Transcripts For CNNW Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer 201810

To south america. Did the idea for a global muscleflex come from the commander in chief . We want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Im wolf blitzer. Youre in the situation room. This is cnn breaking news. Were following breaking news on the investigation of u. S. Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh. A source tells cnn that the white house expects the fbi to turn over its notes on the probe soon. Then the information will be sent to capitol hill. The report is key to the timing and outcome of the senate vote on whether to confirm kavanaugh. At this pivotal moment, the white house is brazenly trying to deny that President Trump mocked kavanaughs accuser, professor Christine Blasey ford, at a political rally overnight. But the three undecided gop senators who will make or break kavanaughs nomination arent buying it. Theyre calling mr. Trumps comments wrong and appalling. Ill get reaction from Senate Judiciary Committee Member richard blumenthal. Our correspondents and analysts are standing by. First lets go to our chief White House Correspondent jim acosta. Jim, you were in the room as the white house tried to spin the president s mocking of Christine Blasey ford. Reporter thats right, wolf. They were trying to tell us that up is down and black is white. The white house is not only defending President Trumps obvious mocking of Christine Blasey ford, aides to the president are telling the falsehood that the president wasnt mocking her to begin with. It is just the latest example, wolf, of the white house playing fast and loose with the facts. It was a stunning moment. With a crowd of supporters laughing along, President Trump incredibly mocked Christine Blasey ford, the accuser who says supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. How did you get home . I dont remember. How did you get there . I dont remember. Where is the place . I dont remember. How many years ago was it . I dont know, i dont know. I dont know i dont know what neighborhood was it in . I dont know. Wheres the house . I dont know. Upstairs, downstairs, where was it . I dont know, but i had one beer. Thats the only thing i remember. And a mans life is in tatters. A mans life is shattered. Reporter the white house response, to deny reality and try to convince the public the president was only stating facts. Isnt there something wrong with the president of the United States mocking somebody who says she was sexually assaulted . It seemed to me he was stating facts, that dr. Ford herself laid out in her testimony. Once again, every single word that judge kavanaugh has said has been looked at, examined, picked apart by most of you in this room. Reporter one big problem with the president S Performance . He had just praised ford as credible less than a week ago. What did you think of dr. Fords testimony . I thought her testimony was very compelling, but certainly she was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects. Reporter key gop senators who may ultimately decide kavanaughs fate arent laughing. I thought it was obviously insensitive and appalling, frankly. This is no time or place particularly to discuss something so sensitive at a political rally. It is just wrong. The president s comments were just plain wrong. Reporter still, the president appears to be following the lead of kavanaughs fiercest defenders like senator lindsey gram who are portraying the judge as the victim. Even graham was critical of the president s comments. I dont like what the president said last night. Im the first person to say i want to hear from dr. Ford. I thought she was handled respectfully. I thought kavanaugh was treated like crap. Into. Yeah, well, boo yourself. Reporter the president is all but attempting to start his on Hetoo Movement saying he too can relate to accusations of sexual assault. Think of your son. Think of your husband. Ive had many false accusations. Ive had it all. Ive had so many. And when i say it didnt happen, nobody believes me. Reporter even as his top aides are making the case that ford has perhaps been handled too delicately. Shes been treated like a faberge by all of us beginning with me and the president. Reporter now, Christine Blasey fords legal team says she stands by her testimony, but as of earlier today fords team said she had not yet spoken with fbi agents who are expected to release their expanded background check on kavanaugh to the white house and then to the senate as early as later on this evening. Wolf, we just heard the white house try earlier to say that theyre the ones who are trying to state facts around here, wolf. As you and i both know, our experience covering this white house, that is simply not the case. Jim acosta at the white house for us. Thanks for that report. Lets get the latest on the Kavanaugh Investigation as we await word on delivery of the fbi report. Our Senior Investigative correspondent drew griffin is here with me. Drew, what is the latest . What are you learning . Even though the fbi is expected to have this report within the hour perhaps or any minute, we are understanding from a government source familiar with the operation that the fbi is continuing to accept information, to get tips, to lead those tips down and also presumably to interview people. It is just not clear which people they are interviewing. Tonight cnn has learned supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey ford, are at this moment not on the list for the fbi to interview about what allegedly took place at a high school party. But fbi agents are expanding their interviews concerning details of a High School Gathering kavanaugh provided himself. Kavanaughs own calendar for july 1, 1982, includes this reference. Go to timmys for skis with judge, tom, p. J. , ernie, squeak. You drink on weekdays, yes or no, sir . In the summer when we went over to timmys house on july 1st, that would indicate yes. Yes. In other words that july 1st reference to skis went over for breskies, correct . And after i just need a yes or no. It is a thursday night and the fbi is attempting to chase down each individual named in kavanaughs own hand. The fbi interviewing tim goodette, Chris Garrett or squee as well as mark judge and p. J. Smith. Meanwhile, even more evidence is being revealed disputing kavanaughs description of himself as a mild or occasional drinker, and the evidence is again in his own hand. The New York Times obtained this letter written by kavanaugh in 1983 discussing plans for a Beach Weekend with friends in which kavanaugh writes, warn the neighbors that were loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. He signs off fffff bart. That nickname, bart, is another potential important lead. It is the name kavanaughs best friend mark judge used in his book wasted describing a Bart Okavanaugh who puked in someones car during beach week. Mr. Kavanaugh, im trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart Kavanaugh that hes referring t referring to . Yes or no. Reporter as for deborah ramirezs allegations that kavanaugh exposed himself at a Drunken Party at a dorm. She spent two hours with the fbi giving them a list of names that they could contact for leads. Cnn contacted some on the list saying they were never contacted or reached out to the fbi themselves only not to hear back. The fbi is not counting on any of this, wolf, but i can tell you based on the people i talked to, they either called or tried to talk to the fbi or talked to the fbi, it seems the fbi is very interested in what happened in dr. Fords allegations, not so much what is taking place at yale in those days. Thank you for that report, drew. We are getting some more breaking news on the fbi investigation of Brett Kavanaugh. Lets go right to our Congressional Correspondent Phil Mattingly. Hes up on capitol hill. Phil, democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee Just sent a new letter. Tell us about that . Reporter yeah, just to give you a sense of how heated things have gotten on capitol hill and really the divide between republicans and democrats, at least eight democrats on the Judiciary Committee seizing on a tweet from the republican staff of the Judiciary Committee that said in the tweet that in previous background checks with Brett Kavanaugh, hes had six during his time in government service, there had been no whiff of sexual impropriety or alcohol allegations. Woo the democrats said in a response in a letter to chairman Chuck Grassley said was this. Each of us has reviewed the confidential Background Investigation of judge kavanaugh before the hearing. While we are limited in what we can say about this Background Investigation in a public setting, we are compelled to state for the record that there is information in the second post that is not accurate. The second post being the tweet about no whiff of allegations. We urge you to ensure these twitter posts are promptly corrected. Now, it is cryptic and theyre not going to go further into details because Background Investigations material is not for public release. It can only be read by senators and a small number of staff in camera. What do they mean by that . That we dont know. Senator grassleys staff responded a short minute ago on twitter saying, nothing in the tweet is inaccurate or misleading. The committee stands by its statement which is completely truthful. More baseless innuendo and false smear from senate democrats. It has been no secret that the democratic and republican members of the Judiciary Committee have been part of an implosion over the course of the last couple of weeks as relates to the investigation. Weve seen letters going back and forth. Weve seen what appears to be Opposition Research going back and forth throughout the course of people reviewing these allegations. That clearly not only continuing, but kind of reaching a new level and it raises another issue. Wolf, what the committee is expecting to get back, what the senate is expecting to get back from the fbi is a supplemental Background Investigation. What that entails is what theyre similarly going back and forth cryptically now. It is information that can only be reviewed by 100 senators and eight declared Staff Members. That means because it cant be released publicly and my understanding is there will be no release, no summary, nothing public related to what they get back, related to the fbis recent inquiry into judge kavanaugh, it will likely only be known as it is characterized by senators, which opens the door to cryptic back and forths like this. It only adds to the confusion as people are trying to decide whether or not to elevate Brett Kavanaugh to the highest court in the land. Look, the partisan back and forth and the heated partisan debate over this is no secret, but the way it has devolved over the course of the last couple of weeks underscores, one, the stakes. Obviously with this position, obviously with the allegations and the moment that theyre in as a country, but also the divide inside the committee, the divide between the parties as this seems to have gotten more and more heated every step of the way, and what people dont have are answers to whether the allegations are true, to who might be right. Frankly, how people are going to vote and if Brett Kavanaugh is going to have the votes to be confirmed. Wolf. What do you know, fim, about the timing on the releasing of this fbi report . Reporter yeah, wolf, a short while ago i spoke to a Senior Senate aide who said everything is frozen right now. The senate needs to move forward if it want to have a vote this week as Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell said would happen, doing something procedurally on floor to start the clock on that. Theyve decided not to move forward until the fbi gets the report to capitol hill. The process here is once the fbi has finished all of its interviews as part of its inquiry, it will send that package of interviews up to the white house who will then probably within the course of an hour or two send it to capitol hill. When it reaps capitol hill, it will be a single document numbers of pages, but a single document that senators will be able to go into a room to read. Obviously as i said earlier, they wont be able to bring all of their staffers. Only four on each sidle have access to it. If they bring in notes, theyre not allowed to take them out of the room or phones into the room. In terms of what the timing is, while leader mcconnell made clear they want to do it this week so far that process has not started and im told it will not start, wolf, until the fbi report makes its way to capitol hill. We will see when it arrives at the white house and when it arrives on capitol hill. Thank you very much. Phil mattingly reporting. Joining us, senator richard blumenthal, a democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for coming in. Thank you, wolf. Im hoping you can clarify the latest issue, the republican majority on your committee, the Judiciary Committee, they posted this tweet. Nowhere in any of these six fbi reports which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis was there ever a whiff of any issue at all related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse. What is inaccurate about that tweet . The clarification of the tweet would require me to go into the fbi report, but what it highlights very dramatically an directly is the need for a full investigation. And for the public to know whats in that investigation, which is why it should be made public and why the facts here are really so important. We ought to have a common goal here of all of the witnesses, including the 25 on the list that we submitted to the fbi and to the white house, we as the democratic members most of us, and those witnesses still have not been interviewed. Im told that there are 40 more witnesses who have relevant information, still not interviewed. But you heard senator Chuck Grassley, the committee chairman, say that tweet is absolutely accurate, nothing inaccurate about it. As you know, there were six previous fbi background checks of judge kavanaugh. So you got to tell us, what exactly are you suggesting is inaccurate . Was there ever any raising of the issue of alcohol or sexual assault, anything along those lines in the previous six background checks . Heres what i can tell you about those six background checks. Ive seen them. In talking generally without going into what is in them, the general practice of the fbi is, number one, to begin the fbi background check at age 18. So nothing before age 18 generally is covered. Second, the general practice is to go to professional colleagues, coworkers, supervisors, people involved in those kinds of formal relationships, and then individuals who are submitted as references by the nominee himself. So you know from that general practice that pointing to lack of information about alcohol abuse or sexual contacts or experience might never be covered by those six Background Investigations because as a general practice the fbi would not go back earlier than 18 or cover those kinds of friendships that might give rise to that information. Because in this letter that you wrote, together with seven of your democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, you write, while we are limited in what we can say about this Background Investigation in a public setting, we are compelled to state for the record that there is information in the second post the post by the Judiciary Committee majority that is not accurate. Why didnt you raise these issues earlier, the concerns you currently have now about the previous six background checks and what was included in those background checks . We did raise them earlier. In fact, from day one we asked for an fbi investigation. Just last weekend i led a letter that was released on monday asking for specific witnesses to be interviewed who would not have been covered in the previous background check investigation. The fbi has time or should demand time to make this Investigation Complete and thorough. In all of the interviews you and i have done, your democratic colleagues have done with us, i dont remember anyone raising suggesting that perhaps there were previous allegations of alcohol or Sexual Misconduct in the earlier background checks of jud