dr. grant once appeared on reality show about online dating and local magazine once named him a bachelor of the year. cerissa reilly was at one point pursuing a teaching career. their clients say their clients deny any accusations of nonconsensual sex. thcouple out on bail. if convicted they face the possibility of decades in prison. let s bring in the lawyer who works in both the state and federal court systems. these two women turned themselves in or didn t turn themselves in but went to police wicking that tends to be damning for the suspects. it bolsters the prosecution case and not looking good for this couple. when have you these crimes allegedly on tape, i would venture to say that that s pretty good evidence of guilt. the fact that both of these women immediately went to the police after they allege they were raped the police found drugs in the system of at least one of these women. i think that s a good argument that the priewlings is going to make that these two defendants
networks coming at me. what did she expect and how big is that walk-back of the corroborating evidence? well, i talked to her for almost an hour last night. and what she says is not corroborative. what she remembers is there had been something that happened very bad at a party that was, as she put it, not cool. but she doesn t really remember when this was. she doesn t didn t doesn t have any people that she talked about it that she can remember, as she actually said to me, i can t be confirmation for this. i believe it because i remember hearing something about a party that went where something bad happened. and she says, you know, there was a lot of drinking in the private school, prep school in that era of time. and she said a lot of drinking by everybody. and she said by chrissy,
the justice department looking into you in the first place. these charges were filed well before the window of the justice department guidelines. again, this is not scripture, the justice didn t doesn t have to follow them are about 60 days before an election. this happened mid august, early august well before the 60 days. the justice department making clear that it wasn t political, even though the two people in this investigation happen to be republicans, paul ryan, speaker of the house, his office put out a statement. the justice department should always remain apolitical and the speaker has demonstrated he takes these charges seriously. that s my question, phil mudd, to you is that the kind of bold over my dead body, out of my cold hands statement that paul ryan should be making as the president takes on the idea of impartial, apolitical justice? look, i think paul ryan will walk away from his office people saying he s a respectable man. you look at his behavior under the trump
morning. any journalist would ask, what are you hiding? why don t you want a full accounts of this nominee? i m old enough to remember that back in july when justice kennedy retired, mitch mcconnell, according to the new york times, said don t pick kavanaugh because he has such a big paper trail. but our system is such that there s no mechanism if you re in the minority to force this kind of disclosure. we re on an unprecedentededly fast schedule with respect to how many documents are out there about kavanaugh and his time in the bush administration. so the answer is they re just going to skip it. they re just going to rush it through. there s a lot of questions that we haven t gotten a chance to ask because the public didn t really know. and these 42,000 are on top of the 100,000 that the trump administration has decided to shield from view entirely, including from the committee. joan, you have some history on that. compared to say john roberts, now the chief justice of the unit
he came to regret that, he came to regret bill clinton being embroiled in legal wrangling and thought that that did force the president to take his eye off the ball particularly with say osama bin laden. well, i think it s unfortunate when someone like judge kavanaugh, shortly after barack obama had been elected writes an article saying maybe we should think long and hard about whether or not as a policy matter congress should be allowing a president to be distracted from his job. maybe that s a good policy thing. maybe that s a bad policy thing, but i think it shows first of all that even though there was a democratic president, judge kavanaugh didn t say, oh, well, we should go after a democratic president. the party of the president didn t matter to him just like as a judge the party won t matter to him. secondly, we should remember that every time judge kavanaugh has issued an opinion on executive power, not a single time has the supreme court reversed him on that. and multiple t