sexual misconduct by kavanaugh while he was a student at yale. one saw him with his pants down at a drunken party and the fbi did not investigate even though the student contacted them. the writers note this woman reportedly involved did not make that accusation to them, did not agree to an interview, and that her friends told the reporter that she didn t recall the incident. and that incident was not included the times initial essay leading editors to later update the essay. the book adding a claim that did surface during that confirmation battle, former student deborah ramirez accusing kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. the writers wrote that seven people, including her mother heard about this incident long before all of these judicial confirmation battles. and other reports including the los angeles times also note the fbi did not interview those people either. now remember kavanaugh category
thanks for joining us tonight. good to be with you, ari. your reaction to what is new in these accounts and what should be done? i think it heightens the urgency of an investigation of the kavanaugh investigation. i think that after dr. blasey ford s allegations were public, the second fbi investigation that followed was a bogus investigation. you see chris wray trying to walk away from it and ascribe it to the white house. you see people like max steyer being told that their evidence isn t welcome at the fbi, which is exactly the opposite of the way, you know, investigative agencies ordinarily behave with information. let s jump on that point. you re mentioning one of the students who was named former student in this reporting. there was this 2019 august letter which you were a part of saying in our experience, it s not the practice of the fbi to decline to pursue credible leads
in an investigation or fail interview, accuser and the accused. is there a mechanism then in your view giving those details to go in and have someone interview those individuals? should that be the fbi? should bit the house where the democrats are in control if the senate is not going to approve it? if i were to do this in logical order, the first thing i would do is have the house judiciary committee investigate the fbi investigation and find out what they did. you could take the fbi investigation and compare to it a real fbi investigation, and you d be able to see multiple discrepancies between the way the fbi ordinary ordinarily investigates when they re doing a legitimate criminal investigation and this thing they did at the white house s behest. and if i were looking at that, the first thing i d look at is the so-called tip line. people were coming to us, you know, on the judiciary committee saying i ve got evidence. i ve got a friend who has evidence. i have a client who has
where should this evidence come to, they kept saying not me, not, this no, not here. so you re not yet backing impeachment of him, is that correct? i think you ve got to investigate first. there are some steps. understood. i m a prosecutor. and you re tight on time. my following question is given your position, do you think that some of your colleagues in the democratic party have moved too quickly to backing impeachment if this is about the judiciary committee and the process going forward with due process for all? do you disagree with those democratic candidates? well, i have my view, which is that we need to get these investigations under way so that we can go forward and unreel evidence, make a determination about what the next step should be and whether that should include impeachment. but the first step obviously is to close what actually took place with this supposed fbi investigation once the allegations were out. and finally, sorry, my last
especially victims who were intoxicated or given date rape drugs. they don t remember what happened, but an eyewitness, that s incredible, incredible evidence. several eyewitnesses, slam-dunk evidence. i agree that what this shows is to go back to the process, the process was incredibly flawed. and that s what this is highlighting. that s what the calls for impeachment are highlighting, that this was a rushed process. there were numerous witnesses who were not interviewed by the fbi who should have been interviewed. and what the public expects when there is a rushed process, it s a result-driven process. it s a rigged process. and so all of these old wounds are being reopened now because there was no confidence in the integrity of this process. and so now we need to go back. and of course people are going to ask questions that these interviews be conducted. and these are not complicated or lengthy interviews to be conducted. this wouldn t have to drag on for months. these are basical