the person who allegedly exposed himself to her? apparently this was only after conversations with her attorneys and, you know, she waited six days to actually name kavanaugh. because tonight on fox news, kavanaugh cited the new york times report that said miss ramirez recently contacted former classmates and told some of them she wasn t sure it was kavanaugh. let me take that first with a second assertion. it s absolutely not the case that the new york times rejected or passed on this story. that s been a conservative talking point today. simply false. the editor of the new york time came out and said that was false, they weren t questioning this reporting. what did happen, they aggressively pursued this story to the very end. the reporter made many requests for miss ramirez and decided not to cooperate with them because she was already working with a reporter and felt comfortable doing this carefully with one outlet. that s a perfectly fair choice. in terms of the period of t
he wouldn t be sbrinterviewed b the fbi. that s not the response of someone who wants to plead his innocence. i believe both of these women because there are corroborating witnesses who have testimony that is relevant to these accusations. dr. blasey ford told her therapist five years ago, and her husband, she told a friend a year ago. she told a reporter before kavanaugh was named. she s already submitted to a lie detector test and she s asking the fbi to do the investigation. that, to me, is credible. those are the hallmarks of truth. and then you have all this other information that s been divulged by mark judge about his heavy drinking, about the books, about what judge kavanaugh wrote in his own yearbook. i would like questions to be asked about these very issues because these are relevant facts of the time that the fbi is not investigating. is it relevant that professor ford did not tell anybody contemporaneously or even for years afterward? well, anderson, if you know
toobin. carrie severino, at the judicial crisis network which is supporting judge kavanaugh. kirsten, clearly judge kavanaugh is categorically denying all the allegations. does it help him or hurt him going into thursday, do you think, to have done this interview? well, i think it will help him with the people that they were targeting which is the base. and so that s why they chose fox news. they knew it would be an easy interview and it would be a sympathetic interviewer which it was. i actually don t think he did that great of a job, if you re just an objective on serbservob. repeating over and over that you want a fair process but not really answering the questions, i don t think necessarily bolsters him, but for the audience that they wanted to reach, i think it will have its intended effect which is to portray him as somebody who s being persecuted and it will rally the troops around him. that s what s really has kept the republicans on track is this fear of the base not turning
so there were other individuals who were freshmen at yale, i guess at that time, or at yale at that time, and i think we re talking about 83, 84, if memory serves me correctly. 83. 83. who had heard about this incident at the time? exactly so. so, you know, obviously, with all of these stories, we are extraordinarily careful. judge kavanaugh deserves fairness. the alleged survivor of this incident deserves fairness. that was her request. and it s always our commitment. the last story my co-author, jane mayer and i did, was on eric schneiderman. in both cases you look for things were people told at the time? sexual assault is difficult to report on partly because either there s often no one in a room or in a case like this, the individuals alleged to be in the room were largely participants in the alleged misconduct. they were people who were in her recounting of the events egging brett kavanaugh on. those individuals have signed a statement saying they re
president tonight about whether or not he should fire rosenstein? or what would happen if he did? my message to the president tonight is that interfering with the mueller investigation is the wrong thing to do. it s the wrong thing to do for our country. it in effect says that the president is above the law and donald trump shouldn t go there. do you think having the meeting on thursday is to distract from the kavanaugh hearings? my sense is today was really right out of the trump playbook. whenever they got problems, they go out and create some chaos. they create some distraction. we were getting reports on the hill that this was the smoke bomb today to distract from the kavanaugh allegations. again, the bottom line is and a lot of us are very concerned about this. that bob mueller is really in a race against time, is that the president should not interfere with this investigation. senator ron wyden, appreciate