Skip to main content

tv   Deadline White House  MSNBC  September 27, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
>> also ninth grade. georgetown prep. went by p.j. then. he and i lived close to one another. played football together. he was defensive tackle as the cornerback and wide receiver. we carpooled to school along with d. davis. every year the three of us for two years. i didn't have a car. so one of the two of them would drive every day and i would be in the, you know, they'd pick me up. >> what your relationship like with him now? >> he lives in the area. i see him once in a while. haven't seen him since this thing. >> do you know leland ingam or leland keyser? >> i know of her. it's possible i -- you know, saw, met her in high school at some point. some event.
1:01 pm
yeah, i know her. i know of her. and again, i don't want to rule out having crossed paths with her in high school. >> similar to your statements about knowing dr. ford? >> correct. >> senator feinstein? >> judge kavanaugh, it's my understanding that you have denied the allegations by dr. ford, ms. ramirez and ms. swetnick. is that correct? >> yes. >> all three of these women have asked the fbi to investigate their claims. i listened carefully to what you said. your concern is evident and clear. and if you are very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the fbi to investigate these claims.
1:02 pm
>> senator, i'll do whatever the committee wants. i wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. i wanted to be here that day. instead, ten days passed where all this nonsense is coming out, you know, that i'm in gangs, i'm on boats in rhode island, i'm in colorado, you know, i'm sighted all over the place. and these things are printed and run breathlessly by cable news. you know, i wanted a hearing the next day. my family has been destroyed by this, senator. destroyed. >> and -- >> and whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides, you know, i'm all in. >> but the question is -- >> immediately. i'm all in immediately. >> and a terrible and hard part of this is, when we get an allegation, we're not in a position to prove it or disprove it. therefore, we have to depend on some outside authority for it. and it would just seem to me
1:03 pm
then when these allegations came forward that you would want the fbi to investigate those claims and clear it up once and for all. >> senator, the committee investigates. it's not for me to say how to do it, but just so you know, the fbi doesn't reach a conclusion. they would give you a couple 302s that just tell you what we said. so i'm here. i wanted to be here. i wanted to be here the next day. it's an outrage that i was not allowed to come and immediately defend my name and say i didn't do this and give you all this evidence. i'm not even -- i'm not even in d.c. on the weekends in the summer of 1982. this happened on a weekday? when i'm not at a high school game for a summer league game? i'm not at a movie with suzanne? you know, i wanted to be here right away.
1:04 pm
>> well, the difficult thing is that it -- these hearings are set and set by the majority. but i'm talking about getting the evidence and having the evidence looked at. and i don't understand, you know, we hear from the witnesses, but the fbi isn't interviewing them and isn't giving us any facts. so all we have -- >> you're interviewing me. you're interviewing me. you're doing it, senator. i'm sorry to interrupt, but you're doing it. there's no conclusions reached. >> and what you're saying, if i understand it, is that the allegations by dr. ford, ms. ramirez and ms. swetnick are wrong. >> that is emphatically what i'm
1:05 pm
saying. emphatically. the swetnick thing is a joke. that is a farce. >> would you like to say more about it? >> no. >> that's it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mitchell? >> dr. ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. did you consume alcohol during your high school years? >> yes, we drank beer. my friends and i. the boys and girls. yes, we drank beer. i liked beer. still like beer. we drank beer. the drinking age was 18 so the seniors were legal. senior year in high school, people were legal to drink. and we -- yeah, we drank beer and i said sometimes -- sometimes probably had too many beers and sometimes other people had too many beers. we drank beer. we liked beer. >> what do you consider to be
1:06 pm
too many beers? >> i don't know. you know, whatever the chart says on blood alcohol chart. >> when you talked to fox news the other night you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. does that include you? >> sure. >> okay. have you ever passed out from drinking? >> passed out would be, no, but i've gone to sleep, but i've never blacked out. that's the allegation, and that -- that's wrong. >> so let's talk about your time in high school. in high school, after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going to sleep? >> no. no. >> did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different
1:07 pm
condition or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out? >> no. no. >> did you ever tell -- did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking? >> no. we drank beer, and -- you know, so did i think the vast majority of people our age at the time. but at any event, we drank beer and still do. so whatever -- >> during the time in high school, when you would be dri k drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something you did not remember? >> no. >> dr. ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban maryland home in the summer of 1982.
1:08 pm
she said that mark judge, p. p.j. smyth and leland ingam were also present as well as a well-known male and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. were you ever at a gathering that fits that description? >> no, as i've said in my opening statement. >> dr. ford described an incident where she was alone in a room with you and mark judge. have you ever been alone in a room with dr. ford and mark judge? >> no. >> dr. ford described an incident where you were grinding your genitals on her. have you ever ground or rubbed your genitals against dr. ford? >> no. >> dr. ford described an incident where you covered her mouth with your hand. have you ever covered dr. ford's mouth with your hand? >> no. >> dr. ford described an incident where you tried to remove her clothes. have you ever tried to remove her clothes? >> no. >> referring back to the definition of sexual behavior
1:09 pm
that i have given you, have you ever, at any time engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford? >> no. >> have you ever engaged in sexual behavior with dr. ford even if it was consensual? >> no. >> i want to talk about your calendars. you submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you've talked about for the months of may, june, july and august of 1982. you have them in front of you? >> i do. >> did you create these calendars, in the sense all of the handwriting that's on them? >> yes. >> okay. is it exclusively your handwriting? >> yes. >> when did you make these entries? >> in 1982. >> has anything changed -- been changed for those since 1982? >> no. >> do these calendars represent
1:10 pm
your plans for each day or do they document, in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary? >> they're both forward looking and backward looking as you can tell by looking at them because i cross out certain doctors appointments that didn't happen or one night where i was supposed to lift weights. i crossed that out because i, obviously, didn't make it that night. so you can see things that i didn't do. crossed out in retrospect and also when i list the specific people who i was with that is likely backward looking. >> you explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, i believe you said. >> uh-huh. >> that's why you kept them. in other words, you wrote on them, but why did you keep them up until this time?
1:11 pm
>> well, he's kept them, too, since 1978, so he's a good role model. >> ms. mitchell, you'll have to stop. >> i'm sorry. >> judge kavanaugh has asked for a break so we'll take a 15-minute break. >> hard to sum up what it is we just witnessed, but a federal judge at a point in his remarks where it could have gone either way, quite frankly, has decided to fight this and go all in. it was emotional. it was angry. and what we as viewers and witnesses are left with here is somebody is not telling the truth. someone is not remembering the truth properly. what is normally nicolle wallace's hour of television, "deadline white house," nicolle is with us in the studio in new
1:12 pm
york along with, gene robinson and cynthia and mara gaye. and nicolle? >> i'm thinking about donald trump's inauguration address and the line about human carnage. we've seen a lot of it today. the stories from professor ford and what they've been through and the story about judge kavanaugh's daughters, talking about praying for professor ford and ashley kavanaugh's face while he was telling that story and brett kavanaugh crying every time he talked about his parents and his wife and his kids and all his friends, men and women. that's the human carnage that donald trump promised in his inauguration address. here it is. a couple things i learned about how this speech came to be, brett kavanaugh ripped up a set of remarks circulated for feedback and notes and approval yesterday. he wrote this himself. i heard from two sources close to kavanaugh that this was not a performance that had anything to do with the supreme court. it's a performance that had to
1:13 pm
do with his life. and i say performance because i knew brett kavanaugh for -- i worked with him in the white house for years and i never saw that side of him. so it was authentic and real. it may not have helped him. it may have hurt him. it may have helped him. but it was raw emotion, and i've never seen that side of him. it was a rebuke of this moment in politics, and i think the question now is, does that overlap with his legislative goals, which is to win enough votes on this committee to have his nomination forwarded to the full senate? and i have no idea. >> eugene, we have a federal judge being questioned right now by maricopa county, arizona, sex crimes prosecutor. >> that's just today's thing that you never thought would happen in a million years and it's -- >> throw it on the pile of things. >> throw it on the pile of unprecedented things. you know, obviously the striking thing about judge kavanaugh's presentation, up to now, has been the emotion.
1:14 pm
has been -- i don't know if one would call it rage, but the -- >> it was raw. >> he was yelling. and we need to keep that in perspective because, at first, frankly, it's -- it just comes off as weird and you wonder is this someone fall apart before your eyes? and i think we need to step back and say and realize that, you know, he ripped up those remarks. he wrote it out himself. it, obviously, was edited by no one. and so it was very real sense that he is fighting for his reputation and for him, that is literally fighting for his life. >> yeah, he said, i don't know if i'll be able to teach again because of all of this. he has on his brain today his life, his, what he's going -- and how it may change. not the supreme court. >> i thought human carnage was a
1:15 pm
good summary of what we've seen today. i watched all of dr. ford's testimony this morning which was riveting and which was, i believe one of the prosecutors we had on the air said you've never had a witness that credible. you said it, i think. you don't -- it was -- and now we have judge kavanaugh passionately, passionately denying everything. i mean, you know, not giving that sort of inch. i continue to wonder about that. i continue to wonder whether the picture that's painted of an excessively boozy and rambunctious period in his life goes well beyond what we acknowledges. i continue to wonder if that picture that we've gotten isn't closer to the objective truth, and i also wonder if that's the
1:16 pm
kind of thing that we know more about if there were a proper investigation of these charges. >> cynthia, then mara. >> i thought it was a temper tantrum. he wants to be on the supreme court, and he's not going to be. and he has in fact, it's been human carnage. he has been humiliated, and he's angry and you get the feel that you have a feeling for what he's like when he is, as his roommate, from yale described him, when he drank that he could be an angry and belligerent drunk. he didn't seem drunk. i'm not indicating that, but he was angry and bellig rent and it was kind of scary. and you've got a side of him that you didn't expect to see. moreover, you don't expect to hear from a federal judge conspiracy theorys about the clintons and this is all about -- you don't expect to hear that and it's so partisan it's hard for me to believe you can then rule on cases with that kind of partisanship.
1:17 pm
it's just not what we expect. that's not the temperament of a federal judge. it was -- it's completely everything that a federal judge isn't, was that 50-minute rant. so i think he's done himself a great disservice in his judge role, whether or not the american people think his outrage is justified and as a result, he didn't do these things. i guess we'll have to wait and see on that. but as a judge, he's hurt himself immeasurably. >> fascinating. mara? >> i'm thinking much like eugene on a human level. either someone is lying, or, you know, the -- and i don't want to speculate, go down too far this path, but it's certainly possible i myself have had certainly family members who have struggled with alcoholism. either who are life long alcoholickers or suffered from alcohol abuse. it's very possible that, you know, he just doesn't remember
1:18 pm
this. and so that really leads us back to the mark judge, you know, testimony that is missing here. and so i was thinking about that. but, you know, the other human carnage here is every american who is watching this today, both judge kavanaugh's testimony, but also this morning, dr. ford's. i cannot tell you the number of e-mails and phone calls and text messages that i got from men, a lot of women, friends who are asking each other, we are all asking each other, are you okay? i know this is a hard day for you. i had to stay home from work because i was too emotional. i couldn't stop crying. i am shaking watching this. you know, the extent to which american women and all women feel that, you know, dr. ford's pain is our pain is quite
1:19 pm
visceral. and i think that really goes to the heart of the matter which is that we've been saying this for months. this is not a courtroom, right? this is about character. and this is about whether an accounta credible. and ultimately those senators have to make that decision, but i just have a hard time after watching dr. ford's testimony, i think a lot of us have a hard time seeing her as not credible. and i think, you know, no one is entitled to a job on the supreme court is the other thing here. you know, and that's -- you hear a lot of entitlement from him today, i believe. >> ashley parker is a pulitzer prize-winner with "the washington post." covers the trump white house. ashley, queue it up wherever you wish. >> so what we've seen from judge kavanaugh, especially in his opening statement, is him really doing what the president and people in the president's orbit wanted him to do.
1:20 pm
he came out. he was sort of screaming almost. he was angry. he was defiant. outraged. which white house aides had privately said if you believe he's telling the truth and that he's totally innocent of this and has been accuse of these horrific things, you would expect him to be angry, too. we didn't see that in the fox news interview. we want to see that on thursday. the other thing that judge kavanaugh has addressed in terms of white house concerns and concerns from president trump, was there was this idea that he had sort of boxed himself into a corner with his initial choir boy defense. that he sort of was only doing service projects and being a good friend to boys and girls and going to church. so you again saw a little bit from him of a deliberate effort to say, look, i drank. sometimes i drank too much. i liked beer. i still like beer. the question is, he has to win over the president. we're still sort of reporting out what the president thinks of
1:21 pm
that defiant response. but again, the key people are actually that small handful of republican senators, including senator collins, senator murkowski who may not have necessarily wanted to see that from him. we just don't know that yet, but he is doing exactly what the president and the white house wanted him to do as of yesterday evening. >> nicolle wallace? >> i think that we are -- we've all been sitting through this all day. we've, you know, to a person, we all have empathy for what we witnessed. if you strip away some of the emotion and look at the structural challenges of trying to take this in and offer analysis and explain it, the structural problem is we're not permitted to believe both of them, and yet in their own ways, they're both incredibly compelling. so i think if this nomination comes up short, one of the strategic mistakes they made was the day that account in "the washington post" appeared, they should have done one of three things. they should have demanded, as professor ford did, an fbi
1:22 pm
investigation. and if that fbi investigation or the fbi for some reason hadn't been willing, and it's my understanding that the president had so ordered, they certainly would have, then, you know, people investigate cold cases all the time with their own resources. brett should have insisted upon the same sort of investigative rigor that professor ford did because she appeared to be the one telling a truthier story by being the one that wanted the fbi to investigate. that would be one sort of fork in the road where i think the kavanaugh side took the wrong path. the second would be not permitting this very human reaction of finding both individuals credible. and you offer a plausible way that we could have found that to be the case. he talked so much about beer, i think cheers was the last time i heard anyone talk about beer that much. and i don't know if that was strategic. i don't know if that was subliminal or a nervous reflex to try to put some levity in there. i worked with brett kavanaugh for six years and never saw him
1:23 pm
drink a beer or talk about a beer. in that 50 minutes he said the word beer two dozen times. if that was such an important part of the story to maybe open up the door to say it the way you just articulated. maybe there was one occasion where -- and i can't imagine that it went down the way she describes it, but if it did, that i'm terribly sorry. they never took that step. and then the third place where i think we were all sort of led to where we are today which is just these two incredibly law appe appearances is the fact that there's this bizarre, you know, incredibly partisan dynamic on the committee. it would be very comforting if a democrat and a republican could ask the same question or seem to treat both witnesses with the same amount of openness. but we see from the republicans, this almost reflexive defense of kavanaugh and the opposite of professor ford. and it would have been comforting if republicans had
1:24 pm
been as generous to professor ford as democrats were, and if democrats had some -- you know, just if it hadn't been so partisan, that committee. that was our own filter. we were relying on them and the questioning itself of both of them was so partisan. >> and sadly, we don't live in that day right now. allow me to go to someone who has been most patient with us, and that's barbara mcquade, longtime former federal prosecutor and former u.s. attorney. barbara, i'm so anxious to hear you out on this. pick up wherever you wish. >> i thought that exchange that we just saw with senator feinstein and judge kavanaugh was so telling because this has been set up by the committee as a he said/she said situation when it doesn't have to be. senator feinstein asked, would you like us to do an fbi investigation, and he keeps persisting, no, here i am ready to testify. well, it's not just about hearing your side of the story and her side of the story. it's about investigating all of
1:25 pm
those witnesses. the fbi -- they should take a time-out right now. there's no reason this still can't be done. go interview mark judge. go interview the four people who have submitted affidavits for dr. ford. go interview the other two women who have made allegations. gather that information and then judge kavanaugh came back with, but all you'll get are 302s. that's the form on which fbi reports are written. you won't get any conclusions. they don't want conclusions. they want those facts. give me those facts and then the senators can use that to ask informed questions and reach their own conclusions. so i think that if we would go through that normal process of an fbi interview which can still be done. an fbi investigation, it may be possible to salvage this nomination. and if not, then the other people on that short list are probably standing by their phones today waiting for that call from the white house. >> so the adage we've been using for several days, if you're innocent, the fbi is your friend. your longtime work for the
1:26 pm
federal government, the fbi was certainly your friend and your investigative arm. >> absolutely. and in a case like this, they will go out and just gather the facts. you shouldn't be afraid of the truth if it's true that you didn't do anything wrong. maybe there's some other theory here. maybe there's someone else who was involved in this. whatever it is. maybe he was very drunk and simply doesn't remember it. whatever the truth is, they can at least get you closer there so it isn't just having to choose who to believe. you'd have additional evidence that you could use to either corroborate or refute either one of their stories. >> we get a preview of the anger from the federal judge through senator graham in the hallway. very quickly while we still can, back to the hallway and garrett haake with the understanding i may need to cut you off if the chairman starts again. garrett? >> sure. senator graham and other republican senators spent most of that last hour looking at each other and nodding in agreement to what judge kavanaugh was saying.
1:27 pm
i think his tone and the points he made went a long way to reassuring these republicans who have already gone all in on kavanaugh's behalf that kavanaugh is going to keep fighting for himself. and the question is whether that attitude is enough to convince some of those people who have been on the fence like bob corker and jeff flake who might have been more favorably inclined towards judge kavanaugh but have had hesitations because of these allegations. or the two female senators susan collins and lisa murkowski who have been radio silent all day today. >> we're back under way in the hearing room. >> the lead democrat, senator feinstein who is now making her
1:28 pm
way to her seat and chairman grassley was waiting. >> senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge, you've said before and again today that mark judge was a close friend of yours in high school. now dr. ford, as you know, has said that he was in the room when she was attacked. she also says you were, too. unfortunately, the fbi has never interviewed him. we've not been able to have his attendance here. the chairman refuses to call m him. if she's saying mark judge was in the room then, he should be in the room here today. would you want him called as a witness? >> senator, this allegation came into the committee -- >> no, i'm just asking the question. would you want him to be here as
1:29 pm
a witness? >> he's already provided sworn testimony. the committee -- this allegation has been hidden by the committee by members of the committee. >> it hasn't been -- it has not been investigated by the fbi. the committee was -- >> it was dropped on me. it was sprung. >> it was not investigated by the fbi and has not been called -- >> should have been handled in due course, senator when it came in. >> i would disagree with that. i've been on this committee 44 years, both republicans and democrats. i've never seen somebody that critical and not allowed to be here -- called to be testified or fbi background. >> he's provided sworn testimony and, senator -- senator, let me finish. the allegation came in weeks ago, and nothing was done with it by the ranking member and then it is sprung on me. >> judge kavanaugh, i've heard your line you stated over and
1:30 pm
over again. and i have that well in mind. but let me ask you this. he authored a book titled "wasted" tales of a gen-x drunk. we references a bart o'kavanaugh. is that you he's talking about? >> senator, mark judge was -- >> to your knowledge is that you that he's talking about? >> i'll explain, if you let me. >> proceed, please. >> mark judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem and addiction problem. that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from. and he nearly died. and then he had leukemia as well, on top of it. now as part of his therapy, or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an
1:31 pm
account. i think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what for characters in the book. so we can sit here -- >> so you don't know whether that's you or not? >> we can sit here and make fun of some guy who has an addiction but i don't think that is -- >> judge kavanaugh, i'm trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. are you bart o'kavanaugh that he's referring to? >> you'd have to ask him. >> well, i agree with you there. and that's why i wish that the chairman had him here under oath. now you've talked about your yearbo yearbook. in your yearbook, you talked about drinking and sexual exploits, did you not? >> senator, let me take a step back and explain high school.
1:32 pm
i was number one in the class freshman -- >> i thought only -- >> no, no, i'm going to talk about -- no, i'm going to talk. >> let him answer. >> i'm going to talk about my high school record if you're going to sit here and mock me. >> i think we were all very fair to dr. ford. shouldn't we be just as fair to judge kavanaugh? >> i busted my butt in academics. i always tried to do the best i could. as i recall, i finished one in the class, first in freshman and junior year, right up at the top with steve clark and eddie ayallo. we were always in the mix. i played sports. captain of the varsity basketball team. wide receiver and defensive back on the football team. i ran track in the spring of '82 to try to get faster. i did my service projects at the school which involved going to soup kitchen downtown. let me finish. and going to tudor intellectually disabled kids at
1:33 pm
the rockville library. went to church and, yes, we got together with our friends. >> does this reflect what you are? does this yearbook reflect your focus on academics and your respect for women? it's an easy yes or no. does it reflect your full -- >> i already said the yearbook in my opening statement, the yearbook is obviously -- >> judge, wait a minute. he's asked the question. i'll give you time to answer it. >> the yearbook as i said in my opening statement is something where the students and editors made a decision to treat some of it as farce and some of it as exaggeration. some of it not reflecting the things that were really the central part of our school. yes, we went to parties, though. yes, of course, we went to parties and the yearbook page describes that and kind of makes fun of it. and as a -- if we want to sit here and talk about whether a
1:34 pm
supreme court nomination should be based on a high school yearbook page, i think that's taking us to a new level of absurdity. >> ms. mitchell. >> we've got a filibuster, but not a single answer. >> ms. mitchell? >> judge, do you still have your calendars there? >> i do. >> i would like you to look at the july 1st entry. >> yes. >> the entry says, and i quote go to timmys for skis with judge, tom, p.j., bernie and sqwee? >> that's a nickname. >> to what does this refer and to whom? >> so first it says tobin's house workout. that's one of the football workouts that we would have that dr. fanizoi would run for guys
1:35 pm
on the football team during the summer. so we would be there. that's usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so. kind of until near dark. then it looks like we went over to timmy's. you want to know their last names, too? i'm happy to do it. >> if you could just identify -- is judge mark judge? >> it is. >> and is p.j., p.j. smyth? >> it is. >> it's tim gaudet, mark judge, tom cane, p.j. smyth, chris garrett. >> chris garrett is skwee? >> he is. >> did you in your calendar routinely document social gathers like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar? >> yes. it certainly appears that way. that's what i was doing in the summer of 1982. and you can see that reflected on several of the entries.
1:36 pm
>> if a gathering like dr. ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that? >> yes. because i documented everything, those kinds of events, even small get togethers. august 7th is another example where i documented a small get-together that summer. so, yes. >> august 7th. could you read that. >> i think that's go to becky's. matt, denise, laurie, jenny. >> have you reviewed every entry that is in these calendars of may, june, july and august of 1982? >> i have. >> is there anything that could even remotely fit what we're talking about in terms of dr.
1:37 pm
ford's allegations? >> no. >> as a lawyer and a judge, are you -- we've talked about the fbi. are you aware that this type of offense would actually be investigated by local police? >> yes, i mentioned montgomery county police earlier, yes. >> are you aware that in maryland, there is no statute of limitations that would prohibit you being charged even if this happened in 1982? >> that's my understanding. >> have you at any time been contacted by any members of local police agencies regarding this matter? >> no, ma'am. >> prior to your nomination for supreme court, you've talked about all of the female clerks you've had and the women that you've worked with. i'm not just talking about them. i'm talking about globally.
1:38 pm
have you ever been accused either formally or informally of unwanted sexual behavior? >> no. >> and when i say informally, i mean just a female complains. it doesn't have to be to anybody else but you. >> no. >> since dr. ford's allegation was made public, how many times have you been interviewed by the committee? >> it's been three or four. i'm trying to remember now. it's been several times. each of these new things, absurd as they are, would get on the phone and go through them. >> have you submitted two interviews specifically about dr. ford's allegation? >> yes. >> and what about deborah ramirez's allegation that -- >> yes. >> that you waved your penis in front of her? >> yes. >> what about julie swetnick's
1:39 pm
allegation that you repeatedly engaged in drugging and gang raping or allowing women to be gang raped? >> yes. yes, i've been interviewed about it. >> were your answers to my questions today consistent with the answers that you gave to the committee in these various interviews? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, earlier today, dr. christine ford sat in that same chair and under oath said clearly and unequivocally that she was the victim of sexual assault at your hands. she answered our questions directly and she didn't flinch at the prospect of submitting herself to an fbi investigation of these charges. we know and i'm sure she's been advised by her attorneys that a person lying to the fbi can face criminal prosecution. you have clearly and unequivocally denied that you assaulted dr. ford. with that statement, you must
1:40 pm
believe that there is no credible evidence or any credible witness that can prove otherwise. you started off with an empassioned statement at the beginning, and i can imagine -- try to imagine what you have been through, your family has been through and i'm sure i wouldn't get close to it. >> no, you wouldn't. >> i'm sure you wouldn't. it's an impassioned statement. in the course of it you said, i welcome any kind of investigation. i quote you. i welcome any kind of investigation. i've got a suggestion for you. right now. turn to your left in the front row. to don mcgahn, counsel to president donald trump. ask him to suspend this hearing and nomination process until the fbi completes its investigation of the charges made by dr. ford and others and goes to bring the witnesses forward and provides that information to this hearing. i'm sure that the chairman at that point will understand that that is a reasonable request to
1:41 pm
finally put to rest these charges, if they are false, or to prove them if they are not. you spent two years in the white house office that approved judicial nominees. you turned to the fbi over and over and over again for their work. let's bring them in here and now. turn to don mcgahn and tell him it's time to get this done. an fbi investigation is the only way to answer in of these questions. >> senator -- >> stop the clock. this committee is running this hearing, not the white house, not don mcgahn, not even you as a nominee. we are here today because dr. ford asked for an opportunity to hear her. i know you did, too, as well. in fact, maybe even before she did. we're here because people wanted to be heard from charges that they all thought were unfair or activities like sexual assault
1:42 pm
was unfair. so i want to assure senator durbin, regardless of what you say to senator don mcgahn, we're not suspending this hearing. proceed to answer the question or if the -- >> i'd just say this. if you, judge kavanaugh, turn to don mcgahn and to this committee and say for the sake of my reputation, my family name and to get to the bottom of the truth of this, i am not going to be an obstacle to an fbi investigation. i would hope that all the members of the committee would join me in saying we're going to abide by your wishes and we'll have that investigation. >> i welcome whatever the committee wants to do because i'm telling the truth. >> i want to know what you want to do. >> i'm telling the truth. i'm innocent. i'm innocent of this charge. >> then you're prepared for an fbi investigation. >> they don't reach conclusions. you reach the conclusions. >> but they do investigate questions. >> i'm innocent. >> you can't have it both ways.
1:43 pm
you can't say here -- >> i wanted the hearing. >> welcome any kind of investigation and then walk away from this. >> this thing was sprung at the last minute after being held by staff. you know -- jngets, if there is -- >> i called to a hearing immediately. >> if there is no truth to her charges, the fbi investigation will show that. are you afraid that they might not? >> come on. >> the fbi does not reach -- you know that is a phony question because the fbi doesn't reach conclusions. they just provide the 302s. 302s, so i can explain to people who don't know what that is, they just go and do what you're doing. ask questions and then type up a report. they don't reach the bottom line. >> this morning i asked dr. ford. i asked her about this incident where she ran into mark judge at a safeway. and she said, sure, i remember it. six or eight weeks after this occurrence. well, someone at "the washington post" went in and took a look at mr. judge's book. and has been able to, the run that he wrote about his addiction and his alcoholism.
1:44 pm
and they have narrowed it down what they think was a period of time, six or eight weeks after the event. and he would have been working at the safeway at that point. so the point i'm getting to is, we at least can connect some dots. why would you resist -- >> here's some dots. >> why would you resist that kind of investigation. >> i wanted the hearing last week. >> i'm asking about the fbi investigation. >> the committee figures out how to ask the questions. i'll do whatever. i've been on the phone multiple times. i'll talk to -- >> judge kavanaugh, will you support an fbi investigation right now. >> i will do whatever the committee wants to -- >> personally, do you think that's the best thing for us to do. you won't answer. >> listen, senator. i've said i wanted a hearing and i said i would welcome anything. i'm innocent. this thing was beheld -- held
1:45 pm
when it could have been presented in the ordinary way. it could have been held and handled confidentially at first, which is what dr. ford's wishes were, as i understand it. it wouldn't have caused this -- like destroyed my family like this effort has. >> i think an fbi investigation will help all of us on both sides of the issue. >> senator graham asked for the floor, but before he does, it seems to me that if you want to know something, you got the witness right here to ask him. and secondly, if you want an fbi report, you can ask for it yourself. i've asked for fbi reports in the past. in the 38 years i've been in the senate. senator graham? >> are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of july the 9th, the day you were nominated to the
1:46 pm
supreme court by president trump, senator schumer said, 23 minutes after your nomination, i will oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything i have. i have a bipartisan -- i hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. the stakes are simply too high for anything less. if you weren't aware of it, you are now. did you meet with senator dianne feinstein august 20th? >> i did meet with senator feinstein. >> her staff had already recommended a lawyer to dr. ford. >> i did not know that. >> did you know that her and her staff had this allegations for over 20 days? >> i did not know that at the time. >> if you wanted an fbi investigation, you could have come to us. what you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. you've said that. not me. you've got nothing to apologize for. when you see sotomayor and
1:47 pm
kagan, tell them that lindsey said hello because i voted for them. i would never do to them what you've done to this guy. this is the most unethical sham since i've been in politics. and if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy. are you a gang rapist? >> no. >> i cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through. boy, you all want power. god, i hope you never get it. i hope the american people can see through this sham that you knew about it and you held it. you had no intention of protecting dr. ford. none. she's as much of a victim as you are. god, i hate to say it because these have been my friends. but let me tell you, when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong
1:48 pm
time, my friend. do you consider this a job interview? >> the advise and consent role is like -- >> do you consider you've been through a job interview? >> i've been through a process of advise and consent under the constitution -- >> would you say you've been through hell? >> i have been through hell and then some. >> this is not a job interview. >> yeah. >> this is hell. >> this is -- >> this is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. your high school yearbook. you have interacted with professional women all your life. not one accusation. you're supposed to be bill cosby when you're a junior and senior in high school. and all of a sudden, you got over it. it's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop. here's my understanding.
1:49 pm
if you lived a good life, people will recognize it, like the american bar association has the gold standard. his integrity is absolutely unquestioned. he is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. he's entirely ethical. is a really decent person. he is warm, friendly, unassuming. he's the nicest person. the aba. and one thing i can tell you, you should be proud of. ashley, you should be proud of this. that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for dr. ford. to my republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing i have seen in my time in politics. you want this seat, i hope you never get it. i hope you're on the supreme
1:50 pm
court. that's exactly where you should be. and i hope that the american people will see through this charade. and i wish you well. and i intend to vote for intend. and i hope everybody who is fair minded will. >> senator whitehouse. >> should we let things settle a little bit after that? >> if you want to -- we'll take a 60-second break. >> no, i'm good. >> okay, go ahead. >> no, i'm good. one of the reasons, mr. kavanaugh, that we are looking at the yearbook is that it is relatively consistent in time with the events at issue here. and because it appears to be your words, is it, in fact, your words on your yearbook page? >> we submitted things to the
1:51 pm
editors and i believe they took them. i don't know if they changed things or not, but -- >> you're not aware of any changes? as far as you know -- >> i'm not aware one way or the other but i'm not going to sit here and contest that. have at it if you want to go through my yearbook. >> i'm actually interested. you know, lawyers should be working off of common terms and understand the words that we're using. i think that's a pretty basic principle among lawyers, wouldn't you agree? >> it is. if you're worried about my yearbook, have at it, senator. >> let's look at beach week ralph club biggest contributor. what does the word ralph mean in that? >> that probably refers to throwing up. i'm known to have a weak stomach and always have. in fact, the last time i was here you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti, i always have had a weak stomach. >> i don't know that i asked about ketchup on spaghetti. >> you didn't. someone did. this is well known. anyone who has known me, like a lot of these people behind me
1:52 pm
have known me my whole life know, you know, i've got a weak stomach, whether it's with beer or spicy food or anything. >> so the vomiting that you reference in the ralph club reference related to the consumption of alcohol? >> senator, i was the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school, captain of the varsity basketball team, got into yale college. when i get into yale college, got into yale law school. worked my tail off. >> and -- did the word ralph you used in your yearbook -- >> i already answered the question. >> -- relate to alcohol. did it relate to alcohol? >> i like beer. i don't know if you do. do you like beer, senator? what do you like to drink. senator, what do you like to drink? >> next one is have you i don't know if you have buffed or
1:53 pm
buffed how do you pronounce that? >> it refers to flatulence, we were 16. >> okay. so when your friend mark judge put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning, it was flatulence? >> i don't know what he did but that's why recollection. we want to talk about flatulence at the age of 16 on a yearbook page, i'm game. >> you mentioned, i think the renate. i don't know how you pronounce that. that's the proper name of an individual you know. >> renate. >> it's spelled with an e at the end. >> correct. >> after that is the word alumnious. what does that mean in that context? >> i answered that in my opening statement. she was a great friend of ours. we went to dances together. she hung out with us as a group. the media circus generated about this thought and reported it referred to sex. it did not.
1:54 pm
she herself said on the record never had any kind of sexual interaction with her. i'm sorry how that's been misinterpreted and sorry about that, as i explained in my opening statement, because she's a good person, and to have her name dragged through this hearing is a joke. and really an embarrassment. >> devil's triangle? >> drinking game. >> how is it played? >> three glasses in a triangle. >> and? >> you ever played quarters? >> no. >> okay. it's a quarters game. >> ann dougherty's. >> as you can tell from my calender, she had a party on the fourth of july on the beach in delaware. >> there are like, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven "fs" if front of the fourth of july. what does that significant, if anything? >> one of our friends, squi,
1:55 pm
when he said the "f" word at a young age, had kind of a windup to the "f" word. kind of a -- and then the word would come out. and when we were 15, we thought that was funny and it became an inside joke for how he would say -- and i won't repeat it here for the "f" word. >> referring to georgetown versus louisville and -- >> you want anymore on the "fs?" >> orioles versus red sox. you respond, who won that game anyway? should we draw any conclusion that a loss of recollection associated with alcohol was involved in you not knowing who won the games you attended? >> no, first of all, the georgetown-louisville was watching it on tv, a party, and -- >> that's not inconsistent with drinking and not remembering what happened. >> i'm aware. and the point of both was we in essence were having a party and didn't pay attention to the game, even though the game was the excuse we had for getting
1:56 pm
together. i think that's very common. i don't know if you've been to a super bowl party, for example, senator, and not paid attention to the game and hung out with your friends. i don't know if you've done that or not, but that's what we were referring to on those two occasions. >> senator cornyn. >> judge, i can't think of a more embarrassing scandal for the united states senate since the mccarthy hearings. when the comment was about the cruelty of the process toward the people involved. and the question was asked, have you no sense of decency? and i'm afraid we've lost that, at least for the time being. do you understand you've been accused of multiple crimes? >> i'm painfully aware, for my family and me, to read about this -- breathless reporting. >> of course the sexual assault
1:57 pm
that dr. ford claims that you've denied, then the claims of ms. ramirez, that not even "the new york times" would report because it wouldn't corroborate it. then stormy daniels' lawyer released a bombshell accusing you of gang rape. all of those are crimes, are they not? >> they are. i'm never going to get my reputation back. my life is totally and permanently altered. >> judge, don't give up. >> i'm not giving up. >> the american people -- the american people are listening to this and they will make their decision and i think you'll come out on the right side of that. >> well, i will always be a good person and try to be a good judge, whatever happens, but -- >> this is not a job interview. you've been accused of a crime. if you have lied to the committee and the investigators, that is a crime in and of itself, correct? >> that is correct. >> so in order to vote against
1:58 pm
your nomination, we would have to conclude that you are a serial liar. >> yeah. >> and you have exposed yourself to legal jeopardy in your interaction with this committee and the investigators. isn't that correct? >> that's my understanding. >> you talked in your interview on -- with marta mccollum the other night about a fair process. some of my colleagues across the aisle say, well, the burden is not on the accuser because this is a job interview, the burden is on you, but you said you weren't there and it didn't happen. it's impossible for you to prove a negative. so i would just suggest that you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process under the united states constitution, under our notion of fair play, means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence. isn't that part of a fair process?
1:59 pm
>> yes, sir, senator. >> and part of that means that if you're going to make an allegation, there needs to be corroboration. in other words, you're not guilty because somebody makes an accusation against you in this country. we're not a police state. we don't give the government that kind of power. we insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence. and i know we're not in a court. i've told my colleagues if we were in court, half of them would be in contempt of court. but you have been accused of a crime and i believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice in our constitutional system require that if somebody's going to make that accusation against you then they need to come forward with some corroboration. not just allegations. and you're right to be angry about the delays in your ability to come here and protect your good name because in the interim, it just keeps getting worse. it's not dr. ford.
2:00 pm
it's this story that not even "the new york times" would report, the allegation of ms. ramirez, and then stormy daniels' lawyer comes up with this incredible story accusing you of the most sordid and salacious conduct. it's outrageous. and you're right to be angry. but this is your chance to tell your story, and i hope you have a chance to tell us everything you want to tell us, but the burden is not on you to disprove the allegations made, the burden under our system when you accuse somebody of criminal conduct is on the person making the accusation. now, i understand we're not -- this isn't a trial, like i said, but i just wanted to make sure that we understood it's hard to reconstruct what happened 36 years ago and i appreciate what you said about dr. ford. that perhaps


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on