is saying that she had or in a sworn declaration alleging horrendous allegations of sexual misbehavior and drinking and drugging and e neeb ree yating
girls back in a period of 1981 and 1982 and 1983 in the washington, d.c., area and house parties. i am back with ambassador wendy sherman who is former undersecretary of political affairs and previously on the anita hill defense team, and sarah fairstein who is a best selling author and also from a fo former new york prosecutor's office, and also correspondent dan goldman. and what is the legal strength or lack of strength of a declaration like this, a sworn document? >> it carries an incredibly persuasive emphasis in a court. very often courts accept sworn declarations under penalty of perjury as evidence and this is differentiated from the ther two accusers who have gone through the media. no question that dr. ford is
going to be testifying under oath tomorrow which is essentially equivalent, but this is a little different tact than we have seen now going through a lawyera and lawyer who has become quite political, but it is still a lawyer who has orchestrated a roll out of the application applications, but this is clearly measured. it is very thought out, and it is very particular and specific. i think that what it is, the first of what will likely be several steps that michael ave ngnaw ti has sort of tricks up the sleeve as we go forward with this where he is, at a least to me at least, holding the corroborating witnesses secret and silent and confidential, and a pointed out in the phone call waiting for the fbi to come in. what is interesting to see if the committee is actually to see the witnesses or to get the names and interview them,
whether michael avenatti is going to give the names to the committee or whether he is going to insist that the fbi is the one to interview them. >> lett me read two statements that some people might call ambiguous and ask you to drill down on these, and from this declaration. she says in paragraph 12, i have a firm recollection of seeing the boys lined up outside of the rooms at many of the parties waiting for their turn with a girl inside of the room. and these boys included mark judge and brett kavanaugh, and so she is not witnessing something, but witnessing them present in a lineup. and number 13 in approximately 1982, i became the victim of one of these the gang or the train rapes where mark judge and brett kavanaugh were present. she does not say -- >> itt is very carefully worded. she is saying present, but not explaining whether they were participants or not, and shortly thereafter, i have shared what transpired and she says that she
was incapacitate and unable to fight off the boys raping me and i believe i was drugged with quaaludes or something similar. so that is at issue whether or not she is actually placing them at the house party or at the scene or participants. >> so if this were a criminal case, that is very, very important, because at least in the declaration, she is not alleging yet that mark judge or brett kavanaugh actually participate ed d in the gang ra but we are of course not in a criminal trial, and not in a criminal case. >> but this is about characterer and reputation. >> and about lying. i mean, brett kavanaugh has denied all of this both under oath and otherwise. if this is true, if he was what you call in legal circles merely present, that is still contrary to what he has said. and so for the someone nominate nod the supreme court of the united states, if there is proof that they are not being accurate, and if they are not being forth coming, that is very well disqualifying.
>> the president has tweeted and he has gotten personal, and kristen welker is still with us. the president's tweet, avenatti is a third-rate lawyer who like judge brett kavanaugh. he is just looking for attention and doesn't want people to look at his past record and relationships, a total low life. so, the president who yesterday, i believe it was only yesterday, started criticizing dr. ford -- no. excuse me. >> ramirez. >> it was debbie ramirez and not criticized dr. ford. taking that back. >> until tomorrow. >> criticized the democrats saying that it's a con and a smear. kristen welker, now he is going after avenatti which is not surprising. >> reporter: it is not, andrea. this is what we anticipated. this is president trump doing what he does best. which is to counter punch. he is's a self described counte
puncher and digging in. this is someone to strange tore a fierce fight and fighting allegations of sexual misconduct. more than 20 women came forward and accused him. he denied them and, of course, went on to win and so he start of applying the same playbook to this fight. the question, though, becomes yes he can point to michael avenatti but if the support on capitol hill starts to fade and starts the fade, for example, for a friday vote, or if the calls mount for a fbi investigation what will president trump do then? for now, for now at least it seems, andrea, he's continuing to stick by what we saw yesterday which is he's accusing democrats of basically unleashing a political hit job, but again, as all of your guests have pointed out, this is a sworn affidavit. and so it becomes more complicated for him to do all of that and he's gong do get veingh
questions today. >> it would be the first press conference since the nato trip. anne guerin is with me. more explicit. not that he hasn't said something about these lines before but believing in a two-state solution for the palestinians which, you know, has been a controversial issue for the first time accusing china explicitly of meddling in the election. so there are a lot of other issues out there, shiny objects, if you will. and now facing a news conference with a whole world watching where he will have to face these allegations against the supreme court nominee. >> on any other day we would have already had four huge stories so mike pompeo met with the north korean counterpart today. >> scheduled a trip to pyongyang. but on this subject here, we are now facing a white house under fire with a controversial supreme court nominee, one of
the least -- i think the least popular in confirmation history. and now, do they stand with him? if you back down, you have destroyed his future. >> right. >> won't have a chance to defend himself and people will assume he was guilty as charged. >> yeah. for now, the white house i think as kristen was saying is standing by him and planning to go through the next 24 hours. that 24 hours is going to be absolutely crucial. what happensality t at the pres conference this afternoon will be a real indicator, how if he'll probably come out and counter punch again. he'll attack the accusers. he'll attack michael avenatti. but i'll be listening for how specifically he defends judge kavanaugh and what he says about what he hopes to have happen in this hearing. and then of course if the hearing comes to pass as scheduled, the judge's performance tomorrow will probably be determinetive of
how -- basically how hard the white house pushes for the vote on friday. >> wendy sherman, you were advising christine blasey ford about how to approach this testimony tomorrow, she's going to be able to make an opening statement. five minute turns which is very, very brief. highly controlled. how should she handle this given these allegations? should she reference them? talk about other cases? should she just talk about herself? >> i think just tell her story. if she is, you know, having come forward and going through the crucible and she has for many days, put her own security and family's security at risk, tell her story. stick to her own narrative. to the broader point to make with anne, the president, our country is on the world stage. we have seen so many of our institutions undermined by this president. and this saga around the supreme court has the risk of
undermining an institution that has for now stayed solid and something that the american people revere as one of the last places that serious decisions can be taken, that are nonpartisan or important to the safety and security of our country and so i think what happens here is critical and i would say to the president but more to the senators, think about what you're doing here. this is not about right and left. this is about your daughters, your sisters, your mothers, your nieces. but this is also about our constitution, the united states and whether we want to hold on to any institution we have here. for heaven's sake, have a fbi investigation. slow this down. believe the women. >> i think it's also about your adolesce adolescent sons. >> excellent point. i have a daughter with two little sons and focused on making sure they're raised to be kind and thoughtful and to understand how you deal with and treat women. >> i want to thank all of you for riding this incredible roler
coaster this hour. much more ahead, of course. thank you. and kate snow who's been leading the coverage here. we'll be right back. don't forget that the past can speak to the future. ♪ ♪ i'm going to be your substitute teacher. don't assume the substitute teacher has nothing to offer... same goes for a neighborhood. don't forget that friendships last longer than any broadway run. mr. president. (laughing) don't settle for your first draft. or your 10th draft. ♪ ♪
when the guy in frontd down the highway slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪
program "andrea mitchell reports." tune in at 5:00 for the press conference of the president trump, the first since brussels, follow us online, twitter, facebook. aly velshi and stephanie ruhle rule here. >> what an hour. >> buckle your seat belt. >> thank you. have a good rest of your day. good afternoon. i'm ali velshi. >> i'm stephanie ruhle. let's get smarter. >> breaking news right now. new allegations against brett kavanaugh. lawyer michael avenatti has announced the identity of a third accuser, this woman's name is julie swetnick. >> my client witnessed, observed and experienced very aggressive, inappropriate behavior by brett kavanaugh and mark judge in the early 1980s. brett kavanaugh, she's