Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Report Indicates Brett Kavanaugh Involved in Altercation in College; Report Indicates President Trump Knew of Stormy Daniels Controversy Earlier than Originally Claimed; Interview With Mazie Hirono. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired October 2, 2018 - 8:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[08:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: New information raises questions about Kavanaugh's drinking in college and whether he has been honest about it, both to Congress and the American people. This is also the first time the band UB40 has ever been connected to the Supreme Court confirmation process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: One final time here. One final time.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Why limit it?

BERMAN: Let me tell you why. According to a 1985 police report obtained by CNN, after a UB40 concert, Kavanaugh was involved in a bar fight that he allegedly started. He was questioned by officers afterwards, though he was never arrested. So does this even matter?

Joining us now, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. He's a former federal prosecutor. National correspondent for "Bloomberg Business Week" Josh Green is here, and senior correspondent for "New York" magazine and co-author of "Notorious RBG" Irin Carmon. Thank you, friends, for being here. Thank you for sharing this UB40 moment.

CAMEROTA: It's even better than I remember. UB40 is even better than I remember.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Do you really think they're more on a one hit wonder?

CAMEROTA: Yes. There is another song I really liked. I can't remember the name of it, but I really liked it.

BERMAN: But Jeffrey, since you butted in on the UB40 moment, does it matter? There is a police report that Brett Kavanaugh was in a bar fight in college. He threw ice, according to this report, in someone's face. He was never arrested. So what does that tell us?

TOOBIN: In and of itself, not much. However, if you think that the broader issue here is did he lie about his drinking, and is he guilty of sexual assault, this is one piece of the puzzle that might contribute to an overall conclusion that he did lie about his drinking, and a sexual assault is somewhat more likely by someone who abuses alcohol, as all of the three women who claim to have been assaulted say that alcohol was a factor. But I don't want to suggest that this one police report is any sort of smoking gun. It is one piece of the puzzle.

CAMEROTA: Irin, that is the point. It is not that a bar fight in college would be disqualifying. It is that this is part of a puzzle that suggests that Brett Kavanaugh was not honest during that hearing, that he is not credible, that he did have bouts of belligerence, and that in terms judicial temperament, I think that even without the barfight, you could see that during the hearing that he was defiant and not the way we imagine judicial temperament, and that taken as all of these pieces it does lend credence to Christine Blasey Ford who describes someone as staggeringly drunk and belligerent, and mean, and all of those things.

IRIN CARMON, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK" MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I would just say that I think it's relevant surely inasmuch as it speaks to his credibility. He's accused of an act of aggression or multiple acts of aggression while under the influence of alcohol. When he was at that hearing last week and before that he portrayed himself as someone who was studious. He held up his grades as a reason to say he could not have done these things. And we're seeing a picture of Brett Kavanaugh as someone who becomes really aggressive under the influence of alcohol.

And I think ultimately if you understand these acts of sexual assault, these allegations of sexual assault and sexual assault in general as being about aggression, that's the context in which it needs to be seen. And I think it is more relevant than, for example, something he told us last week, which is that he was a virgin until college. Whether he acted in an aggressive manner when he was drunk I think is far more relevant.

BERMAN: Josh, I don't know if you have heard this argument, because I have overnight, and it's coming from supporters of Brett Kavanaugh, which is if throwing ice in someone's face in a bar where there was no arrest is the best you've got, if that's the most you are going to produce this week when the FBI is investigating, then you don't have a lot.

JOSHUA GREEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, again, I think you need to put this in the broader context of how Kavanaugh has portrayed himself and how that portrayal has shifted over the last two weeks. When he first interviewed with FOX News, when it looked like his nomination was in trouble as a result of these sexual assault claims, Kavanaugh presented himself as kind of a light drinking choir boy who was too busy in high school to possibly party or do anything like that. We saw immediately the pushback from classmates and people who knew better. And he tried to walk that back and concede just enough in his hearing, say, oh, yes, I like beer, but I wasn't a bad guy.

Now I think one consequence of this investigation and the weeklong delay we have had is that a fuller picture of Kavanaugh is emerging as somebody who was, according to people who knew him, a mean drunk, a sloppy drunk, certainly someone who seems more capable of committing a sexual assault and the portrayal that Kavanaugh himself gave two weeks ago. So in that sense I think that the news is significant, though, of course, throwing ice at a college kid in a bar isn't going to get somebody disqualified from a Supreme Court nomination.

[08:05:09] CAMEROTA: Irin phrased it so much better than I have. It's not just belligerence. The word I was looking for was aggression. So now there is evidence from lots of witnesses, from people who knew him in high school and college, and from a police report that he was an aggressive drunk. What more do senators need to know in terms of making their decision about whether they believe Christine Blasey Ford?

TOOBIN: It all depends on what you are trying to do as a senator. These are obviously very political decisions. Are you looking for reasons to confirm him or are you looking for reasons not to confirm him, because the evidence is likely to be ambiguous, especially in the way the FBI presents it. The FBI is not going to draw conclusions about what happened. They are going to give reports about what people say.

If you are looking for reasons to confirm, as Susan Collins, for example, clearly seems to have been saying I really don't think he's going to overturn Roe v Wade despite considerable evidence to the contrary, you could say this evidence is ambiguous, doesn't prove anything, or if you were looking to say this is a Supreme Court appointment. We're not just looking at whether he could be criminally convicted. Then you might say I don't want someone like this on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that they couldn't be convicted. Your perspective going in depends a lot on your vote coming out.

BERMAN: And especially going in, it really only matters for these three senators who are on the fence and what they are hearing from constituents. And there has been this notion that Republicans are suggesting that their basis in enraged by this and they will show up at the polls. But we have a poll now. We have this new Quinnipiac poll which shows that opposition to Brett Kavanaugh has grown. The opposition is higher now than it was a few weeks ago, six points higher. Now 48 percent saying no, and only 42 percent saying they want to see him confirmed. And among women, Irin, the opposition has grown even more. It is 55 percent now oppose the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. I wonder, as a political force, if that might be persuasive to some of these senators on the fence.

CARMON: John, I think we always have to look at which women when we talk about women's votes. I thought it was really interesting when you looked at those Quinnipiac numbers the racial breakdown on women's votes. The voters who are the most loyal to Democrats, especially African-American voters, overwhelmingly believe Dr. Blasey Ford and think that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

But I think the voters that these swing senators are going to be taking a look at is the ones who conceivably might vote for Republicans, and that is white women. And really then when you break it down still by educated versus not educated, you see that white women are pretty split, but college educated white women do not believe Kavanaugh. And that's something that will potentially be terrifying to somebody who is really thinking about whether to make this decision.

But a lot of it depends on what happens. Heidi Heitkamp might say, you know what, I've got to vote for Kavanaugh here. So I think that the assumption we made, for example, in 2016 that women would hear the allegations against Trump and run for Hillary Clinton was clearly not borne out. And I think we can't make assumptions that this new information about Brett Kavanaugh, these allegations will necessarily benefit Democrats because of the racial divisions and how women vote.

CAMEROTA: All right, we have some new reporting we want to get to right now. This from from "The Wall Street Journal." "The Wall Street Journal," this just crossed. Here it is. This is the headline sentence. "President Trump personally directed an effort in February to stop Stormy Daniels from publicly describing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump people familiar with the events say." Here's the point. This sets the timeline back further than where the president said he didn't know anything about this. He didn't know anything about payments. This was Michael Cohen just doing something really nice for his friend, the president. And, so, this shows direct involvement. Oh, and the president also directed his son, Eric Trump, according to this report, to help with this in the effort to silence Stormy Daniels, and it shows for the first time the direct involvement of the president and his son. Jeffrey?

TOOBIN: Well, it stands to reason that the president was highly exercised about this. We didn't know this until "The Wall Street Journal" reported it, but it is certainly in keeping with the president's continued involvement with his companies, notwithstanding his claim that he wouldn't be, and also just the fact that he is deeply engaged in the legal fights against him.

BERMAN: And, Josh, I don't have the exact timeline because we're just seeing this article for the first time, but if he's directing the response to Stormy Daniels, including at one point wanting to pay for the legal fees, I'll take care of everything, he says in February of 2018, that is so much earlier than he had previously admitted knowledge of this out loud to the American people.

[08:10:06] Sara Sanders out loud to the American people denying the president had anything to do with it. So this really does show once again, if this article is true, that he just wasn't being straight, that he was out and out lying about his involvement over this whole issue.

GREEN: And what this article shows is at every step the president and his aides have intentionally misled reporters as to what happened. The original "Wall Street Journal" article reporting the Stormy Daniels allegation appeared on January 12th. At that time Trump claimed to have absolutely no knowledge. The White House said he had no knowledge of payments of anything having to do with the "National Enquirer." About a month later it turns out there were payments. The president's line then was he didn't know about them in advance and only found out later. Now we found out not only did he know about it at the time, but he was directing this response. And so it just shows the entire pushback literally from day one has been a lie.

BERMAN: Lies. Not untruths. Not he didn't have the information. But if this article is right, he was just lying.

GREEN: It certainly appears that way. I mean, it is possible some of his staff didn't know the whole truth or he didn't confide in them or wasn't honest with them. But certainly everything he said about how he didn't know in advance about how this is something Michael Cohen was only he doing on his own, none of that was true according to this article.

CAMEROTA: There's also Irin a no comment from several key players. Jay Sekulow, the president lawyer, the Trump Organization, and Lanny David, Michael Cohen's lawyer. So I don't know. Your thoughts? I think that Americans, again, have sort of decided in their minds whether or not the president knew about Stormy Daniels.

CARMON: I guess I would just say we have a split screen here in which the White House is asking the U.S. Senate to confirm someone to a lifetime appointment at the same time that that White House is not being truthful with the American people. And I just think that's something to think about because once someone is on the Supreme Court they're not accountable to the voters, but the senators will be.

BERMAN: And this is the first time, Jeffrey, that we see Eric Trump's name involved in any process. Donald Trump Jr., of course, involved in the Russia investigation.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: This is unpleasant to be tasked with getting rid of your father's alleged --

TOOBIN: Alleged paramour, yes. It's an unpleasant story. But it just shows how concerned the president was from day one about this, and it turns out for good reason, because this story has blown up in his face. It is a major embarrassment. Whether it has changed anyone's mind about who Donald Trump is, I don't know. Even looking about these polls about Kavanaugh, basically any question you ask comes out about the same way. And 55 percent to 60 percent of the public disagrees with Trump, doesn't like Trump, 35 percent to 40 percent is supportive of Trump. It doesn't matter whether it is tax cuts or Stormy Daniels or the people at the border. Just the questions almost always come out the same way.

BERMAN: Again, we have the president on tape talking about payments in relation to the Karen McDougal matter in the "National Enquirer" here, so this just goes to that same point. This is a terrific report from the "Wall Street Journal." I think it raises a whole bunch of new questions about just how honest or dishonest the president has been with the American people on this matter.

CAMEROTA: Irin, Josh, Jeffrey, thank you all.

BERMAN: The White House says there is not any limit to the FBI's investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. Does that give Democrats confidence? We're going to ask one of the key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:15:00]

BERMAN: The White House says there are no limits to the FBI's background search on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the FBI to interview two dozen witnesses in their investigation into these allegations of sexual misconduct.

Joining us now, Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, who is on the Judiciary Committee. Senator, thanks very much for being with us.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, (D) HAWAII: Good morning.

BERMAN: If I can, I want to ask you about these new developments that we found out overnight. These police documents that show that Brett Kavanaugh threw ice in someone's face during a bar fight when he was in college. Do you feel that that is, in any way, disqualifying from someone to sit in the Supreme Court?

HIRONO: This is why we need a FBI investigation because there are a lot of allegations and the reports really are about how he behaves when he is drunk. So, that is very relevant and the portrayal of himself as practically a choir boy is very much contradicted by his roommate, for example, in college as well as people who knew him in high school. Why we need a FBI investigation, why we've been calling for one for what seems like months.

BERMAN: Some of his supporters will say, during his testimony he said, he admitted, sometimes he drank too much. Couldn't his just be an example of sometimes he drank too much, and yes, he was in a bar fight, but he wasn't arrested.

HIRONO: It all goes to how he behaves when he's drunk, because that's the crux of all these allegations. His very aggressive behavior, belligerent behavior when he his drunk. And for someone to say, I never did any of this, then it's contradicted by people who knew him, one has to wonder. This is why the FBI needs to go talk to all of these people and let the Senators decide on Judge Kavanaugh's credibility, candor and I have to say, his temperament.

BERMAN: What are the limits, as so far as you understand them this morning, of the FBI investigation?

HIRONO: We started off understanding that the FBI investigation was going to be so limited as to not ever be credible, that it would be, as I have put it, a farce. But now we're learning that, perhaps, it will be much more wide open and that the FBI will be able to do the job that they do and that's good news. I hope that that's what's going to happen in the three days that we have left.

BERMAN: So, just to be clear, you are encouraged by what you have heard most recently about he scope of the investigation? HIRONO: I am encouraged, but then we have also asked, I signed a letter asking Don McGahn and Chris Wray, the FBI Director, and President Trump's Chief of Staff, can you send us the written parameters that you've placed for the FBI, because I have to say, this Administration says a lot of things from the president. I'd like to see certain things in writing at this point.

BERMAN: Have you seen anything in writing as of this morning?

[08:20:00]

HIRONO: No.

BERMAN: Nothing in writing?

HIRONO: No.

BERMAN: Any verbal response from the White House on that request?

HIRONO: All we hear is the President saying that the FBI will do whatever they do, but it has to manifest itself in some kind of direction to the FBI. That's what we've asked from Don McGahn and (ph) so far - as far as I know, we don't any response.

BERMAN: All right, so ...

HIRONO: And I hope the FBI is going ahead and doing the jobs that their supposed to be doing in a professional, objective way.

BERMAN: And the evidence you've seen so far is that they are?

HIRONO: We haven't seen any evidence. What we were hearing is that some of the reporting that I heard is that the FBI was being limited, but my hope is that they're going to do their jobs.

BERMAN: Fast forward to Friday because Senator Mitch McConnell has said that he's holding a vote on this, this week, one way or another. The FBI has three days to finish their investigation.

What is your comment to Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jeff Flake of Arizona? What do you want them to know as they make this decision about whether to support Judge Kavanaughs confirmation? What do you want to point to or what would you want them to get from what the FBI is looking into?

HIRONO: It's not just what the FBI is looking into, although I hope that the FBI investigation will reveal various inconsistencies in what Judge Kavanaugh testified to and all the people that the FBI will investigate. But what they need to look at in my view is his record and his outcome driven attitude towards the cases before him, and this all were the areas of inquiry from all of us, myself included, regarding Judge Kavanaugh.

He has a pattern of making decisions that limit a women's right to choose, that should be a major concern to Susan Collins. He has certain attitudes about native people that should be a major concern to Lisa Murkowski. And so we can't - I hope that they're not just banking everything on the FBI report.

There is enough evidence of this pattern of decision making, not to mention his very expansive views of presidential protections because he has - he's the only one that wrote that the President should be immune from any kind of criminal or civil proceedings while he's sitting in office. I'm sure this President really paid a lot of attention to those views.

BERMAN: If it is just his views, Jeff Flake has made clear he's a conservative judge. Jeff Flake said he's a conservative Senator if it's just about his views. I think that Jeff Flake is inclined to vote yes. I want to get your take on something else that's in the news this morning.

The Washington Post had an interesting article and the headline was, Male Fury and Fear Rises in GOP in Defense of Kavanaugh. It's the notion that men feel like they're being unfairly target by allegations of sexual assault, and the President's son, Donald Trump Jr., spoke to that in this interview.

If I can I want to play you part of that, listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you scared most for, your sons or your daughters?

DONALD TRUMP JR: I mean right now, I'd say my sons. When the other side weaponizes it again men and says 40 years later we can bring it up, and you did something in high school that nobody remembers, but it should disqualify you from ever doing anything again, it really diminishes the real claims.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: What are your responses to the President's son?

HIRONO: It falls from a belief that unfortunately too many people have, especially men that women just sit around making these stories up. It's not true. Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes, and you can see why because when women come forward, and by the way thousands of them are coming forward to share their very painful, traumatic stories that they never reported. And these are kinds of attitudes that it make it really tough for them to come forward.

The men in this country, particularly, should make sure that their sons, particularly, are raised in such a way that they respect women, don't assault them, don't harass them, all of that, but this kind of attitude that is exemplified by the piece of just - that I just listened to, yeah, they think that it falls from a fear and mistrust of women.

BERMAN: Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii thanks for being with us this morning. Please come back.

HIRONO: You're welcome, sure.

CAMEROTA: All right, John, next we go inside Vladimir Putin's secret operation to influence the 2016 Election. The new book, it goes beyond what we've heard so far.

[08:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: For two years, Americans have tried to make sense of the Russian plot to disrupt the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate and there are still so many questions. Joining us now, a man who has some answers, Greg Miller, National Security Correspondent for the "Washington Post" and author of the new book, "The Apprentice. Trump, Russia and the Subversion of American Democracy". Greg, great to have you here.

GREG MILLER, NATIONAL SEURITY CORRESPONDENT FOR THE "WASHINGTON POST" AND AUTHOR: So nice to be here, thank you.

HARLOW: So it's a great book. You call it "The Apprentice" which of course has many different references and meanings, but are you trying to suggest that President Trump is Vladimir Putin's apprentice somehow?

MILLER: Yes, exactly. So "The Apprentice" is a title I think worked on a lot of levels. The show that propelled Trump to enormous fame obviously. He arrives in the White House with so little training that he has at times seemed to be an apprentice in the job. But there is also this aspect of subservience in his relationship with Vladimir Putin and we see it over and over and over again.

HARLOW: And in your reporting what is that about? I mean that's the $64,000 question that everyone wonders. Why is he deferential to Vladimir Putin and is it because there is some sort of compromising material compromat is the word we've learned over the past two years, that Vladimir Putin has?

MILLER: I will say two things about that. First, I think that it is psychological for trump. He has an affinity for a strong man. His vision of what a leader looks like resembles Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is somebody he envies in terms of how he runs the government of Russia.

[08:30:00]