We made a deal, the highly respected Prime Minister of canada and the president of mexico are satisfied with the deal. Its good for all three. This is good for all three. Thats just that fact makes it good for us. But this is good for all three. But this is a much different deal. Than nafta. This is much or of a reciprocal deal for the United States, which is really good. Yeah, go ahead, peter . Can we move on to kavanagh briefly . No, why dont you just well do the kavanagh questions, you talk about being treated harshly. Lets finish up trade, because you have a lot of people that want to run over to the Wall Street Journal and start writing. Will you take a question from a mexican journalist . A mexican journalist . Go ahead. So youre going to keep the tariffs on mexico and canada . Until such time that we can do Something Different like quotas perhaps, so our industry is protected. Were not going to allow our Steel Industry to disappear. It was almost done, i tell you what, if your country kept going the way it was going, you wouldnt have a Steel Industry. You have to have a Steel Industry, you have to have an aluminumdo something, in fact bob, you may want to Say Something about this, because we were literally talking about that one hour ago. First of all, there are two separate things as far as we are concerned. We know there are grave interests to both countries. We want to preserve the effectiveness of our program and still take care of their needs. And really take care of the needs of our steel companies. I dont want plants closing,
theyre hiring thousands of workers all over the country. Im not giving that up. But do you think that President Elect is going to keep his word on this . Yes, we have a really good understanding, really good. Mr. President , hoping you can just reiterate on the tariffs. What specifically would it take for canada or mexico to be exempt from these frtariffs, an did you consider dairy the deal breaker . Dairy was a deal breaker and now for our farmers, its opened up much more. They have farmers also, they cant be overrun. I tell them that, i say, look, i understand you have limits, but you can do much better. So they opened up to farmers. And the folks up in wisconsin. I tell you what i went up to wisconsin, i want to iowa,
joanie knows better than anyone, nebraskas governor, knows it more than anybody else. Nebraska was not treated fairly. Theyre going to be treated fairly, or in that reciprocal way. Very important. Yes, sir, go ahead. Thanks, mr. President. It seems as if there was some give and take on both sides of this deal. I wonder on your side what would be your biggest concession to canada and why you decided to make that concession. And number two, can you dive a little bit more into your thoughts on justin trudeau. I wonder throughout this process, what you have learned about him and what the state of the relationship is with him today and Going Forward . I think my biggest concession would be making the deal. Because we are the one that people come and want to take from. And im talking about every country. And that gives us a tremendous
advantage in negotiating that we never used before with past administrations. We never used it. Every deal we have is a loser. Every deal, you can look at almost every country in the world. Almost every country. We have trade deficits. We lose with everybody. So i think my biggest concession was making the deal. Because we could have done it a different way. But it would have been nasty and it wouldnt have been nice. I dont want to have that. We have a great relationship with canada. I think now it will be better than ever. The only problem with justin is he loves his people and hes fighting hard for his people. I think we you know, we have always had actually a very good relationship. Got a little bit testy in the last couple of months. But that was over this agreement. And i understand that. But, no, i think justins a good person whos doing a good job. He felt very committed to his people. And thats what he did. And again, this is good for everybody. This is good for canada, good for mexico also. Yes, yes, please . Go ahead. Thank you, mr. President. As you mentioned, youre going to be signing this agreement, and your counterparts are going to be signing this agreement within the next 60 days. Then its up to congress. Yes. Youre very confident. Not at all confident. You guys can decide it, tell me. I think they will. If congress is controlled did democrats. Could happen. What are the prospects . They might be willing to throw one of the great deals for people and the workers, they may be willing to do that for political people or political purposes, because frankly, you know, theyll have 2020 in mind. So far i dream about 2020 when i look about Whats Going On. They have 2020 in mind, they want to do as well as they can. And to reject great deals, a great deal for our country and great deals for other countries,
but it a great deal for our country and a great guiel fdealr workers. The whole campaign is resist. Resist. They dont even know what theyre resisting. If you ask them, what are you resisting . And they were unable to answer the erequest. Question. So i cant tell you about delay, obstruct, resist. Because right after this election, and i think were going to do well, although history is not on our side, i guess in history, generally whoever has the white house doesnt do well in midterms. But the one difference is we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think thats a big difference. And thats one of our problems too. Because people that went out and voted for me. And they would be voting for me if i was on the ticket. But congress is on the ticket. And i Tell Congress thats the same thing as me in a sense. Its the same thing, think of it
as the same thing. But i think were going to do well. I actually think i mean we have senate races that werent even in play six months ago. When i started looking at it closely, i wont mention names, but there were senators that were not in play. They were not even you know exactly what im talking about, there were numerous of them. They were not even in play, its like lets go to this state, and like in races, theyre up 2 points. And who knows, as you know, there are a lot of Repression Polls or polls that arent very accurate. Because i see polls that i know are false having to do with certain of the races. But we had areas and we had congressional seats too where i know its going to be a positive outcome. But you look at Whats Going On and it doesnt seem to be broadcast that way. But i certainly had that with my election. They were telling me i was, you know, in trouble in certain states that i ended up winning
in a landslide. And i knew i was going to win them in a landslide, but they wouldnt report it that way. You know why . Fakes news. All right, right behind you. Sir, do you believe the Trade Agreement will be a major issue in the midterm elections. It shouldnt be because its a good agreement. People said, why dont you just extend nafta. That would have been a disaster. Were losing 100 billion a year in deficits, at least, at least to mexico. Under nafta. But just look at the results, and a substantial amount to canada, although a lot of people try and say its pretty much even, its not even, we lose a substantial amount. I think its a very hard thing to defend. But i understand the world of politics, i think as well as anybody. I havent been doing it that long, but i actually have been, because ive been doing it on the other side and i do understand. They can take the greatest thing
ever done and try and make it sound as bad as possible. But this ones tough. People are coming out for this one and saying, thats incredible, what we have been able to do. Yes, behind you, please . Thank you, mr. President , now that you have answered several questions on trade i would like to turn to judge kavanagh. Do you have a Question On Trade . Well do one or two more questions on trade. Zplt y you have answered several questions on trade. Dont do that, do you have a Question On Trade. You answered several questions on trade. Do you have a Question On Trade . You said the fbi should investigate anybody who they deem appropriate, does that include can Julie Swetnick . Give me your question, please. Give her the mike, please. Thank you very much, was Border Security or funding for the wall discussed during the negotiation panned who will pay for the wall. Question are getting 1. 6 for the wall, 1. 6. We have about 2. 4 billion in the wall. I dont want really want to talk about it. Because i could built it quickly at one po time. But we have been building it over the last two years, 1. 6 at a time. And i have some things to say after the election as to whether or not we go forward. You know what . Border security to the people of our country, the wall is a big factor in Border Security. And i really believe the people of our country want the wall and they want Border Security. They dont want open borders like the democrats want to have, they dont want crime entering into our country, they dont want ms13 pouring into our country. They dont want that. And i have a very big decision to make after the election, because you know what comes new after the election . Personally do i want it do it before the election . I dont want to do it because i have some very fine people that are running in close elections and i happen to think it would be good for them. Our people want security. The women of our country, they want security. They dont want to have thousands of people pouring across the border. And ill tell you what, they want to have i. C. E. , because i. C. E. Walks into ms13 and these gangs, and they treat them like its just another day in the office. Theyre rough and theyre tough and they love this country, and im treating i. C. E. Good, and were treating immigration good. We have a big decision to make right after very close to after the election is over and that will be on Border Security and the wall, but Border Security, the wall is a big factor. Is that part of the but was that part of the conversation and the negotiation that just took place. Yes, it was, we talked about it, with mexico we talked about it. And it was a big part. And certain things and certain understanding are had. At the same time we dont want to mix it up too much, this is a good deal for everybody, but Border Security is a big factor for everybody. We also have drugs and sometimes people would say its a very similar thing. But we talked about drugs with mexz c mexico, thats a very, very big factor, very, very big. Anding inwe have a lot of othe things well be discussing with them. Okay, you people want to get off trade. You people are falling asleep with trade, to me i think its the most exciting thing you can talk about. All right, lets go, come on. In a tweet this weekend, you said its incorrect to say that youre limiting the investigation into judge kavanagh, but your own statement on friday you made it very clear, that this investigation
must be limited in scope. I said whatever the senate wanted to do is okay with me. And also the fbi, i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. At the same time, just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really, you know, you look at his life, until this happened, what a change hes gone through. What his familys gone through. The trauma for a man thats never had any accusation, any hes never had a bad statement about him. I think he was number one in his class at yale, he was number one in his law school at yale and then what hes gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. So i want the fbi, this is now their seventh investigation. So its not like theyre just starting. I want them to do a very
comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the senators and the republicans and the republican majority. I want them to do that. I want it to be comprehensive. I actually think its a good thing for judge kavanagh. I think its actually a good thing. Not a bad thing, i think its a good thing. But with that being said, i would like it to go quickly. And the reason i would like it to go quickly, its very simple, because its unifair to him at this point. What his wife is going through, what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. Its not describable. Its not fair. I think its fair to do it to me, because, you know, ive been, from day one, long before i got to office, youve been doing it. Its almost became for me, its like a part of my job description, to handle this crap. But as far as this is a man that this is not from his world. And you know what . If theyre not going to want him . And i think that would be a shame, im with him all the way. A charge made or said to have occurred 36 years ago and Nothing Happened since then, and look, i feel badly for all parties. I feel badly for everybody. I feel badly for our country. This is so bad for our country. But ill tell you, i watched those senators on the democrat side and i thought it was a disgrace. And partially because i know them. I know them too well. And you know what . They are not angels. But the white house is you dont understand what im saying, you do understand, you just dont want to report it that way. My white house will do whatever the senators want. Im open to whatever they want. The one thing i want is speed. Now they started, i believe on friday, could have even been a little bit earlier than that. But they started, they had worked round the clock on saturday, sunday, theyre working right now. I mean theyre covering a lot of territory. This is the seventh investigation of judge kavanagh, number seven. This isnt number one. They started on friday, they worked all weekend, they have gone late into the evenings. The fbis really working hard and theyre putting in a lot of hours. So hopefully they can come up with what everybodys looking for. But, no, im guided by the senate. I want to make the senate happy. Because ultimately theyre making the judgment. Im not making the judgment, i have already made my judgment, the senate is making a judgment on judge cavanaugh. This is very important thing to do. Yes, go ahead, peter. Sure. Just for clarity so that its
clear. In fact its up to you to instruct the fbi what to do. It is up to me, but im instructing them as per what i feel the senate wants. The senate is making this decision. And im instructed them as per what the senate is looking for. Just for clarity, will you instruct the white House Counsel don mcgahn, to give the fbi free rein to do whatever they feel is necessary . I have so instructed him and i see what has happened over the weekend. I dont want to use the word misleading, its a much more complex a situation than most people understand. But essentially i have done that. But i did also say within the bounds of what the senate wants. We dont want to go on a to use an expression often used by me, we dont want to go on a witch hunt, do we . Just to be clear, should the fbi interview all three of Brett Kavanaghs accusers . It wouldnt bother me at all. I dont know all three of the
accusers. Certainly i imagine theyre going do interview two. The third one i dont know much about, but it wouldnt bother me at all. I mean i have heard that the third one has, i have no idea if this is true, has very little credibility. If there is any credibility, interview the third one. But i want to interview i want it to be done quickly, because its unfair to the family and to the judge, its unfair its so unfair to his kids and his wife. How about for the accusers . Has this process been fair to them . Well, certainly we gave the doctor a tremendous time, which is great. She spoke well. But, you know, there are some questions that havent been answered. Like what year was it . What day was it . Where was it . Do you know the location . Do you know the house . People are saying a lot of different things, you know, Whats Going On . With all of that you cannot say
that we have done anything but be respectful. And i do, and i respect her position very much. I respect her position very much. I believe and again, this is republican senators and this is the senate, i believe they have been very respectful to the doctor, dr. Ford. Isnt that why the fbi should interview all of them to exonerate Brett Kavanagh . I think the fbi should interview anybody they want within reason. But you have to say within reason. They should interview, but they should also be guided and im being guided by what the senators are looking for. Because they have to make the choice. Go ahead, now you can go. Should Brett Kavanagh be interviewed by the fbi. I think so, i think its fine if they do. I dont know. Thats up to them. I think that he spoke very conclusively and very well. I think its been a very rough period of time. I guarantee hes never had a
period of time like this. When he was chosen, everybody said, oh, this is going to go so quickly. People thought ten years ago that Brett Kavanagh was going date of bir to be a Supreme Court justice, because of his intellect, because there was no games, and now they talk about alcohol and all of the things that you hear. And frankly, theyre bringing up all these subjects, we would know about this over the last 20 years, 30 years of his career. What happened . Theyre going back to high school and theyre saying he drank a lot one evening in high school. I tell you what, i happen to know some United States senators. One who is on the other side whos pretty aggressive. I have seen that person in very bad situations. Okay . I have seen that person in very, very bad situations. Somewhat compromising. And you know, i think its very
unfair to bring up things like this. However, whatever the senators want, is okay with me. Theyre going to be making a decision, whatever they want is okay with me. Go ahead. You said this crap, what did you mean by that . I think the press has treated me unbelievably unfairly. In fact when i won, i said the good thing the press now finally gets it. Now theyll finally treat me fairly. They got worse. Theyre worse now than ever. Theyre loco. But thats okay. I put up with it. Go ahead. I used that word because of the fact that we made a deal with mexico. No, no, please, sit down. Mr. President youre going to be next. Go ahead. I have two questions about judge kavanagh, first there are now concerns that he may have lied and mischaracterized his
drinking while testified. If he did, do you think that bars him from being your Supreme Court nominee . I have hatwatched him. I was surprised about how vocal about the fact that he likes beer, and hes had a little bit of difficulty. He talked about things that happened when he drank. This is not a man that said alcohol that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. No, i thought he was actually going back so many years, i thought he was excellent. The interesting thing is, nobody asked him about whats happened during the last 25, 30 years during his profession al career. Because there were no bad reports. There are bad reports on everybody in here. Except for mike pence by the way. And if we find one on him, then i think thats going on that willing the greatest shock of all time. There are bad reports on
everybody. Im looking at people, look at some of these people asking the questions, okay . Look at blumenthal . He lied about vietnam, he didnt just say hey i went to vietnam, for 15 years he said he was a war hero, he fought in donang province. He never went to vietnam. Hes up there saying we need honesty and we need integrity. This guy lied when he was the attorney general of connecticut. He lied. I dont mean a little bit. And then when he got out, he actually dropped out of the race and he won anyway, because democrats always win in connecticut. He won very close, probably the closest ever, but heres a guy that lied and hes up there talking about like hes holier than thou. When he got up there, he was crying, the tears were all over
the place. Hes like how dare you . Take a look at the judge whos led an exemplary life . And you go back to high school because he had beer . I think the judge has been Pretty Amazing about describing his situation with alcohol and with beer. I mean take a look at cory booker. He ran newark, new jersey, into the ground, he was a horrible mayor. And he made statements that when he was in high school or college, what he was doing. He actually made the statements. And now hes talking about judge kavanagh and i could go through a whole list of them, okay, look at Dianne Fienstein . Youre telling me about time. Dianne fienstein knew about this two months earlier. If hi washe wanted a really tho investigation, we had all the time in the world. She didnt have to wait until after the hearing was closed, essentially. She should have said, listen, i have a problem. I have this report. I would like the fbi to look at it while were doing the hearings. We had two months. No, she didnt do that. She waited until we were closed and then she probably leaked it. But, you know, who am i to say . But she probably leaked it based on her very bad Body Language the other day. But more importantly in a sense, for her to have waited that period of time, and now for you democrats, and i guess im including you too, the media. I consider you a part of the democrat party. But for you, for the democrats, to be talking about we want more time to the fbi, if you wanted more time for the fbi, why didnt Dianne Fienstein bring this up . Now you know that she showed this to other democrats. Shes not the other one. She showed this to other democrats. There were more than just her that knew about this big confidential thing. It was confidential until the hearing was over. After the hearing was over, they went public. Why didnt they do it during the
hearing . And we could have had all the time in the world . You know buy . Becau why . Because theyre dishonest people. You didnt answer my question, mr. President , if he did lie about his drinking, does that mean youre pull his i can say, i can honestly say i never had a beer in my life. Its one of my only good traits. I dont drink. Whenever theyre looking for something, i never had a glass of alcohol. I have never had alcohol. For whatever reason. Can you imagine if i had, what a mess i would be . I would be the worlds worst, but i never drank, okay . But i can tell you i watched that hearing, and i watched a man saying that he did have difficulty as a young man with drink. The one question i didnt ask is how about the last 20 years, have you had difficulty the last 20 years . Because nobody said anything bad about him in the last 20 years. They go back to high school. I graduated from high school. While i did not drink, i saw a lot of people drinking. They would drink beer and they would go crazy, they were in high school, they were 16, 17 years old. And i saw a lot of it. Does that mean that they cant do something that they want to do with their life . So its a very tough thing. I really believe that he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot and so i dont know where there would be a big discrepancy. Can you talk about the you know what . You have had enough. Go ahead, please. Thanks, mr. President. Judge kavanagh said he was being targeted by democrats. Has he made the process overly political and how can you assure the American People that hell be able to deliver impartial decisions. Youll have to ask him that question, but i can tell you hes been treated horribly. Hes a good man with a great family, i think hes been
treated horribly. Lindsay graham i thought was terrific the other day. And he brought up one point that is now being discussed by a lot of people, and thats who is going to want to run for office, be in office, take an appointment not just to the Supreme Court. But many positions. I have right now 360 people that arent being approved, theyre very qualified, nobody says theyre not qualified. But senator schumer is not approving them because of Resisz Aresisz resist and on strubbstruct. Its far more people than in the history of our country. These are people who gave up jobs, gave up their life to come and szczerbierve our country. And schumer and his group wont approve them. Everything is going 30 hours, meaning they take them out 30 hours, the person thats going to be approved, its a disgrace. So when the judge brings up
whether its politics or not, i dont know, you would have to ask him, but i can say this, hes been treated really, really horribly. But are you concerned . No, im not concerned, im concerned with that we get great, great pleeople on the Supreme Court. I dont want to have people from any court to say sir, its such a great honor, but i just cant do it. That would be a sad day for our country. And were going to come close to that. Because i know people now that say i dont know how hi does e. I dont know why he would go through . When Justice Gorsuch got appro e approved. There were many stories that
were pulled back that were horrible. What theyre doing to this man is very bad for our nation. You have just said that some of our senators are not angels and you have seen them in some Compromising Situations . Could you tell us who and what compromising situation . I think ill save it for a book ill write. But im not giving it to you. If the fbi finds other witnesses that can corroborate the account of other accusers. Would that be enough for you i would certain loly look at that, im open. I think hes a fine man, i think hes a great scholar, when he said what he did, he focused on being number one at yale, on being number one in high school, at being number one at law. He focused. I can so understand that. Its so important, the way he said that, it made an impact on me. He was so focused on being number one at yale. And i believe he was number one at yale. But i understood that very well. I wanted to ask about Something Else you brought up today, the las vegas shooting. Yes. Theres some frustration that more hasnt been done in the past year, more hasnet been doe about bump stocks. Youre wrong about that. In order to eliminate, terminate bump stocks, we have to go through a procedure. We are now in the final stages of that procedure, in fact the lawyers were just telling me, and in the next couple of weeks ill write it up. You cant just write it up. Because rules and regulations in this country are very complicated. Bump stocks are gone, but to do it you have to go through public hearings which we have, we have to go through all sorts of regulatory control systems. Is our attorney around somewhere . He said were in the final twoor three weeks and ill be able to write out bump stocks. Statutorily, it takes about a year to do it properly. Are there any other actions youre planning to help prevent yeah, were working with congress on both sides. Were working on a lot of different things, that was a horrible thing, but were working on both sides of that question, and the bump stock is almost gone, but to do it so its meaningful, the lawyer just said it. Yeah, we have gone through a whole procedure, in fact you can look, you can call derek who you know very well, hes gone through the full procedure. We have done it absolutely by the book in a very short period of time bump stocks will be ruled out. Okay . Youve had one. Okay, yes, maam, go ahead, please. Please, please, please, sit down. Mr. President , a final trade question. Since steel and aluminum tariffs wont be coming down from canada and mexico, can you talk about
whether theres discussions about ending those retaliatory tariffs against theyre not retaliatory, theyre trying to get some really bad things from happening. They were dumping in our country. And it was china and various others. Were dumping massive amounts of dead steel. Its called dead steel. Its also imperfect steel. Inside that steel was a lot of bad things that make for a weaker steel. So when were building bridges and you have mud steel or you have other quantities of other materials in that steel, that eegszthats a very bad thing. Its very dangerous. The miners, you saw that the other night in west virginia. We have metall lur jik coal. Its not for heating and cooling, this is used to make steel. And those mines are now opening up and were making steel and the price is going to end up being less, because we dont have the shipping problems, when you ship it from places to far away. Youll see, well have hundreds of new plants opened up in our country and theyll be competing against each other and outsiders wont be able to compete. Just so you understand what was going to happen, they were going to knock out every steel plant we had and then they were going to double and triple the place and we couldnt have done anything about it. We employ a lot of people. The stock market has liked the announcement here, when we walked in today, the dow was up 250 points or so. There are some who say that the tariff on steel could stifle a stock market that is hot, and
once again you have said as it relates to china, more tariffs could be coming down the line. Are you concerned that you are i am using steel to negotiate. And hopefully we can make a fair deal with china. And a reciprocal deal. But a great deal and a fair deal. We have a lot of catching up to do with china. When they drain us for 500 billion a year, which is probably the real number. And thats not including the theft of Intellectual Property and other things. And a lot of people say, its hard to value, but a lot of people say that could be 300 billion a year. Thats a tremendous you just cant let that happen. No, were using tariffs very successfully to negotiate and if were unable to make a fair deal, then well use tariffs. But mexico, and if you look at mexico and canada, theyre way beyond that. We have a deal that really works. And the nice part of the deal we make with them, is its not a
specific problem, its products all across the line, whether its dairy, you see the list of products, there are many, many products and theyre all included. So its across the board. Mr. President , with china one more on trade if you dont mind . Go ahead. Mr. President , if the fbi does find something and Brett Kavanagh folds, is there a plan b . I dont want to talk about plan b, because i hope that he gets approved, i hope that the report comes out like i really think it should, i really think it will. I hope. But im waiting just like you. Certainly if they find something, im going to take that into consideration. Absolutely, i have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there for a long time. I have a very open mind. I just think hes an outstanding person. I think he has been treated horribly. Even if you are going to bring up some of the subjects that were brought up, they didnt
have to treat him so viciously and so violently as they have treated him. Mr. President , on trade thank you all very much. Thank you all very much, everybody. And good day, everyone, as you can see, the president just holding an extended q a with reporters, he was scheduled to talk about nafta and the new nafta, which is the revised Trade Agreement agreed to shortly before midnight last night. Adding canada as well as mexico. It still has to go to the senate for trratification. And denying that the white house has limited the questioning about kavanagh, dr. Ford and the second accuser, not Michael Avenattis client as well. And also that he is not limiting the question, that he has an open mind, but also saying that he believes that judge kavanagh
has been treated very, very unfairly. Joining me now nbc News National reporter, ken delaney and jill wine banks. And shaun henry. And here on set with me democratic senator mazie her rei hirono of hawaii. Senator, let me ask you about the limits to the fbi investigation. We have multiple reports that it has been very limited. We have had one of our contributors saying that the fbi has been handcuffed, yet he is putting it back on the senate and saying that it is up to the senate to decide who can be interviewed and how far it goes. I think the president s
comments on this point are unbelievable, because theyre contrary to Everything Else that we know. So whats resulting are letters from Dianne Feinstein asking for give us a copy, don mcgahn of the parameters of the fbi investigation. White House Counsel don mcgahn . Yes, white House Counsel. And i just signed on to a letter with all the democratic members of the committee, and said here is a list of the people you ought to be talking to. And are these people, potentialnesses, College Classmates and should alcohol, what he did in terms of his drinking and whether or not, as you have suggested, whether or not he lied to the economy about his Drinking Habits and other aspects of his college years. Its not about whether he drank or not. But whether he lied about it. And the picture that is painted is that this is a person who drank a lot. Not just in high school but also in college, and that when he
drank, he would become very belligerent and aggressive. He said no, i never did any of that and there are plenty of people coming forward, even today saying that when they listened to him testifying before our committee to that effect, its just so unbelievable that they are coming forward and these are all the people that need to be interviewed by the fbi. And one of the things james comey said was that of course in an oped that he wrote this weekend . Yes. And it doesnt matter how long ago the traumatic event was, but significant events, we all remember, even when youre 5 years eold, whatever. And he said that when the nominee lies very obviously about the meaning of things in his yearbook, it just is a red light to dig deeper. Peter alexander was one of the key questioners asking the president to explain his statement today, peter, in the rose garden, that its an open
ended investigation, he doesnt want it to go too long, but he is not holding it back. That is contrary to all of our reporting. Reporter to be very clear here, the president says hes open to the fbi and they can interview whoever they like. Its another thing for don mcgahn to know the directors here, we know the preliminary list included four names on it. One of them was deborah ramirez, as well as three other individuals that dr. Chris seen blasey ford mentioned and she claimed they may have information about things that happened in the 1980s. He questioned the i asked him specifically if Brett Kavanagh should be interviewed. He said he would have no problem with that. To my understanding, judge kavanagh has not been interviewed, neither has
dr. Ford. Its one thing for Rachel Matthews to do it and its another thing to do it with the fbi and behind closed. At this time, to be totally clear, its obvious from the president s words hes open to it, its not as obvious what will happen behind the scenes if the fbi asked. And kevin delaney, you have been doing a lot of reporting this weekend about the witnesses that can be interviewed. Understandably, judge kavanagh and dr. Ford could be interviewed after these other witnesses are brought in. I understand that as an investigative technique, but what about all the alcohol that has testified, and according to a number of people who knew him back then he has not told the truth to the committee. Should that be relevant . Reporter it should be, but
none of that is within the scope of the investigation as directed by the white House Counsel with input from the senate. Of course the fbi would want to interview judge kavanagh, and dr. Ford. But neither of them are on this list of people. And i checked with an Senior Administration official who said that has not changed. And i think the president s comments about this were deeply misleading. And he said within the bounds of what the senate wants . And these are republicans not democrats. Because theyre the ones calling the tune here, theyre the ones that transferred to Mitch Mcconnell through the white House Counsel, these are the people we think should be interviewed. None of the issues or the disputes about how he characterized his drinking, including a former yale classmate who came forward and said that he lied about his drinking in front of the judiciary committee. And he says he wants to talk to the fbi, and the white house
says that could happen. But its not going to be used as part or this limited scope investigation. And again, the white house gets to decide which witnesses are interviewed, and the fbi cannot do anything that the white house had not authorized it to do in these situations, andrea. And can you as an fbi person, lets say, put yourself in the shoes of your successors there in the bureau. Can you say i cant do this without going beyond the parameters that don mcgahn the white house has given me or do you just produce what youve been told to produce . The fbi certainly would want to interview judge kavanagh, they would want to interview dr. Blasey ford, they would want to follow logical leads as they conduct their investigation. While the president said he wants this to be a comprehensive
investigation but clearly they have put parameters on what can be done and theyre going to limit that. This is not a resource issue, the fbi could conduct 1,000 investigations in one week, you put enough agents on it and it could be done. But this is a scope and the branches of which could come off of each interview, somebody might give you information, they might direct you to another person. As you move through this process, theres a cascading effect, and investigators during the course of the investigation, are going to want to follow those up. Theres one other thing that i think is very important here. The president said that this is the seventh investigation. It might be in terms of checking the persons character and their reputation. Those things are sometimes p perfuncto perfunctory, but there are very specific allegations. That changes the tone and the tenor of the investigation, because the agents have very specific allegations to pursue. They are going to want to pursue them aggressively so that this can be done in a thorough way do an investigation and come back with some answers. On 60 minutes when scott pelley interviewed Senators Coon and flake about their compromise, how it came about, and asked a key question about whether the issue of perjury, of whether he had lied to the committee should be relevant, lets watch. If judge kavanagh is shown to have lied to the committee, nominations over . Oh, yes. I would think so. Senator, that doesnt seem to be part of the investigation, though, as ordered by the republicans on your committee. And of course the white house. Incredible as most normal people would think, that whether or not judge kavanagh lied to the committee, which should be a
Total Nonstarter for anybody wanting to go to the Supreme Court is not even the area of focus. Its so limited, i called it basically i think the word farce would not be far off to talk about this socalled investigation. It is not going do get us anywhere near the truth. But the other thing that i found totally bizarre and astounding was when judge cavanaugh accused the democrats of engaging in a plot to do him in and he dragged in Hillary Clinton and all that. This is a conspiracy theory, this is what he believes, this is what hes going to take to the Supreme Court. And he also was so partisan, that it was unbelievable. He even wrote a Law Review Article in 2016 where he said a judge should be totally nonpartisan. Thats not what was shown to us. Do you think he lied about his drinking in answers to both senators whitehouse and senator
clob er clobe clobecar. There were inconsistencies about his drinking and information we have from various of his classmates, that he was a very belligerent, aggressive drunk. So i would like the fbi to go and interview all of these people and we have to draw our conclusions, but it was unbelievable, the portrayal of himself as some kind of a boy scout, all he cared about was studying, going to church, doing projects and playing basketball or sports. It was pretty unbelievable to me. And very clearly, when he was asked specific questions about the meaning of the terms in his yearbook, anybody could go and find out that what the true meanings of those words were. And as comey said, when you lie about Something Like that, it just points to the need to dig deeper. Let me ask you that, other
people would say, its a high school yearbook, but here he is as a Supreme Court nominee and he is repeatedly asked by senator whitehouse what does this mean, what does that mean . And he you know, he said that they were drinking games. Or whatever. And to anybody with a dictionary, knows that thats not the case. Should that be disqualifying, though . I think theres a pattern of him not being candid with the committee, it goes back to his Nomination Hearings in 2006. And also the fact that in the research that i did, is that he will mistake facts and one case that im particularly familiar with, dealing with a case from hawaii, not only did he misstate the holding of the case, as being a 14 or 15th amendment decision, which is not true, and then he misapplies the case. So this is a pattern where he very much is outcome driven. And the outcomes he wants would be that he does not support reproductive choice for women and of course he has a very expansive view of the protections to be given to a sitting president for any civil. And im sure this president really likes that about this nominee. Bob bauer, former white House Counsel, does the Senate Minority, the democrats on the senate, and a few undecided republicans, do they have any choice if this fbi probe is going to be as limited as apparently it is going to be . The senator that you have with you, of course, is in a better position to answer that question than i am. But it does seem to me already there is a significant argument here about whether if the predicate for proceeding with this nomination was an investigation, something credible like that, a true investigation, has actually occurred. So i think it opens up another battleground, another in effect, fight for Public Opinion on this issue. It puts enormous pressure as in
your clip there on senator flake to decide whether the condition that he set for voting to move this out of committee has been satisfied. So i dont think the announcement of the end of this investigation if it turns out to be as truncated as so far indicated, i dont think the mere announcement of the investigation is going to end the argument or necessarily satisfy the senators of the republican majority have been focused on, in agreeing to senator flakes condition. And, bob, from your experience, is the fbi does the fbi have the ability to push back against some restriction that the white House Counsel, the white house or the Senate Republicans put on it . Can they say, we cant do this in this fashion . Sean could speak to this issue very well. My own view is that the white House Counsel will be confronted with candid statements from fbi from fbi officials supervising the investigation about whether anything has developed that constitutes a lead that needs to be followed up. And i think there is some peril in the white house at that
point, trying to clamp down and shut the inquiry off in the face of being told that there is such a lead that needs to be followed. That would significantly complicate the white houses situation here. Jill winebanks, when you were going through this experience before back under president nixon, and you saw all of the issues with various people at the fbi and the white house, as well, how much how much independence does the fbi have . Its not even so much a question of the independence of the fbi, but its the president s evasion of his responsibilities. Hes saying that its up to the senate to set the restrictions . Its his nominee. If he doesnt want to know the facts about his own nominee and allow the fbi to do a full investigation, then maybe the democrats should have a hearing for all the witnesses that are not being called that the American People need to know the
answers for. Thats one way to get to it. But i do think that the fbi will say to mcgahn and maybe even more directly to the president , that they need to have more witnesses called, and that they cannot, and that hopefully that jeff flake will be the republican who says, this investigation has been a sham, its a fraud. It is not the investigation that will get the answers we need in order to exercise our Constitutional Authority to advise him consent. And they cant. If they dont have the facts, how can they possibly determine if hes qualified . And i do think drinking is a major issue. And we have evidence, at least going into 98. It is an anonymous accusation about his pushing a woman in a sexual manner, in an abusive manner, that may be linked to drinking. So we need to know if this is someone who still has a problem. George willis joining us, as well. George, lets get to the issue of judgment, character and political bias, perhaps. Because having covered the Clarence Thomas hearing, you had a very angry, indignant Clarence Thomas. The difference this time was that in the opening statement, which was widely praised by republicans for the passion that judge kavanaugh displayed, he also got into, its a left wing conspiracy, this is pay back from the clintons. He got into partisan politics. Not just i am being victimized here, im being unfairly accused. Does this create a problem . It does in a sense. But then put yourself in his shoes. Hes exhausted after weeks of this. Hes under tremendous bombardment. He loses his temper, and people say, ahha. The very people who have been bombarding him with these accusations say, ahha, he lacks the judicial temperament. It seems to me, this is the danger in having an
investigation. I think jeff flake did himself, the country, the Supreme Court and even his party a Great Service by slowing this down. The problem was that it became it was dismally predictable. That as soon as the democratic side got the week they had been clamoring for, they would begin to instantly say a week is not enough. And the investigation would be allowed to, indeed encouraged O Metastasized to eat up time. Its an arbitrary age requirement, you have to be 35 to be president. We have to set limits somewhere. And it seems to me, were already arguing about what we should do about the results of an investigation that we have no idea what theyre going to be. Surely, we could take a deep breath and let the fbi work for the week that it was demanded that they go to work. Understood. One point, george, is that it was in his scripted rebuttal that he showed that anger and that, you know, he was so partisan. Yes, under pressure, he showed a belligerence in responding or not responding to questions by the senators. But it was in what he said he himself wrote that he showed that he was so angry about what he called left wing conspiracies. Thats right. I mean, it was a clear echo of Hillary Clintons vast right wing conspiracy. Exactly. So weve heard these tropes before. And he would have been well advised in his state of exhaustion and despair, almost, to have stuck with the script that others had helped him prepare. That said, we are really not going to let this nomination turn on infillous language, under duress, i hope. Senator, at this stage, what are the options you said that the Senate Minority has now written another letter, asking
for a more expansive investigation. And sean was saying it could be done within the weeks time. Yes. It just means adding people to the list. Im not one of the democrats who said that a week is too sho short. I did say my expectation is that the fbi will provide the resources necessary to do a complete job. And, by the way, dr. Ford was also under a lot of stress. I thought she comported herself and her testimony in a way that was totally believable. Frankly, if she had behaved the way judge kavanaugh did, i think it would be a Total Nonstarter for her. There does seem to be a double standard here in terms of demeanor. I know so. Jill winebanks, at this stage, what is your expectation . You can look at the broad sweep of the politics, as well as the law here. I trust the fbi will speak up about what it needs to do to do a thorough job. And i agree with the senator that the fbi needs to provide
the resources. I have seen the fbi overnight be able to do Amazing Things and discover what needs to be found. And i think we need to focus on the lying, because if he lied about anything, whether its the definition of boofing or Devils Triangle, or how much he drank, its the best argument you could make to a jury, you heard him lie about one thing, how can you trust any of his other testimony . And thats the important thing that people need to focus on. And there are so many potential witnesses to some of the things that he said that seemed to have been plain sight lies, and the fbi should be looking at those, as well. George, finally, we only have about a minute left. Do you think that if it can be established that he did lie, that that should be disqualifying, even if it isnt about sex . If its about drinking . If he looked the senate in the eye and said, what does a Devils Triangle mean and said its a drinking game, and thats clearly known to be not true, and about two minutes on google will tell you otherwise, then you its an enormous wedge. Because then the Presumption Shifts that if you lie about a thats small, might you lie about b, c and d. And did you lie in order to distract. Whether that is sufficient to disrequest qualif disqualify, i dont know, but its a huge problem. George weil, our thanks to you. To jill winebanks, sean henry, ken dilanian, Peter Alexander there in the rose garden, bob
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.