HIM, FOR HIS WIFE, WHO IS AN INCREDIBLE LOVELY WOMAN, AND FOR
HIS BEAUTIFUL YOUNG DAUGHTERS.
I FEEL TERRIBLY FOR THEM.
>> JOINING ME NOW FOR HER
PERSPECTIVE ON THE ALLEGATION,
THE PLANS FOR THE HEARING,
SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND.
FIRST, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE GOAL OF THE HEARING THAT
REPUBLICANS HAVE SET FOR THIS
MONDAY IS?
MONDAY IS? >> NO.
>> NO. I THINK IT’S INTENDED TO BE A
SHAM HEARING BECAUSE THEY ONLY
WANT A HE SAID/SHE SAID
SCENARIO.
SCENARIO. IN FACT, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWING
THE FBI TO DO A COMPLETE
BACKGROUND CHECK NOW THAT THEY
HAVE THIS ALLEGATION WHICH HAS
NOT BEEN DONE, WHICH IS THE
NORMAL COURSE OF ANY SUPREME
COURT NOMINEE.
COURT NOMINEE. >> IS THAT NORMAL FOR ALL
INVESTIGATIONS?
INVESTIGATIONS? >> YES, FOR JUDGES AND SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES.
COURT JUSTICES. THEY NEED TO DO A COMPLETE
INVESTIGATION AND THEY HAVEN’T
BEEN ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE THIS
IS A NEW ALLEGATION.
WE SHOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THE
HEARING UNTIL THE FBI COMPLETES
THEIR BACKGROUND CHECK.
>> SO WE JUST GOT WORD THAT DR.
FORD’S LAWYER HAS ANNOUNCED SHE
HAS WRITTEN A LETTER, HER CLIENT
HAS WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE
COMMITTEE ASKING FOR PRECISELY
THAT, ASKING THAT AN FBI
INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED
BEFORE A HEARING.
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS NEXT?
>> WELL, I THINK SHE -- WE
SHOULD HAVE THAT INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE AS YOU MENTIONED, DR.
ANITA HILL’S EDITORIAL, SHE
WROTE THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO
HAVE A NON-PARTISAN REVIEW OF
FACTS SO THAT THE SENATORS CAN
THEN USE THOSE FACTS AS THE
BASIS TO FORM THEIR QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE THE SHAM HEARING
INTENDED FOR MONDAY, IT’S JOUST
GOING TO BE SET UP TO BE ONE
WORD AGAINST THE OTHER.
WHY ISN’T HIS FORMER COLLEAGUE
BEING QUESTIONED?
BEING QUESTIONED? WHY ISN’T HER THERAPIST BEING
QUESTIONED?
QUESTIONED? THERE’S CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO BEAR
IN THIS HEARING.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE FACT
THAT SENATOR GRASSLEY AND OTHERS
SEEM TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN MARK
JUDGE WHO IS NAMED AS THE OTHER
PERSONS PRESENT IN THE ROOM
DURING THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, THEY
HAVE NO INTEREST IN HEARING FROM
THEM AND HE HAS NO INTEREST IN
TALKING.
TALKING. >> MARK JUDGE FIRST SHOULD BE
QUESTIONED BY THE FBI, THAT
INVESTIGATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE
UNDER OATH.
UNDER OATH. AND THEN SECOND, HE SHOULD HAVE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BY SENATORS
UNDER OATH AS WELL.
>> THERE’S ALSO TALK, SUSAN
COLLINS FLOAT IT HAD FOLLOWING
SCENARIO FOR THE HEARING I WANT
TO GET YOUR REACTION TO.
I HAD NOT HEARD OF THIS IDEA.
TAKE A LISTEN, TELL ME WHAT YOU
THINK.
THINK. >> IT MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE TO HAVE
THE TWO ATTORNEYS WHO ARE
REPRESENTING JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND
PROFESSOR FORD DO THE
QUESTIONING FOR THE FIRST ROUND.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD TURN THE
HEARING INTO A CIRCUS.
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF OUTSIDE
LAWYERS TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES IN FRONT OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THAT IS THE JOB OF THE SENATORS
ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE
UNWILLING TO DO THAT THEY
SHOULDN’T BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE
IDEA THAT APPARENTLY HAS BEEN
FLOATED THAT REPUBLICANS ARE
CONSIDERING USING WOMEN WHO WORK
FOR THEM ON THEIR STAFF,
ALL-MALE GROUP AS YOU WELL KNOW
ON THE REASONABLE SIDE, USING
WOMEN STAFFERS TO ASK THE
QUESTIONS IN THE HEARING.
>> I THINK THAT’S AN ABSURD
IDEA.
IDEA. IF THEY LITERALLY CAN’T DO THEIR
JOBS AS SENATORS ON THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND NEED TO
ASK FEMALE STAFFERS TO DO IT FOR
THEM, THEY SHOULD STEP DOWN FROM
THE COMMITTEE.
THE COMMITTEE. IT’S THEIR JOB.
>> ONE THING I THINK THAT’S
UNCLEAR TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, WHAT
ARE WE TRYING TO -- WHAT’S THE
THING THAT GETS DETERMINED AND
WHAT’S THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
THAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR?
WHAT -- AS SOMEONE WHO’S GOING
TO VOTE, AND I SUSPECT I KNOW
HOW YOU WOULD VOTE EVEN BEFORE
THIS ALLEGATION, BUT AS SOMEONE
WHO WILL VOTE IF THIS NOMINATION
GOES FORWARD, WHAT IS YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE STANDARD
YOU’RE LOOKING FOR?
>> THE QUESTION IS, IS JUDGE
KAVANAUGH FIT TO BE A SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE, THE CHARACTER AND
INTEGRITY NECESSARY TO BE A
JUSTICE.
JUSTICE. IF HE HAS THIS VIOLENCE
BACKGROUND WHERE HE HAS
ASSAULTED A WOMAN AND COVERED
HER MOUTH WHEN SHE’S TRYING TO
SCREAM WHY SHOULD HE BE A
JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT
WITH A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT
WHO’S GOING TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL
DECISIONS ABOUT WOMEN’S LIVES.
I DON’T THINK HE’S QUALIFIED
BECAUSE OF HIS RECORD ON WOMEN’S
ISSUES SPECIFICALLY.
ISSUES SPECIFICALLY. HE DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT WOMEN
SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. HE BELIEVES THAT YOUR BOSS
SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU
HAVE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL.
IF HE HAS THIS HISTORY, THEN HE
IS UNFIT FOR THE COURT.
AND HE DOESN’T HAVE THE
CHARACTER INTEGRITY.
CHARACTER INTEGRITY. YOU ADD TO THAT, CHRIS, A LOT OF
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY
DOCUMENTED DURING THESE HEARINGS
THAT PERHAPS HE WASN’T STRAIGHT
IN THE LAST SET OF HEARINGS WHEN
HE RECEIVED HIS CONFIRMATION FOR
HIS LAST JUDGESHIP.
>> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
CONTROVERSY AROUND -- THERE’S
BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT
SORT OF ME TOO AND ACCUSATIONS
AND THE STANDARDS WE USE FOR
THEM, THE WAYS DIFFERENT PARTIES
HAVE REACTED TO THEM, AND
SENATOR FRANKEN’S DEPARTURE FROM
THE SENATE.
THE SENATE. YOU GET SINGLED OUT FOR IT,
WHICH I’M NOT CLEAR ABOUT IT,
HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY
ONGOING.
ONGOING. DONORS HAVE SAID THEY’RE UNHAPPY
WITH IT, ET CETERA.
I WONDER WHAT YOU THINK OF THAT
MOMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THIS ERA
AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT WHEN
JUDGE KAVANAUGH FACES
ALLEGATION.
ALLEGATION. >> THE QUESTION IS, DO WE VALUE
WOMEN?
WOMEN? THAT’S THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION,
DO WE BELIEVE WOMEN, GIVE THEM
AN ABILITY TO TELL THEIR STORY,
TO BE HEARD, TO HAVE SOME
MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY?
AND SOMETIMES IT’S VERY HARD AND
YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT EVEN
WHEN IT’S HARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN
IT’S HARD.
IT’S HARD. SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A MOMENT
WHEN THERE’S A RECKONING FOR THE
U.S. SENATE, WE NEED TO HAVE A
PROPER HEARING WHERE THIS
WITNESS CAN TELL HER STORY.
AND THAT THE CORROBORATING
WITNESSES CAN ALSO BE
QUESTIONED.
QUESTIONED. AND SO THAT THEY CAN TELL THEIR
STORY AND IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE HAVE THANSRANSPARENCY AN
ACCOUNTABILITY.
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE SHOULD NOT RELIVE THE
HEARINGS ANITA HILL HAD TO GO
THROUGH.
THROUGH. THAT WAS A DARK MOMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES SENATE, ONE OF THE
LOWEST MOMENTS OF THE U.S.
SENATE.
SENATE. IF WE CAN’T DO BETTER THAN WE
DID THEN, THAT’S SHOCKING.
AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE A
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE
HEARING.
HEARING. THAT STARTS WITH AN
INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI TO
DEVELOP THE FACTS.
AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE AN
APPROPRIATE QUESTIONING OF THE
WITNESSES.
WITNESSES. >> FINAL QUESTION, DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT DR. BLASEY FORD IS
TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED.
HAPPENED. >> I BELIEVE HER.
HER STORY IS CREDIBLE.
IF YOU LISTEN TO EVERYTHING
ABOUT IT, THE FACT THAT SHE TOLD
HER THERAPIST ABOUT IT FIVE
YEARS AGO, A FRIEND MOST
RECENTLY, TOLD A REPORTER BEFORE
KAVANAUGH WAS NAMED AS A
NOMINEE.
NOMINEE. A WOMAN WHO HAS ENDURED TRAUMA
AND EXPERTS HAVE SAID THIS IS
WHAT TRAUMA LOOKS LIKE.
IT GETS RELIVED MUCH LATER IN
TIME.
TIME. >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> A LOT OF -- YOU DON’T
REMEMBER EVERYTHING, YOU
REMEMBER THE MOST -POINT GAMEPOI
MOMENTS.
MOMENTS. SHE SHOULD BE HEARD AND THIS
SENATE SHOULD TREAT HER WITH THE