Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Trump Mocks Ford at Rally; Dispute over Polygraph Text; Backlash Over Trump Attacks; White House Briefing. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired October 3, 2018 - 13:00   ET

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


[13:00:00] JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: National Security Adviser John Bolton will make a statement at well. Stay tuned for us for that.

Thanks for joining us on INSIDE POLITICS today. Have a great afternoon.

"WOLF" starts right now.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington. Thanks very much for joining us.

Take a look at this, live pictures coming in from the White House Briefing Room. Any moment now we're told to see -- we will be seeing the press secretary, Sarah Sanders, begin taking questions from the press. John Bolton, the president's national security adviser, will make a statement, answer reporters' questions at the same time.

By the way, this will be the first briefing by Sarah Sanders in nearly a month.

And it comes as criticism grows over comments President Trump made at a rally last night mocking Professor Christine Blasey Ford and her testimony. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I had one beer, right? I had one beer. Well, you think it was -- nope, it was one beer. Oh, good.

How did you get home? I don't remember. How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How much years ago was it? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What neighborhood was it in? I don't know. Where's the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember.

And a man's life is in tatters. A man's life is shattered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Professor Ford's attorney fired right back calling it, and I'm quoting now, a vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. And here's how undecided Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona reacted this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R), ARIZONA: There's no time and no place for remarks like that. But to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just -- it's just not right. It's just not right. I wish he hadn't have done it. I'd just say it's -- it's kind of appalling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's bring in our White House -- chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. He's over in the Briefing Room getting ready for this briefing.

Jim, staffers had been relieved by the president's rather measured comments over the past several days, but that dramatically changed last night.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that brief era of Trump restraint is over, Wolf. He made that clear last night at that rally in Mississippi when he mocked Christine Blasey Ford, called into question her recollection of what she says was a sexual assault committed by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

And, Wolf, the White House has also been somewhat on the defensive on all of this. Earlier this morning, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said that she feels that Christine Blasey Ford has been treated as a, quote, faberge egg, is the way she described it to reports. That's essentially that she's been handled with kid gloves in all of this. I think that's a sense, Wolf, that we're getting, that the gloves are coming off for this White House and perhaps it's because they know that this is going to be a very close vote.

But, Wolf, as in so many cases with the president when he makes comments of that magnitude, it has a toxic effect. And it is turning off members of his own party. You just played some of that sound from Senator Jeff Flake, who has already been successful in delaying this process, but also Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski have also come out and said that this was wrong, in the words of Senator Collins. Lisa Murkowski said that this was unacceptable and that she was taking everything into account. That was a pretty stern warning from the senator from Alaska that the president's comments may be backfiring with even members of his own party.

But, Wolf, you know, it is also remarkable, we should point out, that Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, is going to be having a briefing here in a few moments. It's scheduled to start at 1:00. The national security adviser, John Bolton, is also slated to join. He'll be here in a few moments as well. We have rarely seen the White House press secretary in the White House Briefing Room in recent weeks, as you know, Wolf. You know, as you can tell the reporters in the room here had no trouble finding this location. They were able to find their way into the Briefing Room.

But make no mistake, Wolf, there's a lot of pent up energy in this room, a lot of questions from these reporters that they want to ask. Not just about Christine Blasey Ford and the president's comments on Christine Blasey Ford, which, you know, as you mentioned, the president was being restrained about this up until last night, last week telling us that he thought her testimony was credible.

But, Wolf, there's also that bombshell report in "The New York Times" about how the Trump family shielded President Trump from millions -- hundreds of millions of dollars potentially in taxes. And that has obviously fought against the president's claims during the campaign that he was something of a self-made billionaire. So, Wolf, I suspect that question will come up as well.

We'll see how long this briefing goes. Many of these recent briefings we've seen from Sarah Sanders have only been in the neighborhood of 18, 20 minutes. Contrast that with press secretaries from the Barack Obama administration when you would have a White House briefing that would last well over an hour. That is rarity in the Trump White House.

[13:05:04] And -- but (INAUDIBLE) time since the last briefing, so perhaps we'll get a little more (INAUDIBLE) press secretary when she comes into the room, Wolf.

BLITZER: We'll see what happens momentarily we're told.

Jim Acosta, thank you very much. There is important news just into CNN. One of Professor Christine Blasey Ford's friends is now disputing a Republican attack over a polygraph.

I want to go to our law enforcement analyst, Josh Campbell, who's working the story for us.

So, Josh, tell our viewers what you have discovered.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Hi, Wolf.

Well, the ongoing controversy surrounding embattled Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the continued disputes between stories with different parties has taken a new step. The latest development that we've seen stems from a report yesterday in Fox News -- from Fox News where a former boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, this is the California professor who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault, we all remember the testimony last week where she was testifying to the fact that, you know, she had taken a polygraph exam. She was asked whether or not she had intentionally helped anyone else, whether a familiar experience with the polygraph, whether she had helped anyone beat that polygraph. A former boyfriend had actually submitted a letter to the Senate testifying and certifying that he witnessed, back in the '90s, Dr. Ford helped coach one of her friends on how to beat the polygraph exam. This is reported yesterday by Fox News.

Senator Chuck Grassley has since seized on this letter and is attempting to gather additional information regarding whether Dr. Ford was indeed truthful.

Now, here's the news, Wolf. CNN spoke with the friend of Dr. Ford, who is Monica McLanclain (ph). She is a retired FBI agent who is speaking out and vehemently denying the allegation that she received any coaching whatsoever from anyone regarding any polygraph exams. Again, she was a friend of Dr. Ford's. She remains a friend of Dr. Ford. But is vehemently denying these reports by the boyfriend that CNN has now learned and identified as Brian Merrick (ph).

It's an ongoing debate that will continue. We'll continue to gather additional information as we go back and forth. But as of right now, we are learning those details that this person in this report is speaking out vehemently denying these allegations against Dr. Ford.

Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, significant. Thank you very much. Josh Campbell with that report.

Joining us now, the Hawaii senator, Mazie Hirono. She's a Democrat. She's a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D), HAWAII: Good to be with you. Aloha.

BLITZER: All right so let's -- as we await the start of this White House briefing, let's get through some of the sensitive issues that have come up.

You called the comments by the president typical of his behavior. Your Republican colleagues seem to also be stumping -- stepping up their attacks on Professor Ford and other Kavanaugh accusers, trying to discredit them, like the president did.

Do you believe that there is a new, coordinated strategy underway?

HIRONO: Well, the Republicans are making clear that for someone like Dr. Ford, you know, we -- one, we don't want to hear from you, but if we do hear from you we're going to rig it so that there are no other witnesses and there's no investigation. The president went to a new low yesterday, even for him, in mocking Dr. Ford because survivors of these kinds of assaults often do not remember peripheral thing that occur, such as how many rooms, et cetera. But one thing that she was 100 percent clear on is that it was Brett Kavanaugh who attacked her.

BLITZER: There's no doubt that she was very, very clear on that. Your Republican colleagues, but they are also stepping up their criticism once again. Do you see some sort of new, coordinated strategy underway?

HIRONO: I think there's very much a desire on the part of the Republicans to continue to fast track this nomination. And if it means that they're going to -- I hope they're not the ones who are the source of this so-called attack on Dr. Ford by her ex-boyfriend. But, if so, this is just all part of the effort by the Republicans to push this nomination through at all cost. And I just am very distressed.

You know, the message to all the survivors of these assaults throughout our country is that, one, we don't want to hear from you and if you do come forward, we'll rig it and you won't be believed. That is not how we should be treating survivors of sexual assault in our country, which, by the way, is very underreported.

BLITZER: We're told that the FBI report could be completed maybe even as early as today, submitted to the White House, then to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you want it to be made public or are -- would you be happy if just senators, some key staffers had access to it so they could review what the FBI has come up with?

HIRONO: I have been saying that with all of the revelations, I would like the -- this part of the process to be as transparent as possible. I realize that there are some agreements, some limitations, et cetera, but these are not normal times. And I think the public needs to know how extensive the FBI investigation was and whether it's the kind of investigation that they normally would have conducted. And from everything I've been hearing, that is not the case.

[13:10:14] BLITZER: The number two Republican, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, he says that you, the Democrats, are employing what he describes as despicable tactics in an attempt to destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I want you to respond to that accusation.

HIRONO: Judge Kavanaugh, at his hearing, said -- well, it was astounding and bizarre that he claimed that there is some kind of a vast left wing conspiracy to do him in. But he very clearly did not include Dr. Ford in that so-called conspiracy. So that means that we left with Dr. Ford's credible report, her testimony and the continuing denial, just bold face denials by Judge Kavanaugh. He didn't do it.

But there are enough inconsistencies I would say that I hope an FBI report will -- and investigation will disclose. But at this point, I'm not so sure. And for the Republicans, who have just been fast tracking this nomination without the normal parameters of an investigation when new evidence comes through, witnesses heard from, it's rich for them to be accusing us of trying to push something through.

BLITZER: It looks like Sarah Sanders making an opening statement.

I want to -- well, we're watching this a little bit. Let's listen in, senator, for a moment.

LINDA MCMAHON, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION: And for his support of the small business administration. He clearly understands the value of small businesses. There are approximately 30 million of them in this country. And I'm very happy to be their advocate.

This money's going to be used in our Veterans Program. We're going to establish a -- a seven-month intensive training program called Emerging Leaders. It's an adaptation of that program for our veterans, helping them transition from military life into private sector, if they desire to start their own jobs and -- their own companies and be entrepreneurs.

So once again, we thank the president very much for this. And it will be put to very good use. Thank you all very much.

SANDERS: Thank you, Administrator McMahon.

Now I'd like to bring up National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton to discuss the withdrawal from the Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. He'll take some questions after some remarks, then I'll be up to take questions of the day. Thanks.

Ambassador?

BOLTON: Thank you, Sarah.

Earlier today, Secretary of State Pompeo made a very important announcement regarding the president's decision to terminate the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, a treaty Iran made a mockery of with its support for terrorism, provocative ballistic missile proliferation and malign behavior throughout the Middle East.

Today's decision by the International Court of Justice was a defeat for Iran. It correctly rejected nearly all of Iran's requests, but we are disappointed that the ICJ failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order with respect to sanctions the United States imposes to protect its own essential security under the treaty. Instead, the court allowed Iran to use it as a forum for propaganda.

The Iranian regime has systematically pursued a policy of hostility toward the United States that defames the central premise of the Treaty of Amity. The regime cannot practice animosity in its conduct, and then ask for amity under international law.

In addition to the Treaty of Amity, I am announcing that the president has decided that the United States will withdraw from the Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant, challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

I'd like to stress, the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention.

Our actions today are consistent with the decisions President Reagan made in the 1980s in the wake of the politicized suits against the United States by Nicaragua to terminate our acceptance of the Optional Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36-2 of the ICJ statute, and his decision to withdraw from a bilateral treaty with Nicaragua.

[13:15:00] It is also consistent with the decision President Bush made in 2005 to withdraw from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations following the ICJ's interference in our domestic criminal justice system.

So our actions today deal with the treaties and current litigation involving the United States before the International Court of Justice. Given this history and Iran's abuse of the ICJ, we will commence a

review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice. The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.

That concludes the statement. I'd be happy to try and answer a few questions.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

In response to the actions that you've just announced, Iran's foreign minister has called the U.S. an outlaw regime. I wanted to get your reaction to that.

And I also wanted to ask you, if I may, Mr. Ambassador, about North Korea, with the announcement that the secretary of state is going to be traveling to Pyongyang. Do you trust Kim Jong-un? Do you personally trust Kim Jong-un?

BOLTON: Well, with respect to questions outside the scope of our withdrawal from these two treaties, I'm going to pass on those, because we want to emphasize the -- the steps that the president authorized in connection with those two treaties.

You know, Iran is a rogue regime. It has been a threat throughout the Middle East, not only for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it's acted for decades as the central banker of international terrorism. And its hostile and aggressive military behavior in the region today is a breach of international peace and security. So I don't take what they say seriously at all.

Sir?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

Two questions for you, first on the Treaty of Amity. Are there any practical effects for Iran? (inaudible) to keep an interest section here in the United States, first -- first off?

And second, are you at all concerned about the message it sends to the people of Iran, sort of, canceling (ph) (inaudible) that this could be used to -- by the Iranian government for domestic purposes and for propaganda against the United States?

BOLTON: No.

Look, our -- our dispute is with the ayatollahs who have taken Iran from a respected position in the international community to being a rogue state. Our dispute has never been with the people of Iran. We -- we only wish they had the ability to control their own government.

QUESTION: And then on the interest section part?

BOLTON: No. It won't have any effect on that.

Sir?

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, canceling those two treaties, I -- I'm trying to figure out what are the open paths for potential talks you still have with Iran and actually the Palestinians?

BOLTON: Well, this -- this has -- really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which we think is politicized and ineffective. It relates, obviously, in part to our views on the International Criminal Court, and to the nature of so-called purported international courts to be able to bind the United States.

Sir?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) is closing doors in the end, you won't be able to use...

BOLTON: It's closing doors that shouldn't be open to politicized abuse, which is what we've consistently seen in the ICJ.

John (ph)?

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

As you know, yesterday the French government denounced the Iranian government for a terror plot in Paris against the National Council of Iranian Resistance, the leading group opposing the ayatollahs. You're aware of that. Was that a factor in any of the decisions that you've made withdrawing from these two protocols?

BOLTON: No. These decisions were made before we were aware of the French decision.

But I have to say, what the French have done is exactly the right thing. They arrested and other European governments arrested accredited Iranian diplomats -- accredited Iranian diplomats for conspiracy to conduct this attempted assault on the -- on the rally in Paris.

So that tells you, I think, everything you need to know about how the government of Iran views its responsibilities in connection with diplomatic relations, and I hope it's a wake-up call across Europe to the nature of the regime and the threat that they pose.

Ma'am?

QUESTION: Are these acts ramping-up tensions between the United States and Iran? And what is our intelligence when it comes to their systems, their -- their, you know, weapons, et cetera at this moment?

BOLTON: Well, I'm not going to get into the -- what -- what our intelligence states. [13:20:00] But the -- the issue is protecting the United States against the politicized use of these international institutions. As I've said, this goes back now close to over 30 years, really, in connection with U.S. policy of rejecting jurisdiction of -- of -- of these courts, and it's a continuation, I think, in the interest of the American people.

QUESTION: (inaudible) any kind of attempt to try to come together on what was prior to trying to work with them, closing...

BOLTON: Their bringing a lawsuit against us in the ICJ has nothing whatever to do to a diplomatic effort to resolve our differences. It was a politicized use of the court that exacerbated the differences.

Ma'am?

QUESTION: Can you respond to the Iranian foreign minister saying that the U.S. is driven by regime change? How do you (inaudible)?

BOLTON: I'll say it again. Maybe he'll listen this time.

Our policy is not regime change, but we do expect substantial change in their behavior. That's why the president has directed all of us in the government to come up with steps to reimpose the economic sanctions, and to do whatever else is necessary to ensure we bring maximum pressure on the regime to stop its malign behavior across the board -- not just in the nuclear field, but across the board.

QUESTION: And given that the E.U. and -- and other partners are still a part of the nuclear deal, does it make United States efforts to try to force Iran to abandon, or at least try to dismantle, its nuclear program any weaker? In other words, what -- how much leverage do you have at this point?

BOLTON: Well, I don't think Iran is dismantling its nuclear program. If anything, recent reports that are public indicate that it's increasing its activity.

QUESTION: But how do you convince them if you don't have the E.U. partners on board?

BOLTON: Well, I think we're going to apply the maximum amount of leverage we can.

We're working with our European partners, with the British, the French, the Germans and others. They -- they have chosen to remain in the Iran nuclear deal. But as I've said to them, it's like a book that was written several decades ago in this country. It was called something like "The Six Stages of Grief." You know, first you have denial, then you have anger. Eventually you get to acceptance. And I think that's the direction the Europeans are moving in.

I can tell you, European companies in droves are forswearing business opportunities in Iran because they don't want to be caught up in the -- the pressure campaign that we're applying.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

You just addressed Palestine, and said it is a so-called state. Is that language productive in achieving the president's...

BOLTON: It's accurate.

QUESTION: So -- but the president recommitted to...

BOLTON: It is not a state.

QUESTION: The president, in New York City, as you know, recommitted his goal to achieving a two-state solution.

BOLTON: That's right.

QUESTION: So is using that sort of language productive in his goal?

BOLTON: Yeah, sure. Of course.

It's not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn't control defined boundaries. It doesn't fulfill the -- the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it's not a state.

It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others.

So calling it the so-called state of Palestine defines exactly what it has been, a position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988, when the Palestinian Authority declared itself to be the state of Palestine.

We don't recognize it as the state of Palestine. We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of Palestine to the United Nations as a state because it's not a state.

Sir?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

The IAEA is saying it doesn't take at face value Netanyahu's claims that Iran's harboring a secret atomic warehouse. Do you agree with the Israeli prime minister that this should -- there should be an inspection? And what's your reaction to Amano's comments on this?

BOLTON: Well, I haven't seen those comments.

I will say we have been -- our intelligence community has been reviewing the material that Israel extracted from Iran and going over it in quite some detail. I must say it's extremely impressive. And we've been very supportive of the Israeli effort and supportive of the IAEA taking new steps to follow up on it.

The Senate just confirmed a few days ago Ambassador Jackie Wolcott, who will taking up her new position as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. agencies in Vienna, specifically the International Atomic Energy Agency. And she'll be on the job shortly making our case there.

Sir?

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

The president came out in support of a two-state solution at the U.N. last week. Prime Minister Netanyahu responded that he's confident Israel would retain security control of the West Bank under any White House plan.

[13:25:00]

Is that correct, or are you open to a Palestinian state with no security presence from Israel inside their borders?

BOLTON: We've been working, as -- as you well know, on a peace plan involving Israel and the Palestinians. We'll be rolling it out in due course, when we decide it's the most appropriate time to do it. And I'm sure that will answer your question then.

And I see...

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Take one last question.

BOLTON: So, yeah, I'm sorry. I actually did try and recognize this gentleman. I guess I didn't point accurately enough. So my apologies.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday he has not met with the Iranians since the U.S. pulled out of the deal. But he has met with them on several occasions before.

Do you think he violated the Logan Act by doing so? And was he subverting the policy of the United States?

BOLTON: Well, I think Secretary Pompeo addressed that previously and I'll stick with his remarks.

Thank you very much.

SANDERS: Thank you, Ambassador Bolton.

A couple of quick reminders.

FEMA, in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission, will conduct a nationwide integrated public alert and warning system test of the Emergency Alert System and the Wireless Emergency Alerts later today. This will take place in two parts: the WEA portion starting at 2:18 p.m. Eastern, followed by the EAS portion at 2:20 p.m. Eastern.

This is the first nationwide WEA test and the fourth for the EAS. The overall test will assess the operational readiness of the infrastructure for distribution of a national message and determine whether technological improvements are needed.

Looking ahead to Monday, President Trump will travel to Orlando, Florida, to address the International Association of Chiefs of Police. As the largest gathering of police leaders, the president will speak about the work of the administration to protect American communities by restoring law and order, supporting local law enforcement and securing the border.

Lastly, on the night President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Schumer declared the Democrats would oppose this nomination with everything they had. Before a single document was produced, a single meeting with the senator or a hearing was ever scheduled, Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats telegraphed a strategy to throw the kitchen sink at the judge with no regard for the process, decency or standards.

They're not opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's judicial views. They're literally trying to undercut the voice of the American people when they elected Donald Trump.

They've questioned his legitimacy, and casually tossed around vicious accusations of perjury, all false and baseless. But now they're sunk lower as they sprang these 11th-hour accusations in a full-scale assault on Judge Kavanaugh's integrity.

This is a coordinated smear campaign. No evidence, no independent corroboration. Just smears. Here are just a few of the examples.

Chuck Schumer said, and I quote, "There's no presumption of innocence or guilt."

Chris Coons, who sits on the committee, said Kavanaugh, and I quote, "now bears the burden of disproving these allegations, rather than Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez."

Mazie Hirono, who also sits on the committees, said that Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve the presumption of innocence because of his judicial views.

One thing is clear: Democrats want to block Kavanaugh and hold the seat open until the 2020 election. This is about politics and this is about power, pure and simple.

And they've destroyed Judge Kavanaugh's reputation, undermined Dr. Ford's privacy, and tried to upend our traditions of innocence until proven guilty in the process. It's a complete and total disgrace.

We will receive and submit the FBI supplemental background investigation on his nomination to the Senate. As Leader McConnell said, "Judge Kavanaugh deserves a prompt vote and we expect him to get one."

And with that, I will take your questions.

John (ph)? QUESTION: Sarah, the three people who are most important in this whole process are Senators Murkowski, Collins and Flake. This morning, two of those senators, Flake and Collins, were extremely upset about how the president described Christine Blasey Ford at that rally in Mississippi.

Knowing how sensitive this issue is and how important it would be if the FBI investigation shows no other compelling evidence to keep Judge Kavanaugh from the court, that these people need to be comfortable with voting for him, why did the president say what he did last night in the way that he said it?

SANDERS: The president was stating the facts and, frankly, facts that were included in Special Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's report. He was stating facts that were given during Dr. Ford's testimony.

And the Senate has to make a decision based on those facts and whether or not they see Judge Kavanaugh to be qualified to hold a position on the Supreme Court.

Every single word Judge Kavanaugh has said has been picked apart. Every single word, second by second of his testimony has been picked apart, yet if anybody says anything about the accusations that have been thrown against him, that's totally off-limits and outrageous.

This entire process has been a disgrace and the only reason that it's been that way is because Senate Democrats didn't do this the way that it should have been done and they circumvented the entire system. And, frankly, they've undermined our entire judicial branch by the way that they've acted and the inappropriateness with which they've conducted themselves.

[13:29:59]