means they don t want to testify. judge kavanaugh is ready to go monday, thursday. take it or leave it. first off he sounds like he s judge kavanaugh s lawyer. then take it or leave it. he has a team leading him. bill schein is on his team. so to say that you want to get yourself prepared within a week to come before this body and testify is ridiculous and unheard of. it s crazy that we re having the same like she has less due process i think than anita hill was afforded almost 30 years ago. exactly. it s ridiculous they re making that assertion. here come all the false equivalencies. what about the the what about ism. i agree with your point about carmella harris. when carmella harris did question kavanaugh, the headline was she was attacking him.
people were trying to dig na her past. it is odd. it is odd. did that information come from the white house? probably because just before mr. whelan sent out on his investigative journey he had his comrades at the white house had spoken to the washington post and it had been revealed. your guest is right, this could be investigated. and this in and of itself should be disqualifying judge kavanaugh had any knowledge about t knew about t condoned it. he essentially is willing to smear mr. whelan is essentially willing to smear an innocent man tagging him with absolutely no evidence as a means of defending judge kavanaugh. that is reprehensible.
known in their view the demands of the republican led committee are, quote, fundamentally inconsistent with the committee s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations. white house spokesperson in a statement saturday tried to cast doubt on ford s account, saying that four people who dr. ford recalled being at the party where the alleged assault took place had denied any knowledge of the incident, including, of course, brett kavanaugh. one of the four people, the white house referred to is lsaie was close friends with ford and that she believed ford s allegations. thank you for being here. i want to start with you. her attorney sent an e-mail to the senate judiciary committee saying she doesn t recall the
no, the fbi probably could not have come to a conclusion about what happened, but they could put a lot of facts on the table so that this does not become a fact free zone. secondly, it is absurd that mark judge is not called to testify under oath. right now he s put out a statement supporting judge brett kavanaugh. but there is no way he s being asked to defend that statement under oath. and i think they re entitled to that testimony. if i could make one quick point. i agreed with their initial strategy of let judge brett kavanaugh go first and she go second to rebut. but in the end this could work out quite differently, depending entirely on how judge brett kavanaugh performs. there is a great story in the washington post today showing that he is very antsy about a lot of personal questions that were thrown at him in the practice sessions in the white house. you know democrats are going to
will plow forward. i asked my producers to print out for me this washington post article from august 20th. i referred to it a bit in the last segment. brett kavanaugh who didn t like past questions about his past sexual life being brought up, back in 1998, a memo proposed a series of tough explicit questions for bill clinton to answer about his affair, shedding new light on the supreme court nominee s moralistic outlook. brett kavanaugh, as associate counsel in the office of independent counsel kenneth w. star wrote in the memo that he was strongly opposed to giving clinton any break and suggested ten questions, including: if monica lewinsky says you