SENATOR, REPUBLICAN FROM GEORGIA, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON
AND SHARING YOUR VIEWS.
>> THANKS, CHUCK.
>> JOINING ME NOW WITH ANOTHER
PERSPECTIVE IS PATTY MURRAY FROM
WASHINGTON STATE.
WASHINGTON STATE. SENATOR MURRAY, WELCOME TO "MEET
THE PRESS".
THE PRESS". >> GREAT TO BE HERE, CHUCK.
>> I REMEMBER COVERING YOUR RACE
AND IT WAS THE REASON YOU STATED
FOR RUNNING WAS YOUR REACTION TO
THE ANITA HILL HEARINGS AND I
REMEMBER A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN’T
GIVE YOU MUCH OF A CHANCE AND
YOU’VE NOW BEEN A UNITED STATES
SENATOR SINCE 1992.
>> CORRECT.
>> CORRECT. >> YOU SAID THIS ABOUT THE
REPUBLICANS 27 YEARS LATER THAT
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS
LEADING US DOWN THE EXACT SAME
PLACE AND AN EVEN WORSE ONE.
HOW DO YOU THINK WORSE?
>> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I REMEMBER FROM THE ANITA
HILL HEARINGS WAS THE WAY SHE
WAS TREATED BY UNITED STATES
SENATOR, THAT SHE WAS PRESUMED
THAT SHE WAS LYING, THAT IT WAS
A FANTASY, THAT SHE WAS MAKING
IT UP.
IT UP. THAT’S HOW THE QUESTIONS CAME
FROM THE UNITED STATES SENATORS
AND SHE WAS NEVER GIVEN A FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO BE LIEVED FROM
THE START.
THE START. I SENSE THAT AGAIN, AS I HEAR A
NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS, THE
MAJORITY LEADER SAYING WE’RE
GOING TO PLOW RIGHT THROUGH IT
AS IF IT WAS A PETTY THING.
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS
HICCUP.
HICCUP. THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION IS
EXACTLY WHAT LEADS TO MANY
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, WOMEN
AND MEN SAYING THEY DON’T GET
IT.
IT. PARTICULARLY NOW IN THE ME TOO
MOVEMENT.
MOVEMENT. THEY HAVE TO SPEAK OUT AND IT
DOESN’T HAVE TO BE A HIDDEN
THING IN THE PAST AND THEY HAVE
TO NOT TELL ANYBODY.
THE MESSAGE THAT IT’S A HICCUP
OR WE’RE GOING TO PLOW THROUGH
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DON’T
WANT TO HEAR TODAY.
>> IT’S INTERESTING THAT YOU
WORD IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I’M
CURIOUS OF YOUR REACTION OF THIS
TV AD THAT’S BEING RUN BY DEMAND
JUSTICE WHICH IS A GROUP ON THE
LEFT THAT IS OPPOSING JUDGE
KAVANAUGH.
KAVANAUGH. I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU THIS AD
BECAUSE IT PRESUMES HIM GUILTY
AND I WANT TO PLAY IT FOR YOU
AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK OF THIS.
TAKE A LOOK.
>> WHEN 15-YEAR-OLD CHRISTINE
TRIED TO SCREAM HER ATTACKER
COVERED HER MOUTH SO NO ONE
COULD HEAR HER.
WILL SUSAN COLLINS LISTEN TO HER
NOW?
NOW? I PLAY IT NOW BECAUSE WHAT YOU
JUST DESCRIBED WAS PRESUMING HER
NOT TO BE TELLING THE TRUTH.
THIS IS PRESUMING HIM TO ALREADY
BE GUILTY.
BE GUILTY. IT SEEMS AS IF WE’RE IN A BAD
SITUATION NO MATTER YOUR POINT
OF VIEW.
OF VIEW. >> HERE’S HOW I SEE IT.
FOR A VERY LONG TIME, IN THE
HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY WHEN
WOMEN SPOKE OUT ABOUT
ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OR
ABUSE, THEY WERE PRESUMED TO BE
MAKING IT UP OR CULTURALLY NOT
TALKING OR TOLD TO BE QUIET.
SO I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
IN THIS TIME AND THIS DAY THAT
WE RECOGNIZE WHEN WOMEN SPEAK
OUT THAT WE SHOULD PRESUME THAT
THEY ARE INNOCENT.
LOOK, IF SOMEONE SAYS MY CAR GOT
STOLEN, YOU DON’T PRESUME
THEY’RE LYING.
THEY’RE LYING. >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> IF SOMEONE SAYS I WAS
SEXUALLY ABUSED PEOPLE TODAY
SOMETIMES PRESUME THAT THEY’RE
MAKING IT UP, THAT THEY’RE
WHATEVER.
WHATEVER. IT SHOULD BE A PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE AND THEN HAVE A FAIR
PROCESS TO GO THROUGH TO
DETERMINE THE TRUTH.
>> DO YOU THINK A HEARING WHERE
IT’S REALLY HIS WORD, HER WORD.
WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE AND THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE
AN FBI INVESTIGATION.
THAT’S A TOUGH -- SAME QUESTION
I ASKED OF SENATOR PURDUE.
YOU’RE A HUMAN BEING, AND HOW DO
YOU DETERMINE WHO IS TELLING THE
TRUTH AND IT’S GOING TO BE YOUR
OWN GUT.
OWN GUT. >> THE SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE
NOW SET THIS UP AND THAT IS WHAT
WE’RE GOING HAVE.
DO YOU BELIEVE HER OR DO YOU
BELIEVE HIM?
BELIEVE HIM? THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE BEEN
PRESSING FOR AN FBI
INVESTIGATION THAT SHOULD ONLY
TAKE A FEW DAY, SO THERE ARE
OTHER FACTS OUT THERE AND THERE
ARE OTHER WITNESSES.
IN FACT, I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES
THAT THE ANITA HILL HEARING WAS
A DISASTER AND THEY DID HAVE AN
FBI INVESTIGATION AND THEY DID
HAVE OTHER WITNESSES AND OTHER
WAYS TO JUDGE THIS.
THE SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE
PREDETERMINED THE OUTCOME THAT
THIS IS A HE SAID SHE SAYS BY
TAKING THAT AWAY.
>> THIS WAS INTERESTING, BUT
ANITA HILL WROTE THE FOLLOWING
ON WEDNESDAY AND SHE HAD A
SUGGESTION FOR THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. SHE WROTE, THE PUBLIC EXPECTS
BETTER FROM THE GOVERNMENT FROM
1991 THAT THEY STILL LACK THE
PROTOCOL FOR VETTING THE SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND THE CONFIRMATION
HEARING SUGGESTS THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS LEARNED LITTLE
FROM THE THOMAS HEARING MUCH
LESS THE MORE RECENT ME TOO
MOVEMENT.
MOVEMENT. IT IS WHAT SHE’S SUGGESTING.
THERE IS NO PROTOCOL, RIGHT, ON
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
IS THERE A PROTOCOL OF -- YOU
GUYS DEAL WITH A LOT OF ADVICE
AND CONSENT WHEN IT COMES TO
NOMINEES.
NOMINEES. WHEN THERE IS AN ALLEGATION LIKE
THIS, IS THERE ANY PROTOCOL IN
THE SENATE LIKE THIS?
>> CLEARLY NOT, AND THIS IS WHAT
I’VE BEEN SAYING SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THIS A WEEK AGO NOW
IS THAT THE SENATE CONGRESS
FAILED THE TEST IN 1991 WITH
ANITA HILL THAT THEY CAN DEAL
WITH THIS KIND OF ALLEGATION AND
THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEAL
WITH THIS KIND OF ALLEGATION IF
WE’RE GOING TO BE PUTTING PEOPLE
ON THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND
AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.
HOW THE SENATE HANDLES THIS AND
THE SENATE REP REPS HANDLE THIS
WILL BE A TEST OF THIS TIME, OF
2018 IN THE ME TOO MOVEMENT.
CAN WE DO BETTER AND I FEAR WE
ARE FAILING THAT IF WE DON’T DO
IT CORRECTLY.
IT CORRECTLY. >> IF THERE IS NO FBI
INVESTIGATION I WANT TO SHOW YOU
SOMETHING THAT SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE SAID TO ME AND A
WARNING HE HAD FOR REPUBLICANS.
TAKE A LISTEN.
>> SOONER OR LATER, MARK MY
WORD, THERE WILL BE AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THIS.
IT MAY BE IN THE SUBSEQUENT
CONGRESS, BUT YOU CAN’T GET AWAY
WITH HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THIS
TAKE PLACE.
TAKE PLACE. >> AND I FOLLOWED UP WITH HIM
AND HE SAID YES, IF THERE IS A
DEMOCRATIC SENATE THAT MAYBE
THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP AGAIN
IF THIS DOESN’T FEEL FULLY
INVESTIGATED AND HE’S ON THE
COURT, DO YOU SUPPORT SOMETHING
LIKE THAT?
LIKE THAT? >> I UNDERSTAND THERE COULD BE
ALLEGATIONS FILED IN MARYLAND
STILL ON THIS IF HE WAS ON THE
COURT.
COURT. SO IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE GET
THIS RIGHT, AND I AM --
>> DOES THIS AFFECT HIS CURRENT
JUDGESHIP?
JUDGESHIP? >> HIS CURRENT JUDGESHIP?
>> I DON’T KNOW.
I DON’T KNOW THE FACTS AND I
DON’T KNOW THE END OF THIS AND
CERTAINLY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
IS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON’T KNOW
THE FACTS YET AND WE ALL WOULD
LIKE IT.
LIKE IT. THAT’S WHY WE ALL WANT AN FBI
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. THAT’S WHY WE WANT THIS DONE
RIGHT, BUT HERE’S WHAT I DO
KNOW, IF THE SENATE PLOWS
THROUGH THIS, IF IT’S A HICCUP,
IF THEY DON’T DO IT RIGHT, THERE
WILL BE A TREMENDOUS BACKLASH
AGAIN.
AGAIN. I WAS IN THE AIRPORT YESTERDAY
AND A WOMAN CAME UP TO ME, AN
OLDER WOMAN AND SHE SAID I WAS
TOLD 40 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS
HAPPENED TO ME DON’T SAY
ANYTHING BY MY PARENTS.
WHAT A HORRIBLE MESSAGE TO YOUNG
GIRLS TODAY.
GIRLS TODAY. WHAT A HORRIBLE MESSAGE TO YOUNG
MEN TODAY THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY
WITH THIS.
WITH THIS. LET’S GET THIS RIGHT.
>> WOULD WE BE IN THIS
SITUATION?
SITUATION? THIS SORT OF POINT WHERE IT
FEELS LIKE WE ARE SO DIVIDED IF
THE FILIBUSTER WERE STILL
AROUND.
AROUND. >> CERTAINLY, WHAT THE
FILIBUSTER DID WITH A SUPREME
COURT NOMINEE FORWARD, THAT
THERE HAD TO BE MORE OF A
CONSENSUS, THAT WE WOULD HAVE --
>> IT WOULD.
AND IT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD
HAVE PEOPLE ON THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THIS LAND THAT NEEDED TO HAVE
MORE --
MORE -- >> DEMOCRATS GET THE MAJORITY
BACK AND WILL YOU ADVOCATE FOR
CHANGE.
CHANGE. >> THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION
AND ONE THAT PHILOSOPHICALLY I
AGREE WITH, BUT I WILL TELL YOU
WHAT, WHAT IF WE DID?
WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATS PUT THE
FILIBUSTER BACK IN AND TURNED
AROUND AND THEY GOT THE MAJORITY
AND TOOK IT AWAY.
WE HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION AND
THAT TO ME IS EXTREMELY
TROUBLING.
TROUBLING. >> WELCOME TO THE FRACTURED
DEMOCRACY.
DEMOCRACY. THE OTHER WASHINGTON AS YOU GUYS