tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN September 27, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
9:01 pm
for hour after hour, anywhere you could find a screen, people were riveted to the unfolding of the judiciary committee. what they saw and heard were two deeply felt accounts of what two people said happened 35 years ago. christine blasey ford said she was sexually assaulted in 1982. judge kavanaugh denying it all. her allegation, and those of two other women calling the confirmation process, and i'm quoting here, a national disgrace. he says his good name has been destroyed over the last few weeks. she says her life was forever altered decades ago by what she says he did to her. at stake in it all is a seat on the highest court in the land. so today was a moment for senators to decide what to do about this particular nominee. but it also may be a moment for voters to decide what today means to them. we're going to talk with a senator who took part in the questioning today and we'll be bringing you extended moments from both witnesses throughout
9:02 pm
the hour, starting with this. >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. >> dr. ford, with what degree of certainly do you believe bret kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> you sewed the wind for decades to come. i fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind. the behavior of several of the democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment, but at least it was just a good old fashioned attempt at borking. >> none of these allegations are true? >> correct. >> no doubt in your mind? >> zero, 100% certain. >> not even a cintilla? >> not a scintilla.
9:03 pm
>> you swear to god? >> i swear to god. >> we'll be showing you more key moments, but the critical reaction from lawmakers, there's news unfolding right now. manu raju is where it's happening. so talk to me about the meeting between key senators tonight. >> reporter: four key senators huddling behind closed doors. they'll hold the key in determining whether or not brett kavanaugh gets this seat. three republican senators, jeff flake, lisa murkowski, susan collins, and one democratic senator, joe manchin from west virginia, who faces a difficult re-election this year. immediately after the hearing, flake raced out of the hearing room. he is the one that sits on the judiciary committee. jeff flake refused to answer my questions about his views, saying we're going to talk about it. he went and talked about it with those three other key senators. they sat down and talked for about 15, 20 minutes about their views on this. joe manchin left that hearing room, emerged and answered
9:04 pm
reporters' questions, and he said, anderson, very significantly, people are undecided in that room. they had more questions they want answered. he said there are still concerns in that room. so at least at the moment, it appears some of those key senators are undecided and will determine whether or not kavanaugh will get that seat, and those republicans are meeting behind closed doors as they mull their next steps, anderson. >> let's talk about next steps, and when the committee vote might happen. >> it could happen as soon as tomorrow. chuck grassley, the senate chairman, had already scheduled a friday hearing, but left open the possibility of delaying it, if a majority of the senators were not prepared to move forward. that means jeff flake is perhaps the one senator on the republican side who may or may not be ready to move forward. the other ten senators on that committee are pretty dead set about moving to a vote on friday, beginning the process in the senate this weekend, and for a confirmation vote on the full
9:05 pm
senate floor early next week. but if there is any resistance from any of those key senators, they could very well delay the process, which is why these private discussions are happening right now, so significant. we'll see what these senators have to say when they emerge. but so far, those key senators, holding their cards very closely to their vest. >> president trump has a private fund-raiser tonight and weighed in on the testimonies a short time ago. cnn's jim acosta joins us now. what did the president say? >> reporter: not a lot of anger management on capitol hill today. the one person showing restraint was the president. he didn't really weigh in on all of this until late in the day when he issued this tweet. he said he found the testimony from brett kavanaugh to be compelling, honest, riveting and said it's time to vote. vice president mike pence put out a similar tweet saying he stands with brett kavanaugh and it's now time to call for a vote. but the tweets that everyone was
9:06 pm
paying attention to today were issued by sarah sanders and kellyanne conway at the white house when they were celebrating lindsey graham's performance when he lashed out at senate democrats. that was a moment here at the white house when they saw this thing turning. >> jim acosta, thank you very much. as you saw at the top, both witnesses gave gripping testimony. right now, i want to play a little more of what dr. ford had to say. >> he had a good time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. indelible in the hippacampus is laughter, and they're having fun at my expense. >> you've never forgotten that laughter, you've never forgotten
9:07 pm
them laughing at you? >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter? >> i was underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends having a really good time with one another. >> dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> joining us right now is a democratic member of the committee. thank you for being with us. first of all, on professor ford, i'm wondering what you made of her testimony, because i know going into this, you had spoken that you believed her. >> i think there were all the indicators of the truthfulness of what she was telling us, and her testimony was very powerful in its truth. there's no reason for her to lie, and she, as well as the other two people who have made reports about judge kavanaugh,
9:08 pm
have all said we want to talk to the fbi. so i don't think that people who are lying would just go before the fbi and face perjury. >> do you believe judge kavanaugh is lying? because somebody is not telling the truth here. >> i prefer to say that i believe dr. ford. now, the thing with judge kavanaugh is that he really hinged his testimony on -- first of all, he accused the democrats of some kind of a vast conspiracy to do him in. >> including the clintons. >> why not drag them in it every chance? but he did say that dr. ford was not part of that conspiracy, and he said she very well probably had a terrible sexual experience, it jus wasn't him. he said the three people who she named, two of them said nothing happened. no, that's not what they said. what they said was, we don't know. we have no recollection. so for a judge, one should know
9:09 pm
the difference between somebody exonerating him and somebody saying i don't know. and one of whom said i believe dr. ford. >> his friend or former friend, mark judge, who obviously was not testifying today, he kept -- judge kavanaugh kept saying he has, under penalty of perjury, given a report, given a statement, but senator blumenthal reported out it's not a statement from him, but a statement from his attorney. >> his attorney. and whatever it is. he says, nothing happened or i don't remember is what he said. that's the kind of statement that should be subject to a lot more questioning. and the thing is, the republicans and the president do not want to reopen the fbi investigation. we're all calling for that. and that's not happening. so then judge kavanaugh was asked time and again today, he could break this impasse. he kept saying i'll do whatever the committee wants. he knows the committee, led by the republicans, has no intention of asking for an fbi
9:10 pm
report and knows the president is not going to do that. he could break that impasse. >> at no point would he say yes, i want an fbi investigation. you raised in your questioning with judge ford the issue of temperament. obviously, he came out when he made his opening statement which was a lengthy one, i think it was in excess of 40 minutes or so, some people would say it was angry or indignant, whatever adjective you want to use. was your questioning about temperament related to his opening statement? >> that, too, but there are all kinds of evidence as far as i'm concerned, statements from people who have known him over the years, who said he was really a bad drunk and would get very aggressive when drunk, and he denies everything. so it's really credibility. when he says that the three people who are there, two of
9:11 pm
whom have exonerated him and one that doesn't remember, all of them don't remember, for him to say that he didn't do it, and all of these three people that dr. ford mentioned exonerated him, that is not true. >> i wonder what you make of when professor ford was testifying, she was being questioned by prosecutor that the republicans had picked. when judge kavanaugh, he began questioned by the same prosecutor, but right after dick durbin got him to -- was asking him about whether or not he would call for an fbi investigation, he didn't seem to know how to answer it, lindsey graham stepped in, and after that the prosecutor basically disappeared. >> the prosecutor was there to ask dr. ford the questions, and we know why, because the republicans on the committee did not want to reveal themselves to the american public. and i don't think that the prosecutor did them any favors,
9:12 pm
because she was cross examining dr. ford. >> i want to go to manu raju with new information. manu? >> reporter: yeah, that's right. two republican senators just emerged, saying the republicans are planning to move ahead with this vote as soon as tomorrow. tomorrow, the plan is to have a vote in the senate judiciary committee, assuming that they can move forward. they're going to have a first procedural vote on the senate floor on saturday. that would set up a final confirmation vote early next week. now, this is just discussed in a closed door meeting. two senators emerge, bill cassidy of louisiana, roy blunt of missouri, a member of the republican leadership. they both just spoke to reporters and made that announcement. the key thing here, anderson, it's not clear whether they have the votes to confirm brett kavanaugh, because a handful of key senators, jeff flake, susan collins, lisa murkowski, and joe
9:13 pm
manchin on the democrat side, uncertain what they will do. so a roll of the dice by deciding to move forward tomorrow in committee. we'll see if anything changes. there have been a lot of changes in the last several days and weeks. but right now we expect them to move forward in the committee tomorrow and try to see if kavanaugh can get that lifetime seat by next week. >> thanks for that. i'm wondering your reaction, senator? >> it just comports with the rush that the republicans have to confirm judge kavanaugh, in spite of two other allegations that come forward, credible reports. they have no interest in hearing from anybody else. they want to rush this. they've always been on that track. and so i think that this is very much a message to the american people. they should know that people are watching, particularly women. and how we treat women who come forward, which takes great courage, because sexual assault is one of the most underreported
9:14 pm
crimes in the country. look at what happened to dr. ford. that's why they don't come forward. it's a message i would say, not a good one. >> do you think if professor ford had given a statement with the same amount of anger or indignation, the same amount of, you know, tremor in her voice or tears, that it would be responded to in the same way that it was when judge kavanaugh did it? >> i think a lot of people responded to her honesty, and she said she was really afraid when she came to testify. this is not what she does. meanwhile, you have a judge, that has the president and everyone else coaching him and everything else. please. she was very effective in her honesty. as far as judge kavanaugh, i have major issues regarding his credibility on a lot of cases i asked him about. just as he misrepresented and misstated what the witnesses
9:15 pm
said, he's also misstated cases, the issues of the case. that's why when i asked certain questions during the hearing, i said how can we have you on the supreme court when you can't cite cases that you misapplied the holdings to the point where his fellow judges call him out on his dissent. >> the american bar association seems to be positive on him. >> do they read the kind of cases we did? i doubt it. >> senator, thank you very much. joining me now is my panel. kirsten, i'm wondering what you have learned from this, what do you make of it? >> well, i think that was a lot. i think that professor ford was very credible and obviously very anxious and frightened about coming forward, so it's clear why she i think took her time to do that. and i thought that judge kavanaugh clearly was trying to appeal to the president in this
9:16 pm
very bombastic, kind of over the top, angry, raising his voice, interrupting people, really acting like donald trump, frankly. >> which many republicans saw as strength. >> right. they see it as strength and see it as strength when donald trump does it. i personally don't see it that way. i was sort of alarmed frankly when i look at somebody and think you're going to be on the supreme court and this is how you're behaving and it doesn't seem hike this is the temperment you want in a supreme court justice. and you add in the things he was saying about liberals, what goes around comes around. these respect the things you want to hear a justice be saying. he seems like somebody who has such animus towards democrats and the left. i don't think that reflects very well on him. and i'm still having a very hard
9:17 pm
time following the conspiracy theory where dr. ford is telling the truth, and they all believe her, but then there's a conspiracy. like the conspiracy has to involve her, right? you can't have a conspiracy if she's not involved in it. it doesn't make any sense. >> he said she's as much a victim -- >> it doesn't make any sense if you think about it. what does that mean then? the conspiracy is she made this up and connected with the democrats. or is it that she's been used and then connected with the democrats? because she believes that it's him. >> jeff, one of the things that was so fascinating today is you had professor ford testifying, and you know, people online, people responding were impressed with what they felt were her credibility. there were reports out of the white house and what they were thinking. and then it seemed people were talking about this nomination is in real jeopardy, it's done.
9:18 pm
and then when judge kavanaugh gave his kind of full frontal opening statement, blistering, it really did change the momentum or certainly the impressions of a lot of people. >> he rallied the trump troops. he made this into a referendum on politics. that his statement was really almost not about the actual allegation. it was about the conspiracy of the left wing, which -- >> which most of the republican statements were about that, as well. >> that was one of the amazing things about the republican questions to him. they were all about the process, and the new villain was dianne feinstein, who didn't handle her original allegations the way the republicans thought she should. the republicans didn't even talk about the allegation. they simply took it as a given that he denied it. and the thing that i find just so, you know, important to consider is that the republicans are going to vote no have two
9:19 pm
choices. one is that they believe professor ford is lying or insane. that's one. or she's telling the truth and it doesn't matter. and that's a pretty remarkable thing to think about, when you listen to her testimony, as we all did, and no one really challenged it. no one really made a strong argument that she's lying. they just don't care about want brett kavanaugh confirmed. >> it was a part of kavanaugh's testimony that wasn't political, but that was more human, saying i did not do this. you have to believe that i didn't do this. and by the way, because i didn't do this, and what you have basically done is ruined, not just tarnish, but ruin my reputation, my family. i can't coach my kids' teams anymore. all of those things were playing to not the base.
9:20 pm
that was the political part. but those undecided senators. and they really are undecided. the fact that our team up there is reporting that they immediately huddled, we're talking about four senators, three republicans, murkowski, collins, and flick, and joe manchin the democrat, trying to figure out how to approach this. and they listened to both sides, and they're the ones who have to make a decision on exactly what you laid out. >> i've got to go to a quick break. gloria will be the first one when we come back. we'll show the judge's tone and talk about that when we come back. the day after chemo might mean a trip back to the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when you can stay home with neulasta onpro?
9:21 pm
strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level.
9:22 pm
bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com we distributeus, i'm the owner environmentally-friendly start winning today. packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet?
9:24 pm
breaking news. the senate judiciary committee has scheduled a vote tomorrow of supreme court nomination brett kavanaugh with a goal of the vote on the floor for saturday. we talked about judge kavanaugh's testimony and how it rallied supporters. here's another example of some of the testimony. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fuelled with a pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. fear that's been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. revenge on behalf of the clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. this is a circus.
9:25 pm
the other night, ashley and my daughter, liza, said their prayers, and little liza, all 10 years old -- said to ashley, we should pray for the woman. that's a lot of wisdom from a 10-year-old. i like beer. i don't know if you like beer senator, or not. what do you like to drink? >> the next one -- >> senator, what do you like to drink? >> we're extending the conversation. we know your eyes are not deceiving you, we have moved some folks around. gloria, i want to start with you. i'm wondering what stood out to you the most today? >> well, it was a long day. i think at the end of the day, anderson, i'm not sure that any minds were changed. i think, you know, you had him
9:26 pm
saying 100% i swear to god this never happened. people who are inclined to believe him would believe him. his testimony was emotional, and i thought his opening statement was a lot better than the way he answered questions quite frankly, aside from the talking about this is the vast left wing conspiracy against him involving the clintons, et cetera. and i think those who are inclined to vote against him are still inclined to vote against him. and then you have the four undecideds, saying they're still undecided. so i think after all of this, because there was no new evidence presented, because we didn't get to hear from his friend, mark judge, because there has been no fbi investigation, at the end of it, it was all histrionics. and it turned into a bit of a circus. >> there was new evidence presented. we've never seen her before. no one had seen her before. she goes on -- >> that's true. >> she testifies under oath. this woman -- >> one did she say different today than what we knew was different?
9:27 pm
>> we've never seen her before. >> the only thing new is we saw her with our eyes. we got a gut check of somebody when we see them talk. there's nothing new in evidence. >> when you read a -- >> tell me, what's new in evidence? >> testimony is evidence. >> using your emotion and gut is evidence? >> that's why we have trials in court. [ overlapping speakers ] >> reading her testimony, which we did, it was very different. i will agree with you, than seeing her, okay? >> of course. >> seeing her deliver it, because it was so emotional, and she was so believable, and so credible. but what we did not -- we didn't have any corroboration from the people we need to hear from, which are the -- mark judge, who was there, for example.
9:28 pm
>> but can you make the flip argument, which is judge kavanaugh's emotion and -- >> absolutely. >> that also had an impact? >> it did, and here's the bigger question. we're in a poisoned atmosphere. and we talked a lot about base politics in the republican party and how they have taken over the party. we're watching base politics take over the democratic party. you cannot be a democrat in the senate and not go 100% after judge kavanaugh and be primaried. you can't run for president. they are chasing senators out of restaurants. the first kavanaugh hearing was a circus, where you had senators looking like protesters, interrupting over and over, because they didn't have a woman that they knew would step over. because they knew they had to walk out of this room -- >> i hear what you're saying, but isn't this happening on both sides? judge kavanaugh was interrupting some of the questioning, and lindsey graham's statement, which i want to play for people who didn't see it, and talk to you about it. because you can look at that and say he's worried about getting primaried. >> i'm saying it's a poisoned
9:29 pm
atmosphere. but until now, the narrative has been, republicans play to their base. we're watching, as democrats have lost primaries to socialists, as we are seeing the presidential candidates emerge, some of them in the room today. there were presidential candidates sitting in the room today, pontificating speaking to their base. so now when a woman comes forward, who is credible, who was believable today, right? she's now walking into an atmosphere the democrats have already ruined by how partisan they were from the beginning. >> let's play lindsay graham, because it did change the tone of it. let's listen. >> 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.
9:30 pm
you said that, not me. you've got nothing to apologize for. when you see sotomayor and 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 did to this guy. >> kirsten? >> i just want to say if a woman had done that or done what we saw today with kavanaugh, people would be saying that women are too emotional to be in leadership. >> if judge kavanaugh was as angry in her -- excuse me, if -- >> it is astonishing to watch these temper tantrums, and then what we're supposed to take this seriously. but i want to get back to what you were saying what the democrats are doing. the problem with the way you
9:31 pm
laid it out is, the democrats, unless you can explain this conspiracy theory to me, because i'm having a hard time with it. the democrats did not create dr. blasey ford. they didn't create her accusation or meeting in 2012 with her therapist or the conversations she had in 2013 or in 2016 or in 2017. so i don't know how the democrats created this. she came forward, made this accusation, and yes, i guess democrats are inclined to believe her. but how is that making it a poisoned environment? i don't understand. >> two things. first of all, she should be heard. any person who steps forward and says they were sexually assaulted should be heard, no question about it. and i thought she was credible. i believe that it's possible for her to have been attacked and for her to believe what she's saying and for him not to be the person because it was 30 years
9:32 pm
ago and for him to be honest, as well. but that's not my point. >> so she's crazy? >> i'm not saying that. my point is, when you poison the well and say by any means necessary do we have to stop this candidate because he's pro-life, we have to stop him by any means necessary, then when you actually bring someone who wants to give evidence, you have poisoned the well. >> roberts is pro life, alito is pro life. roberts is pro-life. >> this is about abortion politics. that was the entire democratic party's message has been we have to stop this judge. and activists are saying if you don't stop them, there's going to be hell to pay for you. [ overlapping speakers ] >> just like evangelicals are saying to republicans, if you don't get this through -- >> anderson and i talked about this before. how do evangelicals stand by president trump? the issue is because he will appoint judge kavanaugh. the same reason why feminists stuck by bill clinton, even
9:33 pm
though he was credibly accused, because he was going to appoint ruth bader ginsburg. >> and they were wrong. >> does joe donally have a primary? does joe manchin have a primary? you don't have moderate democrats being primaried. [ overlapping speakers ] not on these statewide primaries. there is a diversity within the democratic party that does not exist within the republican party. >> that is not in evidence in the senate today, not at all. >> i want to get back to the question that never gets answered, how is this the democrat's forward that she came forward with this and was talking about it in 2012 and 2013 and 2016? >> i'll explain it. because they created an atmosphere where you want her to
9:34 pm
be believed and she should be listened to, and they created such a partisan atmosphere that we're going to kill this judge no matter what, because people turn this off and say i don't believe her. you can't have an honest conversation. >> let's continue this conversation after a short break. we'll hear from the attorney for deborah ramirez who has allegations against judge kavanaugh. the attorney's reaction, ahead. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! is if my mom were here. advil liqui-gels minis. breakthrough in pain relief. a mighty small pill with concentrated power
9:35 pm
9:36 pm
9:37 pm
9:38 pm
judge brett kavanaugh denies sexually assaulting christina blasey ford or anyone else. deborah ramirez told "the new yorker" magazine that brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party. i'll speak with her attorney in a moment. in a sworn statement, julie swetnick alleges he engaged in physically and abusive behavior toward young women and girls. that's an exchange that happened today between kavanaugh and dianne feinstein. >> you're saying the allegations by dr. ford, ms. ramirez, and ms. swetnick are wrong? >> that is -- that is emphatically what i'm saying. emphatically. the swetnick thing is a joke. that is a farce. >> would you like to say more about it?
9:39 pm
>> no. >> that's it. thank you, mr. chairman. >> joining me now is attorney for deborah ramirez, who was a freshman at the same time brett kavanaugh was a freshman at yale university. first of all, i just want to get your reaction to what you just heard the judge say. >> about denying -- no surprise that he's going to deny what has been accused against him. but i don't think we were expecting anything else. i'm surprised he didn't want to give any more information about ms. swetnick. >> the judge was repeatedly asked whether he would ask for an fbi investigation. he declined to do so. is deborah ramirez's position that she wants an fbi investigation into her allegation? >> that's her position, and it's only been strengthened by watching what happened today and some of the other dealings we've had with the senate judiciary
9:40 pm
committee. he's not going to do anything like this political theater we saw without an fbi investigation. >> the judge called this process a circus, saying that allegations against him were a political hit. i mean, is there any truth to that? what is your response to that? >> you know, i mean, i heard you talking about it earlier. if this is some sort of democratic conspiracy, it seems like somebody forgot to clue in debbie ramirez and probably christine ford, as well. debbie ramirez was hitting in her office when she got a voice mail from a reporter last week for the first time, asking her about something she hadn't even thought about or talked about in many, many years. so if this is some sort of campaign by the democrats so railroad this nominee, nobody has told ms. ramirez. >> chairman grassley said they've tried to secure testimony from ms. ramirez eight
9:41 pm
different times and you've not made her available. we've been sent the e-mail ex-changes, and we talked about this two nights ago. essentially, the republicans on the committee were asking you specifics on exactly what your client is alleging, if there's anything else that wasn't in "the new yorker" piece, and any other details before they would even agree to have a conference call with you. you were insisting on having a conference call before giving any more information. is that about accurate? >> kind of. we just put those documents out, as well. so if anybody wants to see them, they can read through the e-mails, as well. as you can see initially in the communication, we're looking to figure out how our client can have a meaningful participation in this process. everybody wants to set up a phone call, and suddenly we get an e-mail saying that they need to hear more information about what her evidence is, which not
9:42 pm
that she's even the investigator, but we said we want to talk about this, what is going to happen, what is the process going to be like, and it goes around and around in circles for seven or eight times. >> what would be the harm in just telling them what the evidence is? >> i wonder what they're going to do with the evidence. i wonder what the process is going to be. are they going to take this evidence and tell judge kavanaugh what the evidence is? we want an fbi investigation, so the last thing we want to do is give up our evidence to judge kavanaugh so he can prepare a defense before the fbi can question him. >> and just finally, after what happened today, does your client have any hope that she's going to get to testify anywhere, or that there would be a meaningful investigation? >> well, she's not been invited to testify anywhere. i don't know if they've moved the vote, so i don't think she has any hope that there's going
9:43 pm
to be an investigation, which is a tragedy. >> thank you. i want to get more reaction now. joining the conversation is simone sanders. so a committee vote tomorrow. what do you see happening? is this over? >> no, it's not over. i think you have senators and folks on the hill right now saying that, that they're trying to get to a yes, but they're trying to bulldoze this thing through. in watching judge kavanaugh testify today, one, it felt as though dr. ford never had her testimony this morning. hearing how the republican senators questioned him. two, how unhinged he was, how angry, how he was unrestrained. that's not someone that looks like a centrist jurist to me, which is what he had previously testified. and lying about small things he didn't have to lie about. it was reported that he watched the testimony. he said during the testimony he didn't watch dr. ford. he lied about what a devil's triangle is. it's a sexual act, not a drinking game. the list goes on.
9:44 pm
i don't believe him when he says that he, you know, never was a blacked out drunk. look, it's just unbelievable. someone that likes to drink a lot as he noted, that he never had a few foggy nights he doesn't remember. the unnecessary small lies is were real shocks to his credibility. what i saw was a display of privilege, a man that could not believe the senate had the audacity to ask these questions. >> if professor ford had given the exact same sort of however you want to characterize it, do you think it would be described in the same way? >> first of all, on the last thing, there's no question in the workplace for instance, women and men are not treated the same when there is a temper. that is true. i don't believe he was unhinged. i believe he was angry. i believe when you're innocent and wrongly accused of
9:45 pm
something, and you believe you're getting a raw deal, it is absolutely understandable to show some emotion, and to say, this is terrible. this is not true. i didn't do this. he did an interview on fox news a couple nights ago where he looked like, i'm going to be a supreme court justice, i should act like it. so everyone panned it. there was no emotion. he was cold and distant. so he said i'm going to come out and defend myself, and if i was wrongly accused, you better believe that i would be just as angry. >> who's the real judge kavanaugh? is it the person we saw today who seemed to have a little bit of a temperment issue when he was dealing with the senators, or is it the person who
9:46 pm
testified for 17 hours, and was before the -- >> you get put between a rock and a hard place. so you can not push back and look more like a justice, or you can actually get put in a place where you're wrongly accused of something and people say now you can't be a justice because you defended himself. can i make one other point really quick about this? the liberal tradition of defendant's rights, okay? we have many cases in this country where people are wrongly convicted because the accuser just looked credible, and the jury goes, you know what? this person who is the defendant fit the description of someone i think should be a defendant. >> you are talking about black and brown people in this country. >> that's right, i am. >> what happens to black people in this country every damn day in the criminal justice system -- >> i'm agreeing with you, simone. >> it was white male privilege on display.
9:47 pm
>> let me say that i agree with you that this happens. i agree with you that there is racism in our judicial system and young people are put away just because maybe a white accuser is credible. and there's a tradition on the democratic side to say we have due process. just because someone remembers something and is credible doesn't mean you convict them. >> you're making a fake argument. this was not a criminal trial. this was a job interview. this was -- this is not a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. >> but he was accused of a crime. >> let me finish. this is a job interview where, for example, you might say, i'm considering hiring you as a babysitter for my kid. there are three credible accusations that you're -- that you engaged in sexual abuse. are you going to hire that person? >> can i argue with that analogy? i'm trying to hire a babysitter. the babysitter is accused of things, but then i find out a rival babysitter is the person
9:48 pm
that accused them of it. >> you're doing it again. the democrats are not the ones who made the accusation. these women have made the accusation, and the republicans keep saying that without any evidence whatsoever. >> i want to get a break in. i want to go to chris quickly to see what he's working on. i have a feeling i know. what are you going to be doing, chris? >> i'm doing what everybody should be doing, i'm listening to you. this is a really good panel discussion. you have a problem on both sides, and we saw it in realtime today. what kirsten is talking about right now, look, ford made herself vulnerable to criticism about being used as a pawn by the democrats. part of the questioning went to that, where she found her lawyer and what was paid for and how. there's a reason that mitchell laid out those questions. but on the other side, i just got off the phone with somebody who went to college with brett kavanaugh. i said it many times this week, so have you. by painting a picture of himself
9:49 pm
as perfect, he painted himself into a corner. there are a lot of people who have said and now are going to want to say that brett kavanaugh is not the person he portrays himself as. not that he's a rapist. not that he did what christine blasey ford says he did. but he's not telling the truth about himself. remember, as jeffrey toobin just said, this isn't about putting him in jail, this is about his character, anderson. i think there are going to be a lot more wood to chop before this is over. >> that's about ten minutes from now. see you then. just ahead, a lot of today's questions and answers centered around the drinking habits of judge kavanaugh, something that's likely never happened before on a confirmation for a supreme court justice. more on that ahead. ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds.
9:50 pm
even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪ ron! soh really? going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too.
9:51 pm
9:53 pm
we're talking about a vote now just hours away, on a supreme court nominee who spent the day denying a series of allegations against him. something we touched on before the break two very different takeaways that senators may have learned who brett kavanaugh is or was. he was asked about drinking many times this afternoon. >> i spent much of my time working, working out, lifting weights, playing basketball or hanging out and having some beers with friends. i drank beer with my friends. almost everyone did. sometimes i had too many beers. i liked beer. i still like beer. >> and back with the panel. it was interesting, his focus on beer, i mean, there was no other mention of other kinds of alcohol, which if you're drinking a lot, and you're a kid in high school, i would think in
9:54 pm
'82 or '83, they would drink whatever they could get. >> absolutely. there was -- there were a lot of questions on his alcohol consumption. but the whole question of whether it is possible that he had so much to drink that he doesn't remember was never really penetrated. we don't really know the answer to that. >> he just denied that. >> well, but -- >> i don't think it was raised, he said, no, it didn't happen. >> how woe know. if he blacked out, how would he know? >> he said he may have fallen asleep. >> but after the morning hearing, i'm sure you all were hearing from republicans, i was hearing from republicans, who like kavanaugh, who were very very worried because they found her completely credible. we're thinking that is possibly what happened opinion.
9:55 pm
they both think they're telling the truth. in kavanaugh's case, perhaps it is that it happened and he doesn't remember it. these are the decisions that these senators are going to have to make based often under oath testimony. so maybe one of them is lying. either intentionally or unintentionally, but they're just isn't enough information beyond just your gut instinct of who's telling the truth. which is such an unfortunate thing for this process. i think we have to say this is not normal. this is the new normal, but it isn't normal. it's really a shame that no one was behaving themselves. there were pockets of democrats being adults. >> it's not good for the country. >> it's terrible for the country. >> it was terrible for the country. and the reason there is no fbi investigation i am convinced is because they want this done quickly. and so dianne feinstein became
9:56 pm
public enemy number one. she didn't tell them about allegations from this woman who wanted it kept private. and so they started attacking her. the point is have an fbi investigation. let them do their work. this is the supreme court. postpone the vote by a week. what's the problem? >> thank you everybody, appreciate it. the news continues in a moment. more coverage of the kavanaugh ford hearing. on cuomo "prime time." it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.
10:00 pm
hello, everyone, i'm chris cuomo, welcome to primetime live from our nation's capitol on this riveting and regrettable day. in american history. regrettable. why? it was everything it should not have been. we heard from ford, we heard from kavanaugh. they were both credible, they were both put through the ringer, they're both wounded. but for what, politics at its worst, how to compare the two? as the new york times put it, he litigated, she persuaded. righties are going to say, well, something happened to her, but it wasn't him. that means they can't believe
120 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News ArchiveUploaded by TV Archive on