FBI, Brad Kavanagh, Dr Ford discussed on Pat Thurston
You're live in the CNN newsroom. Thank you for rolling. With me. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York and tonight, we have new questions about who's actually pulling the strings when it comes to the FBI's one week inquiry into the sexual assault allegations against supreme court nominee, Brad Kavanagh. Now, remember the president claimed just yesterday the FBI had free reign. He called this investigation. A blessing in disguise but sources tell C N N White House counsel, Don Mcgann is working with Senate Republicans behind the scenes to narrow the investigations scope as much as possible. And here's what we have just learned as of right now, neither Cavanaugh nor Christine Wasi Ford. The woman who testified cavenaugh pinned her to a bed groped her and tried to take off her clothes in nineteen eighty-two is expected to be interviewed by the FBI is part of this reopen background check. Now, we also know the investigation will not include Kavanagh's overall drinking history, which has come up in these allegations an agent. Who take their direction from the White House will not be making any conclusion about witnesses witnesses actually say instead, the White House will get the results, and they will decide how to proceed no guarantee. The investigation will be made public for more. I want to bring in former federal prosecutor Ellie Hannigan Elliott. Sorry, Hoenig is your last name. I wanted to get your quick reaction to this new information that forty Cavanaugh may not even be interviewed. Yeah. That's surprising. And I think it's problematic. I think any limitations that the White House or any politician places on this investigation is seriously problematic for two reasons. First of all, we need all the facts. And when we start policing, artificial limitations, you can't go here. You can't go here. We're not going to get the the the entire story. The second thing is legitimacy the American public needs to see this investigation and believe that it's real and true and legitimate and hasn't been influenced by politicians. Let me go through a piece you just wrote for CNN dot com because you say this investigation really at the. The very least needs to focus on three key things. We start with interview with Mark judge who is the person that Ford says was the other man in the room when she alleges this assault happened. Judges the obvious starting point he's he's the third person as you said all we have from judge to this point is these letters from from judge lawyer and judge himself one pagers to the Senate Judiciary committee where he says I do not recall the events described. That's not really an answer. Cavenaugh tried to stretch that in his hearing and say, it's a refutation of Dr Ford, it's really not in fact could be consistent with Dr Ford because we know that judge has an addiction problem and has long had that and if he was intoxicated that night to the point of memory loss. It's not only not inconsistent with what Dr Ford said it actually could support her account of the story because she says they were both really drunk. And so the one page statement doesn't get you anywhere. He needs to sit face to face with the FBI. They need a chance to go deeper than one page and ask him questions about his own drinking and about Kavanagh's drinking Kavanagh's drinking is. Credibly important here. Because again, if it's established that he was a heavy drinker to the point of memory loss. It supports Dr Ford's testimony and seriously undermines Kavanagh's defense, and he could have committed perjury. You know, there was the famous exchange with Senator klobuchar where she asked him do you ever drink to the point of blackout? And when you see someone invade like the way that that Cavanaugh evaded that is a flashing red light that he's hiding something. He's a smart guy. He's a judge. He's been in that question answer scenario, usually he's the one asking the questions. Borrow Cavanaugh was the other thing that I read in your piece in which Mark judge could be asked is that referring to break. Yeah. They asked caveat at the Senate. He said what do I do? I didn't write it, but ask judge, and I don't know how gets out of that. It's not break Cavanaugh. It's a mighty fine coincidence, apparently Bart Ocalan threw up in somebody's car and passed out according to Mark judges account. You also say up next they need to interview witnesses to Ford's prior statement explained. So this is this is really important. Dr Ford told people five different people three friends, her husband and her therapist about this attack as far back as twenty twelve up to twenty seventeen. And so the question is in what we call this. A prior consistent statement, and it has a lot a lot of probative value. The question that the logical question is why on earth would she make this up six years ago and start telling people in serious settings? What happens so the FBI should speak with each of these people corroborate or disprove it. See if they stand. Why are there any notes were there any emails because if in fact, doctor for did tell these people that's powerful corroboration for her? And if she did not where it doesn't stand up, then you have to ask why does she submit this in the first place. Okay. Number three, then you point to have enough calendar entry, this is from July. First nineteen eighty two which reads to Timmy's for skis with judge. Tom PJ, Bernie squeak tell us more about that. This is as close to a Perry. Mason moment as we might have a Rachel Mitchell who was the hired outside. Prosecutor started to go down this road with cavenaugh and she sort of pulled up and then they pulled her. She never asked another question after that. But this calendar entries matches to a large extent, non highly. But it matches Dr Ford's testimony. She said the people at the party were cavenaugh judge PJ and a fourth person whose name I don't remember. There's a couple more Senator Grassley said it's not the right number of people. But remember, Dr Ford said this was pre gathering so other people could have come after so FBI needs to drill down. They can find Timmy's house. They already know where it is. It's fairly close to that country club. They can look at the layout. See if it matches up with Dr. Testimony. And if so that's powerful corroboration for her. How he Hoenig such interesting conversation. Thank you for your insight and expertise joining us now CNN political commentator, Scott Jennings. He worked with cavenaugh during the Bush administration and also with us CNN political commentator, Nina Turner, she's a former democratic state Senator from Ohio. So Scott, the fact that cabinet and four may not be interviewed the fact that they're not looking at his drinking history. When this investigation is over are the American people going to have faith in this investigation. Will they should have faith in the investigation. Because this is what the Democrats demanded. I don't know. Whether they're going to interview for you, Kevin is soon, they will they both said they would cooperate with an investigation. I think we'll let the FBI decide how best to conduct this supplemental background check everything that guy. You just had on said. I'll let me translate it for you. It's I want delay. I want this to last as long as possible. So we can get past the election. Maybe win the election and hold this thing open for two years. This is not an investigation that is designed to dig into everything that he wants to dig into. This is a supplemental background check demanded by the Democrats acquiesce to in my opinion, a wrongly by the Republican women. Results based should be looking into a supplemental background check which right? When you when you said what he just laid out is unrealistic. I it shouldn't even go there. Where shouldn't they go in terms of what he just laid out? There's nothing partisan there, isn't he was just talking about. What could help give us the truth? No. The truth here is whether or not brick Kevin all in the form of a of an F B I background check or this supplemental background check is a suitable nominee. They don't draw conclusions about uncorroborated allegations. They don't draw conclusions. They're not going to resolve this in Kavanagh's favor Orrin, Dr Ford's favorite they're gonna offer a report on whether any additional investigation in the process of a background. Check changes. You know, what people might think they don't draw conclusions? And I think people want them to draw conclusions. But that is not the result of a process like this. Which is why of course, Democrats are already trashing what they demanded. They wanted an FBI investigation. And they're already trashing it because they don't want the results. They just want delay. Let me read President Trump's tweet to that point. He writes, wow, just starting to hear the Democrats who are only thinking obstruct. And delay are starting to put out the word that the time and scope of FBI looking in judge cabin on witnesses is not enough for them. It will never be enough. Stay tuned. And watch your response. Good guy. Nobody's asking for delay. People are asking for Justice. Dr for has leveled a very strong allegation. We know that what she said her testimony certainly triggered millions of people across this country. Both men and women to think in a deeper way about what has not only happened to her. But what has happened to countless women across the ages across generations. So just the trivial is this like Scott is doing is really shameful. The fact of the matter is is that the FBI should be allowed to conduct an investigation and let the chips fall where they may. And you would think that the judge would want this to happen. So that the FBI can dig deeper and either clear him or not clear here in terms of those allegations. But to limit the scope to limit the numbers of people who are who are interviewed is absolutely wrong. So this is not this should not necessarily be seen through a purely partisan lands. Thank god. God that Senator flake had the courage to say, let's pull this back a little bit and let the FBI do its job. It should have been done even before it got to this point. So let's listen to Senator Jeff flake who again was sort of the person who made this investigation happen. His last minute demand who to have this investigation. He sat down with an interview with Chris coons democratic colleagues in the Senate. This was for sixty minutes. Let's listen. I was really struck that. I thought his anger got the best of him. And he made a partisan argument that would have been best left to be made for his advocates and defenders on the committee made you wonder about his suitability in my case. Yes, it made me wonder about his suitability to serve on the bench. But Senator flake, you dinovite with it, you you understood the par-three talked about the mention of the Clintons. I didn't like either did seem partisan, but boy to put myself in that spot. I think you give a little leeway there. Scott when you heard Cavanaugh stay the allegations were revenge on the half of the Clintons. Did that sound like someone who had the temperament of a supreme court Justice? Will it sounded like someone to me? It was pretty darn upset about being called a rapist and attempted murderer a gang rapist running some gang rape rain in highschool it sounded like someone to me who was up there to defend his honor. And let's be honest. It is about revenge. I'm not sure it's about revenge for the Clintons with it's about revenge for Merrick garland. Protecting Roe versus Wade. And I'm not going to respond to Senator Turner's. It's. Ad hominem. But I am going to tell you what is shameful Dianne Feinstein sitting on this for two months and then forty treating her so shabbily. Behavior. Not been on the part of cabinet or the Republicans. It's been the Senate Democrats who have absolutely been shameful and their behavior in this whole confirmation. It's been utterly ridiculous. Give me up. I mean, the same the same party that sit up there and denied President Obama the ability to have even his nominee have a hearing with the Senate. Listen, some people might be playing political games with this. But others are not in the Mexican people deserve better than what they have gotten up into this point. And to trivial is a woman's testimony about what happened to her. Doctor four said it happened to her the judges saying that he wasn't the one that did. Well, you know, what let the FBI investigate and let the chips fall where they may. What we could have learned if Feinstein hadn't heard on it. Imagine what we asked Senator Feinstein not to reveal her. And that's exactly what. Dave. Senator Feinstein it is about Dr for judge Cavin off and allowing this investigation to take place. So that the American people can get more transparency than they've had up until this point. All right, Scott. You got the first word so let Nina have the last there, Scott Jennings and Nina Turner, thank you both. Appreciate the spirit. They're they're the three women coming forward to tell their stories about Brad Kavanagh next. A.