WEBVTT - Impeachment Based on Nothing.  Mollie Hemingway talks to Armstrong & Getty

0:00:03.720 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>The process was a sham um. I don't think you

0:00:06.440 --> 0:00:10.399
<v Speaker 1>can look at impeachment hearings without getting the documents. That's

0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:12.840
<v Speaker 1>House would have to get the documents, and the Attorney

0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:17.799
<v Speaker 1>General is shielding documents. So that was one of the

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.160
<v Speaker 1>presidential candidates that came out over the weekend. That was

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Amy Klobucher demanding either more investigation or outright impeachment or

0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:28.760
<v Speaker 1>resignation from Brett Kavanaugh, one of our Supreme Court justices.

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:31.640
<v Speaker 1>A whole bunch of the candidates piled on with that,

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 1>based on a New York Times story that came out

0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:37.640
<v Speaker 1>over the weekend. I'm not sure I've seen a more

0:00:37.800 --> 0:00:43.839
<v Speaker 1>naked parade of ridiculousness impeachment, you know, except the previous

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:48.320
<v Speaker 1>Kavanaugh go around. Impeachment calls came from Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren,

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:55.520
<v Speaker 1>Beattell Rourke, Julian Castro, among others. Molly Hemingway is not

0:00:55.680 --> 0:00:58.680
<v Speaker 1>only the co author with Kerry Saverino of Justice on Trial,

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:01.000
<v Speaker 1>the Kavanaugh Confirmation in the Future of the Supreme Court,

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>but she is the person who apparently single landedly went

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:07.120
<v Speaker 1>through the book and uh and first exposed It's notable exposed.

0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>It's notable flaws over the weekend, and Molly joins us. Now, Molly,

0:01:10.480 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>how are you great? Good to be here with you. Well, thanks,

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:16.559
<v Speaker 1>it's it's great to talk to you again. So, when

0:01:16.760 --> 0:01:20.880
<v Speaker 1>you got word of this New York Times story, take

0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 1>us through your day, what how did you react? What

0:01:23.400 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>did you do? Well? As you know, as I talked

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 1>with you before when I was on the show, My

0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:32.839
<v Speaker 1>co author Carrie Saberino, and I wrote Justice on Trial,

0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:35.840
<v Speaker 1>which is this definitive book on what happened during the confirmation.

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:38.839
<v Speaker 1>So we were interested in what this book would say,

0:01:38.880 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>and we saw what they put out in the New

0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>York Times and it seemed very flimsy. But I also

0:01:44.400 --> 0:01:47.119
<v Speaker 1>just read the book and noticed that they didn't include

0:01:47.560 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>a major important piece of information in their article. So

0:01:52.120 --> 0:01:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the article is about how someone heard from someone who

0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:58.120
<v Speaker 1>talked to another person about a supposed incident, and so

0:01:58.200 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 1>they say this should have been investigated. It's unclear why

0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>they think it rose to the level of needing investigation,

0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>even if it were true. But in the book they

0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>reveal the alleged victim, such as it were, says she

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>has no recollection of any such incident. They kept that

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.399
<v Speaker 1>out of the New York Times. This story went viral yesterday.

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:20.840
<v Speaker 1>It led every evening newscast. Everyone said, there's a credible

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.399
<v Speaker 1>new allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It turned out it's not credible.

0:02:24.480 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 1>It's also not new. It didn't even rise to the

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:31.400
<v Speaker 1>standard last year of Senate Democrats taking it seriously. Um

0:02:31.440 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Apparently it was told to a couple of Senate Democrats

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:35.919
<v Speaker 1>and they were willing to share all sorts of ridiculous

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:39.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff with for being further investigated. I will remind you

0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:43.960
<v Speaker 1>of the alleged rape boat in Rhode Island, the nationwide

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 1>crime spree that that the judge Kavanaugh was supposedly engaged in.

0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.880
<v Speaker 1>Those things were taken more seriously than this claim. So

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:55.200
<v Speaker 1>it's not new, it's not credible. The alleged victim says

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:57.920
<v Speaker 1>she has no recollection of it, and yet our media

0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>not just went wild there continuing to go wild over it,

0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:05.239
<v Speaker 1>and they are encouraging Democrats to call for impeachment based

0:03:05.240 --> 0:03:08.520
<v Speaker 1>on nothing. This is why Carrie and I wrote the book,

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:11.040
<v Speaker 1>because we wanted to have the definitive history down, because

0:03:11.080 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 1>we knew the media would try to reimagine everything and

0:03:14.120 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 1>come up with new things to make it sound like

0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:19.280
<v Speaker 1>what happened last year wasn't as ridiculous as as it was.

0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:21.919
<v Speaker 1>And uh, and that's why we got all those facts

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:24.200
<v Speaker 1>down and kind of laid out what their game plan is,

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:26.720
<v Speaker 1>which is exactly what we're going through right now. I

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>read the New York Times book review every Saturday night.

0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Did they review your book about Kavanaugh? The only mention

0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:36.160
<v Speaker 1>in the New York Times of our book, which again

0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 1>based on more than a hundred interviews with Supreme Court justices,

0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 1>high level people in the White House, senators, people close

0:03:43.480 --> 0:03:46.120
<v Speaker 1>to the blasi Ford family, people close to the Kavanaugh family.

0:03:46.200 --> 0:03:48.520
<v Speaker 1>The only mentioned has been when they admit that it's

0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:50.240
<v Speaker 1>a best seller, so they put it on their best

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:53.520
<v Speaker 1>seller list. But they have never reported on our bombshell

0:03:53.880 --> 0:03:57.520
<v Speaker 1>news that we've broken, um, you know, even stuff that's

0:03:57.560 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>not particularly political, such as how Justice Kennedy retired, or

0:04:01.160 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>what the Kavanaugh family was going through as they were

0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 1>going through the nomination process, or the fact that Leland

0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Kaiser does not believe her friend, which we reported first

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 1>got no mentioned. By the way, this book from these

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:17.919
<v Speaker 1>New York Times reporters also admits that, but they say

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 1>that they don't believe her that they don't care that

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>she doesn't believe her friend. Their gut tells them to

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:27.640
<v Speaker 1>believe um, Christine Bladiford, even though they found no evidence

0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 1>in support of her allegations. I'm not exaggerating by the

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:33.159
<v Speaker 1>way they literally say their gut tells them to believe

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 1>her in the absence of evidence. What the heck is

0:04:35.480 --> 0:04:38.800
<v Speaker 1>in this book? I mean that's some thin gruel. I

0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:41.000
<v Speaker 1>mean that's using a Karta paint to try to paint

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:44.839
<v Speaker 1>your entire house. Men, You are spread that thin. I

0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:47.240
<v Speaker 1>saw someone say it's like they got a big contract

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:49.400
<v Speaker 1>to come up with all sorts of dirt about Kavanaugh,

0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:51.920
<v Speaker 1>failed to come up with any dirt, but turned in

0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>a manuscript anyway. So it is it's a lot of saying, um,

0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:58.760
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a lot of gossip, s marring and and

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 1>anonymous claims, but nothing even really salacious. The only thing

0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:06.920
<v Speaker 1>that you could even kind of call new, which isn't

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 1>new because it came out last year to Senate Democrats,

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:13.040
<v Speaker 1>is this mysterious claim from a Clinton attorney that's denied

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:16.360
<v Speaker 1>by the alleged victims. We're talking with Molly Hemingway, who

0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 1>wrote the book Justice on Trial. The Kavanaugh confirmation in

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the future of the Supreme Court, and she pretty much

0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:24.960
<v Speaker 1>single handedly forced the New York Times to alter their

0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:27.279
<v Speaker 1>story that they ran over the weekend and uh and

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:29.719
<v Speaker 1>delve into their social media and change some things around.

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 1>You know. My to me, the lasting headline out of this,

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:35.520
<v Speaker 1>I think Kavina will be fine and it'll settle down

0:05:35.520 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 1>and it will be one of these two day dust

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 1>ups um, partially because you set the record straight. But

0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:44.480
<v Speaker 1>the lasting impression to me is the New York Times

0:05:44.560 --> 0:05:48.160
<v Speaker 1>is just willing to do anything. We need to have

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:50.719
<v Speaker 1>some news outlets out there that we we all trust

0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:52.760
<v Speaker 1>and believe in, at least some we all know that

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 1>they're politically slanted. But man, this it's eroding even already

0:05:57.520 --> 0:06:00.440
<v Speaker 1>my lack of respect for the New York Times. It's

0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>not just the New York Times, though you saw that

0:06:02.440 --> 0:06:05.440
<v Speaker 1>the Washington Post took this false story and ran with it.

0:06:05.720 --> 0:06:07.920
<v Speaker 1>They're trying to buttress the claim and they're kind of

0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:09.919
<v Speaker 1>just moving past the fact that it's all based on

0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:14.560
<v Speaker 1>a false premise. Major broadcast media lead their news shows

0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:17.279
<v Speaker 1>with it last night and this morning, even after the

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:19.840
<v Speaker 1>correction was made to the piece. It is not just

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:22.960
<v Speaker 1>the Times. The Times is particularly egregious, but we have

0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:28.039
<v Speaker 1>actual corruption riddled throughout our corporate media and it needs

0:06:28.080 --> 0:06:30.480
<v Speaker 1>to be so. I don't wish I had a good

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:32.839
<v Speaker 1>answer of what needs to happen, What people need to

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 1>stop falling for anything UM that is being put out

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.080
<v Speaker 1>that does not have corroboration. They need to demand more

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:42.280
<v Speaker 1>of people. They need to convey just how frustrated they

0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:47.159
<v Speaker 1>are with these media folks who just run wild and

0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.520
<v Speaker 1>have no concern for the truth. Well, ironically, I think

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:54.720
<v Speaker 1>some of our formerly respected, most respected media outlets are

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:57.400
<v Speaker 1>pulling down their pants and saying, look at me, look

0:06:57.440 --> 0:07:00.279
<v Speaker 1>at me. So one of the comments on your Twitter

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:02.000
<v Speaker 1>feed that I really enjoyed, and this ring is so

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 1>true in my life, people, I deal with UM and

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 1>talk to you about politics. It was John who commented

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 1>that the Kavanaugh railroad is the most politically clarifying event

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>in my life and is why is The New York

0:07:13.960 --> 0:07:16.920
<v Speaker 1>Times seems intent on reminding us I will crawl over

0:07:17.000 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 1>broken glass to vote for a guy don't particularly like

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>next year. Jack and I were discussing this earlier. I

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:27.080
<v Speaker 1>don't think the left understands how they are driving people

0:07:27.680 --> 0:07:31.920
<v Speaker 1>uh into being Trump voters, well, there is a problem

0:07:31.960 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>with them being in an echo chamber where they all

0:07:33.960 --> 0:07:37.680
<v Speaker 1>reinforced themselves. And I think what's interesting is all of this,

0:07:37.960 --> 0:07:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the Kavanaugh situation but also the Russia hoax, are the

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:44.320
<v Speaker 1>result of people being unable to accept the fact that

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:46.960
<v Speaker 1>they lost an election, and so they break all sorts

0:07:47.000 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 1>of norms and procedures and ways that we have of

0:07:51.000 --> 0:07:54.480
<v Speaker 1>interacting with each other, all in an attempt to oust someone,

0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.000
<v Speaker 1>whether that's Trump or Kavanaugh. I think what was so

0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:00.800
<v Speaker 1>clarifying about the Kavanaugh experience was that we're as with Trump,

0:08:00.880 --> 0:08:03.080
<v Speaker 1>you could say, I don't like it, but he seems

0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 1>to be a kind of, you know, kind of character.

0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:08.680
<v Speaker 1>With Kavanaugh, this is a guy who spent decades establishing

0:08:09.040 --> 0:08:12.200
<v Speaker 1>probably one of the best reputations of any man in America,

0:08:12.280 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 1>who has friends who are willing to do anything for

0:08:15.800 --> 0:08:17.480
<v Speaker 1>him because of what a good friend he's been, how

0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.120
<v Speaker 1>well he has treated women. To see that they would

0:08:20.160 --> 0:08:24.120
<v Speaker 1>do this even to this man was so clarifying that

0:08:24.160 --> 0:08:27.160
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't you know, it's not about whether Donald Trump

0:08:27.480 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 1>is has an ambiguous moral morality or whatever. This is

0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:34.520
<v Speaker 1>about the desire to destroy people who are politically on

0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:36.439
<v Speaker 1>the other side of you, and there was no way

0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:38.199
<v Speaker 1>you could look at what happened and come up with

0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:41.160
<v Speaker 1>a different conclusion unless you were part of that far left.

0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 1>Molly Hemingway and Carrie Savorino's book is Justice on Trial,

0:08:45.320 --> 0:08:48.079
<v Speaker 1>the Kavanaugh Confirmation, in the Future of the Supreme Court. Molly,

0:08:48.120 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>it's always great to talk. Thanks for the time. Let's

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:57.280
<v Speaker 1>do it again soon. Thank you. Thanks, that's amazing. I just, uh,

0:08:58.600 --> 0:09:03.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, I'm in media. I unders and how desperate

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:06.240
<v Speaker 1>some media sources are. They've got to get eyes in

0:09:06.360 --> 0:09:08.280
<v Speaker 1>here as they've just got to and they've got to

0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:12.840
<v Speaker 1>do it today. But everybody going wild over a story

0:09:12.960 --> 0:09:17.079
<v Speaker 1>this thin, even as Molly pointed out, after it's been

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 1>largely debunked. I mean, that's a testament how desperate they are.

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:27.960
<v Speaker 1>It's sad, man, They're literally pulling down their pants Strong

0:09:28.160 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 1>and Getty