>>> WELCOME BACK. AS WECHD
AS WECHD WE SAID, JUDGE KAVANAUGH
DEFENDED HIMSELF AGAINST
ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT.
MISCONDUCT. THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM HIM
IN HIS OWN VOICE ABOUT THE
ALLEGATIONS.
ALLEGATIONS. BUT FAR FROM THE FIRST TV
DEFENSE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH.
THE JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK HAS
BEEN DEFENDING HIM SINCE
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S
ACCUSATIONS FIRST BECAME PUBLIC
MORE THAN A WEEK AGO.
SPENDING $1.5 MILLION TO DO SO.
AND WITH ME NOW IS CHIEF COUNSEL
AND POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE
JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK, ALSO A
FORMER CLERK FOR JUSTICE
CLARENCE THOMAS.
CLARENCE THOMAS. THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.
LET ME START WITH WHO IS GOING
TO QUESTION ON THURSDAY.
I KNOW WE KNOW THAT SENATE
REPUBLICANS HAVE OUTSIDE
COUNSEL, THEY HAVE NOT TOLD US
WHO IT IS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY AWARENESS?
>> I DON’T KNOW WHO IT IS
EITHER.
EITHER. THEY SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO
PROTECT HER NAME FOR HER
SECURITY AND CERTAINLY WITH
EVERYONE IN THIS PROCESS HAVING
RECEIVED ALL SORTS OF THREATS
FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH, DR. FORD,
EVERYONE, THAT SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE
TO ME.
TO ME. BUT I’M NOT SURE WHO IT IS.
IT IS SOMEONE WITH EXPERIENCE
THOUGH WITH PROSECUTINGS KINDS
OF CRIMES THAT DR. FORD HAS
ALLEGED.
ALLEGED. IT WILL BE SOMEONE LET’S JUST
SATS WITH
SATS WITH SAY WITH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN
YOUR TYPICAL JUDICIARY MEMBER
WHICH IS SOMEONE EVERYONE
COMPLAINS ABOUT.
COMPLAINS ABOUT. >> BUT GETTING OUTSIDE COUNSEL
IS UNUSUAL.
IS UNUSUAL. >> IT HAPPENS.
>> LIKE 1973 I THINK.
>> IT HAS HAPPENED.
>> AN UNUSUAL THING.
WHY SHOULDN’T -- I GET HAVING
MAYBE HER AS SOME OFK SOME OF TH
SENSITIVE QUESTIONS.
SENSITIVE QUESTIONS. BUT THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT
REPRESENT ACTUAL AMERICANS.
SHOULD THEY BE INVOLVED IN THE
QUESTIONING AS WELL.
>> >>I’VE SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE
SAID THAT WOULDN’T THIS ALL JUST
BE BETTER IF EACH SIDE APPOINTED
SOMEONE DO THIS.
AND I THINK IT IS REALLY TRUE.
SENATOR COLLINS EARLY ON SAID
THAT HOW ABOUT TO TRY TO PRY
VENTS SOME OF THE CIRCUS EACH
SIDE JUST APPOINT SOMEONE
BECAUSE YOU HAVE HAVE A MORE
COMPANY HERE LINE OF QUESTIONING
RATHER THAN JUST A FEW --
>> AS SOMEBODY INVOLVED IN A LOT
OF PRESS CONFERENCES, COHERENT
QUESTIONING DOES MATTER.
>> SO THAT IS EXACTLY THE
PROBLEM THAT YOU HAVE.
AND SO THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH
BETTER IF BOTH SIDES WERE
WILLING TO DO THAT.
YOU COULD GET A COHERENT THEME,
YOU COULD GET SOMEONE WHO KNOWS
THE ISSUE VERY WELL AND COULD
COME BACK WITH THE FOLLOWUP
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR I THINK
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE ARE
SEVERAL 2020 CONTENDER, THEY
DON’T WANT TO LOSE THEIR
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID THAT IT
WILL MAKE MORE SENSE TO HAVE A
WOMAN PARTICULARLY CAN
UNDERSTAND WHERE DR. FORD IS.
SO FOR HER INTERESTS OF SAYING I
WANT SOMEONE WHO WILL BE
RESPECTFUL TO ME AND UNDERSTANDS
THAT, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO
HAS BEEN THROUGH THOSE CASES
PARTICULARLY ON THE SIDE OF THE
WOMAN BEFORE, I THINK THAT WILL
HELP MAKE SURE THAT SHE IS GOING
TO BE GIVEN THE ABSOLUTE RESPECT
IN THIS.
IN THIS. >> HOW IS IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN
HE SAID/SHE SAID AT THE END?
WHAT ARE YOU GOING ASK
AMERICANS, HOW IS IT THAT YOU
CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE KNOWING
THAT WE’LL KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL
TRUTH IS?
TRUTH IS? >> WELL, DUE TO THE NATURE OF
THE CLAIM, THEY ARE VAGUE AND
OLD, IT IS VERY CHALLENGING.
PLAURPLY DUE TO THE FACT THIS
THE
THE WAY DEMOCRATS CHOSE TO CARRY
THIS OUT, WE DIDN’T HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT SOME OF
THESE WITNESSES BEFORE.
FOR EXAMPLE EVERYTHING BLEW UP
IN THE MEDIA.
HOWEVER YOU DO --
>> DOES IT MATTER TO YOU YOU --
I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY
INTERESTING IN HER LETTER TO
SENATOR GRASSLEY, DR. FORD
ESSENTIALLY SAID I TRIED TO
RAISE THIS BEFORE IT BECAME AN
ISSUE, I TRIED TO RAISE IT AT A
TIME BEFORE HE WAS EVEN PICKED
TO HOPE THAT YOU DIDN’T PICK
HIM.
HIM. >> I THINK IF SENATOR FEINSTEIN
HAD TAKEN THOSE CLAIMS AS SHE
SHOOD HAVE
SHOOD HAVE SHOULD HAVE AND SAID SHEAR
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DIG IN
TO FURTHER, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
BETTER FOR EVERYONE AROUND.
FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH, FOR DR.
FORD HERSELF, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
BETTER FOR THE SUPREME COURT,
THE SENATE PROCESS.
THAT HAS ALL BEEN DRAGGED
THROUGH THE MUD.
BUT I DO THINK THAT EVERYONE
THAT SHE HAS IDENTIFIED AS
EITHER AN EYEWITNESS OR SOMEONE
WHO WAS AT THE PARTY HAS SAID WE
DON’T REMEMBER THIS PARTY OR HER
FRIEND LELAND SAYS I DON’T
REALLY KNOW KAVANAUGH, THIS
DIDN’T ADD UP TO ME.
SO I THINK THAT ALSO ADDS TO THE
QUESTION.
QUESTION. YOU HAVE HIS CALENDARS WHICH
DON’T PROOF ANYTHING, BUT ONE
PIECE OF EVIDENCE SAYING HE
WASN’T EVEN THERE FOR MOST OF
THE SUMMER SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.
THIS PARTY DIDN’T GET ON THE
CALENDAR.
CALENDAR. HE WAS AT OTHER PARTIES.
NOT OPEN AND SHUT, BUT EVERY
SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE’VE
SEEN I THINK PARTICULARLY THE
ALLEGED WITNESSES, THAT IS
PRETTY STRONG AND MAKES THE
STORY -- AMPLIFIES THE HOLE IN
THE STORY.
THE STORY. >> THE ADD THAT FEATURES LOUISA
GUERY, IS THAT STILL RUN
SOMETHING.
SOMETHING. >> THAT HAD TO DO WITH A
SPECIFIC LETTER REGARDING THE
"NEW YORKER" ALLEGATIONS.
SHE WASN’T AN EYEWITNESS.
NO, THE AD -- I SAW IT I THINK
AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.
>> SHE HAS NOT ASKED YOU TO PULL
IT?
IT? >> NO, SHE STILL STANDS BEHIND
EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAYS.
WHICH IS THAT SHE KNOWS BRETT
KAVANAUGH FOR DECADES AND SAYS
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO IS FAIR,
EVEN HANDED, THE KIND OF JUDGE
WE SHOULD LOOK FOR.
>> IT FEELS LIKE EVERYBODY IS IN
A HURRY TO GET THIS DONE.
WHY?
WHY? I MEAN IS THIS REALLY ABOUT
NOVEMBER?
NOVEMBER? REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.
>> I’M NOT ARE SURE THE
DEMOCRATS ARE IN A HURRY TO GET
THIS DONE.
THIS DONE. >> NO, MEANING BUT EVERYTHING IS
ABOUT NOVEMBER.
ABOUT NOVEMBER. DEMOCRATS WANT TO DELAY.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO HURRY UP AND
GET IT DONE.
>> I DON’T THINK THAT IS IT.
SOME OF THE DEMOCRATS CERTAINLY
WANT TO DELAY IT UNTIL NOVEMBER,
LET’S WIN THE SENATE AND THEN
BLOCK --
BLOCK -- >> AND REPUBLICANS ARE LIKE
HURRY UP AND GET HIM CONFIRMED
YESTERDAY.
YESTERDAY. >> NO, TWO WEEKS AGO A MAN’S
NAME WAS DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD
AND HE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A
DEMOCRAT SMEAR CAMPAIGN FOR THE
LAST TWO WEEKS.
FULL-TIME.
FULL-TIME. >> ARE YOU CONFIDENT THIS IS A
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND NOT ANY TRUTH
TO THIS?
TO THIS? >> I AM, BUT LET’S GIVE HER THE
HEARING AND LET’S GET TO THAT
POINT.
POINT. UNTIL WE DO, WE ARE ALL LEFT
SPECULATING AND IT IS A MEDIA
CIRCUS.
CIRCUS. SO I THINK AGAIN ALSO IN DR.
FORD’S BEST INTERESTS TO GET TO
THIS HEARING, HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HER
PERSPECTIVE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE
PAST THIS.
PAST THIS. >> AND SHOULD WE HAVE MADE R
REAR-THE SECOND ACCUSE, SHOULD
SHE OF IT?
>> THE SERIOUS IS THE
INVESTIGATION THAT SHE ARE
TRYING TO CARRY OUT.
IF SHE MASS FURTHER TESTIMONY TO
PUT IN, THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE
THAT TESTIMONY.
THAT TESTIMONY. AND THEY SAID THEN THEY WOULD
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY --
>>
>> >> SO THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
DEPOSITION TYPE TESTIMONY.
>> AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEE
THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT
SHE WAS WILLING TO STAND BY
UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY.
>> SO WOULD IT BE WORTH IT?
>> I THINK THE EXTRA FBI
INVESTIGATION WE NEEDED IS THE
ONE IN JULY WHEN SENATOR
FEINSTEIN RECEIVED THIS.
>> WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT.
>> AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE HAD
IT --
IT -- >> WHY NOT NOW?
>> HERE IS WHY IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN USEFUL.
BEEN USEFUL. THE FBI COULD HAVE INTERVIEWED
PEOPLE UNTAINTED BY ALL OF THE
CHAOS.
CHAOS. THAT IS WHEN IT IS VALUABLE.
THIS IS WHY IN AN ACTUAL TRIAL
YOU WOULD HAVE THE WITNESSES
SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER, YOU
SEQUESTER THE JURY SO THEY ARE
NOT DISTRACTED BY ALL THE NEWS
AND FED BY THE NEWS RATHER THAN
THE ACTUAL THING.
THE FBI COULD HAVE ASKED THEM
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. NEW
NEW DEMOCRATS BLEW UP THAT PROCESS.
THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY COULD
DO IT.
DO IT. LED ME READ WHAT YOU SENATOR
BIDEN SAID THAT DURING ANITA
HILL HEARINGS.
HILL HEARINGS. HE SAID FBI REPORT AS BEING
WORTH ANYTHING, THEY DON’T
UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THE FBI DOES NOT IN THIS OR ANY
OTHER CASE REACH A CONCLUSION,
PERIOD.
PERIOD. THAT WAS SENATOR BIDEN.