[ APPLAUSE ]
>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
HAPPY MONDAY.
WELCOME TO THE SHOW.
I'M MEGYN KELLY.
HOPE YOU HAD A GREAT WEEKEND.
IT WAS A VERY BUSY ONE IN THE
NEWS.
JOINING ME NOW TO DISCUSS WHAT'S
MAKING THE ROUNDS TODAY, TE
STEPHANIE GOSK, JO LING KENT AND
JOE LEVY.
HAPPY MONDAY.
WE BEGIN WITH A BOMBSHELL
INFORMATION ABOUT BRETT
KAVANAUGH.
HE WAS ALL BUT CONFIRMED OVER
THE WEEKEND.
AND NOW, THERE'S QUESTIONS.
OVER THE WEEKEND, A WOMAN CAME
FORWARD WITH ACCUSATIONS OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT AGAINST KAVANAUGH
WHEN BOTH WERE IN HIGH SCHOOL 30
YEARS AGO.
KAVANAUGH STRONGLY DENIES IT.
AND NOW, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT
SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
NBC'S KRISTEN WELKER HAS THE
LATEST.
WATCH THIS.
>> NOW, JUDGE --
>> Reporter: THIS MORNING, NEW
SCRUTINY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, BRETT
KAVANAUGH.
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, A COLLEGE
PROFESSOR, ACCUSING KAVANAUGH OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT WHEN THEY WERE IN
HIGH SCHOOL.
FORD DESCRIBED KAVANAUGH AS
STUMBLING DRUNK AT A HOUSE PARTY
WHEN SHE CLAIMS HE PINNED HER TO
A BED AND GROPED HER WHEN
ANOTHER TEENAGE BOY WATCHED.
FORD TOLD "THE POST," HE WAS
TRYING TO ATTACK ME.
WHEN I TRIED TO SCREAM, HE PUT
HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH.
I THOUGHT HE MIGHT INADVERTENTLY
KILL ME, FORD TOLD "THE POST."
FORD LAID OUT THE ALLEGATIONS IN
A CONFIDENTIAL LETTER, RECEIVED
BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN BACK
IN JULY.
WHY IS FORD GOING PUBLIC NOW?
SHE SAYS AFTER BEING BOMBARDED
BY REPORTERS, SHE DECIDED IT WAS
TIME.
>> SHE JUST FELT LIKE, AS SHE
PUT IT, THESE WERE THE ILLS I
WAS TRYING TO AVOID.
AND THEY'VE COME TO PASS ANYWAY.
SO, I'M GOING TO DO IT.
>> Reporter: THE WHITE HOUSE
SAYING ON FRIDAY, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH CATEGORICALLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY DENIED THIS
ALLEGATION.
THIS HAS NOT CHANGED.
JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND THE WHITE
HOUSE BOTH STAND BY THAT
STATEMENT.
ON CAPITOL HILL, BIPARTISAN
CALLS TO DELAY THIS WEEK'S
COMMITTEE VOTE ON KAVANAUGH.
REPUBLICAN SENATOR, JEFF FLAKE,
WHOSE VOTE COULD BREAK THE
NOMINATION, NOW TELLING "THE
WASHINGTON POST," FOR ME WE
CAN'T VOTE UNTIL WE HEAR MORE.
WHILE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN CHUCK
GRASSLEY IS QUESTIONING THE
TIMING OF THE REVELATION.
ADDING, JUDGE KAVANAUGH'S
BACKGROUND HAS BEEN VETTED BY
THE FBI ON SIX DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS.
MAINE'S REPUBLICAN SENATOR,
SUSAN COLLINS, IS A SWING VOTE
AND WAS PRESSED OVERNIGHT.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE ACCUSER?
>> I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO MAKE A
JUDGMENT AT THIS POINT.
>> THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER,
RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRY
TO LOOK INTO THIS WEEK.
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?
THE VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR
COMMITTEE ON THURSDAY.
CHUCK GRASSLEY IS IN CHARGE OF
WHETHER THAT GOES FORWARD AND
APPEARS TO BE FULL STEAM AHEAD
ON IT.
AND I'LL START WITH THIS -- HIS
POINT IS, THIS WOMAN CAME
FORWARD TO DIANNE FEINSTEIN IN
LATE JULY.
THEY HAD BRETT KAVANAUGH FOR
FOUR DAYS ON CAPITOL HILL.
THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WHO HAD
BEEN NOTIFIED OF IT HAD PRIVATE
ONE-ON-ONES WITH KAVANAUGH.
THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY --
THEY'VE KNOWN AND HAD A CHANCE
TO RAISE IT WITH THEM AND THEY
DIDN'T.
NOW, WE'RE FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE
VOTE, FIVE DAYS, WHATEVER IT WAS
YESTERDAY.
AND NOW, WE KNOW HER NAME, WE
KNOW THE ALLEGATIONS AND SHOULD
THIS STYMIE THE ALLEGATIONS, AS
A DUE PROCESS MATTER?
>> IS IT THAT IT CAME UP IN
MEETINGS BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY
BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT HER NAME
REVEALED?
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL SHE DECIDED
SHE WANTED TO BE NAMED.
UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT SHE TRIED TO
DO WAS TO DO THIS ANONYMOUSLY
AND HAVE IT AFFECT THE VOTE.
BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC PROCESS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE ONLY WAY
TO DO SIT TO COME OUT PUBLICLY.
AND NOW, THE PUBLIC SHOULD HEAR
HER STORY.
YOU HAD KELLYANNE CONWAY SAYING,
THERE SHOULD BE A HEARING ON
THIS.
AND I'M STRUCK BY GRASSLEY'S
COMMENTS.
HE'S BASICALLY SAYING THIS WAS
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT AS A
THEORY.
LOOK AT THE TIMING OF IT.
ABSOLUTELY.
>> AND SHE'S A DEMOCRATIC DONOR.
>> YEAH.
BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE
FACT THAT SOMETHING THAT IS
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CAN ALSO
BE TRUE.
THE EVENTS COULD HAVE HAPPENED
EVEN IF THE REVELATION OF THEM
WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
>> AND THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED OR
POLITICALLY MANAGED.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROCESS
THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN RUSHED.
WHERE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF
PAGES REGARDING KAVANAUGH'S TIME
IN THE HOUSE WITH GEORGE W.
BUSH, WERE PRESENTED TO
DEMOCRATS AT THE LAST HOUR.
>> THAT SHIP HAS SAILED.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THIS.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS, SHOULD WE
BE RUSHING NOW?
>> YOU DON'T USE A #METOO
ALLEGATION TO DELAY A
CONFIRMATION VOTE WITH A SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE, BECAUSE YOU'RE
NOT HAPPY YOU DON'T GET
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE
ALLEGATION.
>> LET'S SEPARATE THEM.
SHOULD WE TAKE OUR TIME AND GIVE
THIS A THOROUGH HEARING?
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAY BE A
POSSIBILITY HERE, ESPECIALLY
AFTER WHAT HAS BEEN SAID.
HER LAWYER WENT ON THE "TODAY"
SHOW AND SAID SHE WOULD BE
WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN
A PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT'S A MAJOR STEP FOR SOMEONE
THAT DIDN'T WANT TO BE
IDENTIFIED.
SHE'S REPORTEDLY RECEIVING A LOT
OF HATE MAIL.
SCARY STUFF COME INBOUND NOW.
SHE'S WILLING TO SPEAK OUT.
THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
SPEAK OUT.
>> THE STAKES ARE HIGHER WHEN
THERE'S POLITICS INVOLVED.
WE SAW IT WITH THE ROY MOORE
ACCUSERS, AS WELL.
TWO WOMEN CAME ON THIS SHOW AND
THEY WERE REPUBLICANS.
BUT SOME REPUBLICANS BACKING HIM
SAID IT'S POLITICAL AND ROY
MOORE SAYING, I'M A POLITICAL.
I DON'T LIKE THIS MAN AND I HAD
THIS EXPERIENCE WITH HIM.
IT 'S DICIER BECAUSE SHE IS A
DEMOCRATIC DONOR.
HER LAWYER IS A DEMOCRATIC
HER LAWYER WAS VERY DEFENSIVE OF
BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ACCUSED
OF PAULA JONES AND SAID ONE
ALLEGATION OF BILL CLINTON
ALLEGEDLY TAKING OUT HIS PRIVATE
PARTS IN FRONT OF PAULA JONES,
WASN'T ENOUGH FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT.
BUT NOW, WANTS THE SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION NOT TO GO FORWARD
BECAUSE OF THIS ONE ALLEGATION.
IF CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS
MAKING IT UP, SHE CHOSE AN
INTERESTING WAY TO DO IT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE UP AN
ALLEGATION, WHY DO YOU PUT
ANOTHER PERSON IN THE ROOM?
YEARS AGO, THEY WERE AT A PARTY.
SHE HAD A ONE-PIECE BATHING SUIT
ON WITH CLOTHES ON.
AND CAKAVANAUGH GOT HER ON A BE.
THERE WAS A THIRD PERSON, MARK
JUDGE, A FRIEND OF KAVANAUGH'S
WHO JUMPED ON TOP OF THEM.
TWICE.
SECOND TIME, SHE GOT LOOSE AND
RUN TO A BATHROOM AND SAVE
HERSELF.
WHY DO YOU PUT ANOTHER PERSON IN
THE ROOM AND WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A
FRIEND OF THE ALLEGED
PERPETRATOR?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER
DETAILS, TOO.
IN 2014, SHE TALKED ABOUT IT IN
THERAPY WITH HER HUSBAND.
THE FACT THAT, DEBRA KATZ, THINK
OF HER WHAT YOU MAY, HAD HER DO
A POLYGRAPH.
>> THE POLYGRAPH, BEFORE YOU GO.
THE POLYGRAPH TO ME JUMPED OUT.
SHE SAID, THE POLYGRAPH
STATEMENT REFLECTED HER PASSING
THE ADMISSION THAT HER STATEMENT
SUMMARIZING THE FACTS OF WHAT
HAPPENED, SHE PASSED WHEN ASKED
ABOUT THAT.
I WOULDN'T PUT TOO MUCH WEIGHT
ON THE POLYGRAPH.
THEY'RE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN COURT
FOR A REASON.
AND SECOND OF ALL, WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT SHE SAID YES TO OR WHO
ADMINISTERED IT.
IT WAS A FORMER FBI AGENT.
BUT WHAT CRITERIA DID SHE USE?
>> TO GO TO THE FIRST POINT THAT
STEPHANIE WAS MAKING, THIS WAS
SOMETHING SHE'S BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY HER
HUSBAND AND THERAPIST, IN
THERAPY SINCE 2012.
>> THERE ARE NOTES.
>> IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR A VICTIM
TO TAKE THIS LONG AND PROCESS TO
TALK ABOUT EVENTS FROM A
CHILDHOOD MOMENT.
>> SHE WAS 15 WHEN THIS
ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED.
>> IF THIS IS SOMETHING -- I
MEAN, THIS WOULD BE
EXTRAORDINARILY ODD AND
EXTRAORDINARILY ODD WAY OF GOING
ABOUT SOMETHING ENGINEERED.
>> THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, IS
THAT -- I THOUGHT HER BEST FACT
WAS THE FACT THAT THE STORY
ITSELF DOESN'T SOUND LIKE
SOMEBODY MAKING IT UP OUT OF
WHOLE CLOTH.
AND WHY WOULD SHE STOP IT AT, HE
DIDN'T COMPLETE THE ASSAULT.
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A SHOT AT
SOMEBODY, I THINK IT WOULD BE A
LITTLE GRANDER AND YOU WOULDN'T
PUT A WITNESS IN THE ROOM.
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE
REASON TO MAKE SOMETHING UP,
STARTING IN 2012?
>> IT COULD HAVE BEEN HIS A
>> YOU COULD SAY, HE WAS
ASCENDING IN THE HALLS OF POWER.
HE WAS ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.
MAYBE HE BLEW HER OFF.
SHE'S HAD AN ACTXAXE TO GRIND.
GOING WITH THE MOST COMPLETE
THEORY ON THE DEFENSIVE END.
IT'S BEEN 34 YEARS.
HE WAS ALLEGEDLY 17 WHEN IT
HAPPENED.
HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND
HIMSELF?
THERE'S A REASON WE HAVE STATUES
OF LIMITATION IN THIS COUNTRY.
THAT'S BECAUSE, THIS ISN'T A
CRIMINAL CASE, BUT THAT'S
BECAUSE MEMORY FADES AND DETAILS
FADE AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM
TO PROVE A NEGATIVE.
I DIDN'T DO IT HIS FRIEND CAME
FORWARD AND SAID, ABSOLUTELY
NOT.
KAVANAUGH'S DEFENSE IS
UNEQUIVOCAL.
>> HIS FRIEND WHO HAS WRITTEN A
MEMOIR ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE WITH
TEENAGE ALCOHOLISM.
>> YOU KNOW AS I DO, JOE.
>> AND SAID HE WAS A BLACKOUT
>> YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO,
BEING A DRUNK, FOOLISH TEENAGER,
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU ARE
SOMEBODY THAT COMMITS SEXUAL
ASSAULTS.
AND KAVANAUGH IS NOT ADMITTING
TO BEING A RECOVERING ALCOHOLIC.
>> AND THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS EXIST.
WHAT DO YOU DO AS A SENATOR WITH
THESE COMPETING NARRATIVES?
>> IS THIS ENOUGH TO REFLECT ON
SOMEONE'S CHARACTER.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS TO
DECIDE, WITH ALL OF THE FACTS
THEY CAN GET.
>> YOU HAVE TO FEEL FOR HER.
UNLESS THIS WOMAN IS INSANE AND
MADE THIS UP, SHE'S ABOUT TO BE
PUT THROUGH IT.
SHE'S ABOUT TO BE PUT THROUGH
IT.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY SHE DIDN'T
WANT TO ATTACH HER NAME TO THIS
TO BEGIN WITH.
BUT SHE'S GOING TO GET
CROSS-EXAMINED AND PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO LOOK INTO HER HISTORY.
IF THEY DERAIL A SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION, IS SHE A LIAR?
HAS SHE ACCUSED OTHERS.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
DUKE CASE.
IT WAS ALL LIES IN THE DUKE
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S THE
CASE HERE.
>> THE SUPREME COURT IS A
LIFETIME APPOINTMENT.
IF THIS GUY DOES HAVE A HISTORY,
OF ATTACKING A WOMAN, OF
SEXUALLY ATTACKING A WOMAN, WE
NEED TO KNOW.
IF IT'S NOT, IF YOU CAN'T PROVE
IT TO PEOPLE'S SATISFACTION, IT
SHOULD BE CONFIRMED.
TRUMP GETS HIS VOTE.
DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO GET RID
OF HIM OF KAVANAUGH, BECAUSE
TH