goal you know what would also be unprecedented? giving us a debate. so thirsty, chris wallace. well, as of today, we know that s not going to happen. in the wake of jane maier s story about fox s efforts to coordinate with and boost trump, including killing a story they had about stormy daniels right before the 2012 election because, i quote, rupert wants donald trump to win, the dnc said it has decided against letting fox news host a debate. perez said recent reporting in the new yorker on the inappropriate relationship between president trump, his administration, and fox news has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. and dnc chairman tom perez joins me now. good to have you, chairman. always a pleasure. first yes, i guess, is was it really the jane mayer reporting? i mean, the dnc has not given fox news a debate in a long time. i remember this being a fight ten years ago. the net roots was fighting a
and it had been a question for a while now whether fox news would get one of those other ten debates. that s even though the network has not hosted a democratic primary debate in more than a decade. here s what dnc chair tom perez said on fox news last month when asked about fox news chances of hosting a 2020 primary debate. you have scheduled 12 democratic debates, this year, end of this year, six the beginning of next year. will fox news get at least one of the 2020 democratic presidential debates? we haven t made that decision yet. we have made the decision on the first two debates and what we re doing in the first two debates, chris, is unprecedented. two nights, making sure we have random draw and here s our goal you know what would also be unprecedented? giving us a debate. so thirsty, chris wallace. well, as of today, we know that s not going to happen. in the wake of jane maier s story about fox s efforts to coordinate with and boost trump, including killing a story
jeff sessions. all of those provides opportunities for cover-up as well as the firing of jim comey. so that s why this is different. i want to kind of change topics here. because, jeff, there s a fascinating article in the new yorker by your colleague, jane maier. and among other things, she writes that president trump ordered gary cohn, who at that point was his top economic adviser, to pressure the justice department to oppose the at&t/time warner merger. you know what s so interesting about what jane disclosed in this piece is that it dovetails very well with the jerry nadler document request that came out today. because what that s really about is not so much identifying criminality in the trump administration, but abuse of power. i don t think that s what s behind the nadler right. the idea that, you know, presidential misconduct, even impeachable conduct, can be beyond simply just violation of the criminal code, but abuse of
general barr. the president installed, you know, matthew whitaker, you know, before that, and the attorney general before that, jeff sessions. all of those provide opportunities for cover-up as well as the firing of jim comey. and so, that s why this is different. i want to kind of change topics here. because, jeff, there s a fascinating article in the new yorker by your colleague, jane maier. and among other things, she writes that president trump ordered gary cohn, who at that point was his top economic adviser, to pressure the justice department to oppose the at&t/time warner merger. obviously time warner, at the time, was the parent company of cnn. at&t is now the parent company of cnn. you know what s so interesting about what jane disclosed in this piece is that it dovetails very well with the jerry nadler document request that came out today. because what that s really about is not so much identifying criminality in the trump administration, but abuse of power. i don t thi
i m hopeful they ll agree to go public. there s multiple additional witnesses that can be attest to the other conduct set forth in the declaration. there s a number of allegations made. look at the new yorker piece by jane maier and ronan farrow that came out over the weekend. that those statements within that piece seem to corroborate my client s declaration. look at the statement just on the screen from dr. ford and what she described taking place in that room. that seems to be a pattern and practice, a pattern of conduct by brett kavanaugh. we had not seen that statement. i didn t even know that existed prior to the declaration being submitted. but your client is making some really heavy and damaging charges here. she s alleging that she was raped herself and cavanaugh and march judge were present when she was raped. is there any evidence of that? i think there will be evidence of that. let me be really clear about something, okay? this is the first step in a