Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. Senate Republicans are
Speaker 1: pushing to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanabe early next week.
Speaker 1: The court's term is set to start on Monday. Speaking
Speaker 1: before the Senate Judiciary Committee just yesterday, Kavanaugh blamed partisanship
Speaker 1: for the accusations against him. This whole two week effort
Speaker 1: has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with
Speaker 1: apparent pent up anger about President Trump and the two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen election. Bloomberg News White House reporter Justin
Speaker 1: st joining us now in our Bloomberg studios here in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. All Right, Justin, does appear like this vote
Speaker 1: is going to be going forward, But there are a
Speaker 1: lot of groups that are are asking for a delay,
Speaker 1: not just Democrats, the American Bar Association one of them,
Speaker 1: just to get an investigation underway for some context here, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think what you've seen here is a
Speaker 1: real dichotomy, and it was expressed by what Judge Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: said in the hearing where he is sort of accused
Speaker 1: Democrats of orchestrating a witch hunt against him. That that's
Speaker 1: something that we've heard echoed by Republicans really actively. And
Speaker 1: so on one side, you've got somebody who says, I
Speaker 1: didn't do this, it wasn't me. Uh, and you guys
Speaker 1: are trying a political hitch job. On the other hand, obviously,
Speaker 1: we heard extremely compelling testimony yesterday from from Dr Ford
Speaker 1: who came forward, told her story, sat for questions for
Speaker 1: for multiple hours in front of the Senate. There were
Speaker 1: no moments that cast any doubt on on her testimony.
Speaker 1: And so you have her and Democrats and some of
Speaker 1: these outside legal groups who are saying, uh, at the
Speaker 1: very least, these claims deserve more investigation and more looking
Speaker 1: at the difference, of course, is that Republicans control the
Speaker 1: committee and the Senate, and so uh if you see
Speaker 1: that they don't find her claims to be credible. Uh.
Speaker 1: The the action that they seem to be kind of
Speaker 1: going forward is not just bringing this to the full
Speaker 1: floor of the Senate, but but moving ahead with a
Speaker 1: confirmation vote. All right, then, um, bottom line is Kevin
Speaker 1: all gonna get confirmed next week or not? It really
Speaker 1: hinges on I think a couple of votes. Susan Collins,
Speaker 1: Lisa Murkowski. Uh, we heard earlier this morning that Jeff Flake,
Speaker 1: the Republican Senator from Arizona who during the questioning yesterday
Speaker 1: did not join his colleagues and sort of describing the
Speaker 1: investigation or the proceedings yesterday is as a political attempt
Speaker 1: by Democrats, who who seemed to at least take Dr
Speaker 1: Ford's testimony seriously in the moment, said that he would
Speaker 1: vote both to to move her or to move Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: nomination forward, but also for his confirmation. That for opponents
Speaker 1: of Kavanaugh was a pretty devastating blow. There's a chance
Speaker 1: that those Republican women, uh, kind of sweeping at the
Speaker 1: last minute and say that that they're not going to
Speaker 1: vote for him. Democrats seem to be holding the line
Speaker 1: for their part, but but I think oddsmakers would certainly
Speaker 1: say that they expect him to be sitting on the
Speaker 1: court next week. Yeah, there are some folks who were
Speaker 1: talking about the Kavanaugh specifically and some of the things
Speaker 1: that he had said and some of the way, some
Speaker 1: of the how he said it, Um and how there
Speaker 1: is some concern that he might be showing his political
Speaker 1: slip a little bit, that he's more political than he
Speaker 1: is judicial. It was certainly, I think an unprecedented display
Speaker 1: in front of UM, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: I think candidates, especially candidates for the Supreme Court, often
Speaker 1: strive to make their nominations appear nonpartisan, non political, even
Speaker 1: though they obvious they are appointed by presidents and have
Speaker 1: histories that that might betray um where they come down politically.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of effort put into not doing that.
Speaker 1: What we saw from britt Cavanaugh yesterday was charging Democrats
Speaker 1: angrily with a broad political conspiracy. He evoked the Clintons,
Speaker 1: he evoked to President Trump. He really painted the proceedings
Speaker 1: and starkly political terms. Now that being said, uh, it
Speaker 1: may have been the move that he needed to take
Speaker 1: to to make sure that he was on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: because after the testimony of Dr Ford, I think the reaction, uh,
Speaker 1: not just sort of in the Twitter sphere or or
Speaker 1: on cable TV, but at the White House and among
Speaker 1: Republicans on Capitol Hill was that she was extremely credible,
Speaker 1: that she was believable, and that his nomination was in
Speaker 1: some real trouble. So I think, uh, the approach that
Speaker 1: he took was an orthodox but but did seem to
Speaker 1: turn this back into the kind of earths versus skins,
Speaker 1: Democrats versus Republican matrix that that makes it easier for
Speaker 1: for some Republicans who might be on the fence to
Speaker 1: sort of back their party on this vote. And I
Speaker 1: assume that there's a full court press at the White
Speaker 1: House to get Kavanaugh confirmed, and that includes I believe
Speaker 1: a trip to West Virginia tomorrow by President Trump, which
Speaker 1: would put pressure on the Democratic senator there, Joe Manson,
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly. Um, Joe Manson's facing reelection, uh in just
Speaker 1: a couple of months here, and obviously in a state
Speaker 1: that Trump won by Yeah, exactly, and and is currently
Speaker 1: I think leading the polls in favor to win reelection.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, obviously UM faces a lot of pressure to
Speaker 1: to demonstrate himself as bipartisan. Uh. That that being said,
Speaker 1: and certainly I think the White House has stood by
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh, and we saw some tweets from the President
Speaker 1: Press secretary yesterday supportive of him, because for those swing senators,
Speaker 1: President Trump is not necessarily the most compelling person. We
Speaker 1: we haven't heard the stories of him getting on the
Speaker 1: phone and trying to sort of bend arms back. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's there have been some reports today that former President
Speaker 1: George W. Bush, who Kavanaugh used to work for as
Speaker 1: a staff secretary, has actually been more engaged in working
Speaker 1: the phones on his behalf. And for somebody like Jeff Flake,
Speaker 1: I think a call from George W. Bush probably goes
Speaker 1: a lot further than than one from Donald Trump, who
Speaker 1: he spent a lot of time criticizing pretty publicly. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we got about a half a minute ago. This
Speaker 1: is going to show up in the mid terms, Yes,
Speaker 1: more than likely. Yeah, And uh, I think certainly if
Speaker 1: female voters were not feeling already as if they could
Speaker 1: make their voices heard at the ballot box uh in November,
Speaker 1: that this will be something that is an impetus for them. Uh.
Speaker 1: You could certainly also argue, on the flip side that
Speaker 1: for conservatives who have long tried to see U ro
Speaker 1: versus Way or other Supreme Court opinions, Um sort of
Speaker 1: turned in another direction, that that this might be a
Speaker 1: promise kept by Donald Trump and congressiant Republicans, and maybe
Speaker 1: that'll motivate them all right. Bloomberg News White House reporter
Speaker 1: Justin Sink with us in our Bloomberg ninety nine one
Speaker 1: studios here in Washington, d c M or live from
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio, and we've been speaking about
Speaker 1: the confirmation of Supreme Court nomini Brett Kavanaugh, which is
Speaker 1: headed for a full vote in the Senate early next week.
Speaker 1: During testimony yesterday from Kavanaugh and one of the women
Speaker 1: accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasi Ford, Democratic Senator
Speaker 1: Dick Durbin asked Ford whether she was sure that it
Speaker 1: was Kavanaugh who assaulted her. In Dr Ford, with what
Speaker 1: degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? One?
Speaker 1: Neil Kinkoff is a professor at Georgia State University School
Speaker 1: of Law. He joined us now by phone from more
Speaker 1: on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and professor, what did you make
Speaker 1: of the hearing yesterday? Wow? I think that swims it up. Um.
Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like it. Even Anita Hill Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas wasn't quite like yesterday. It was the most partisan
Speaker 1: and vitriolic Supreme Court hearing. I'm sure in our nation's history,
Speaker 1: you know, the American Bar Association had endorsed Kavanaugh, and
Speaker 1: now that group plus now we're learning Yale Law School's Dean,
Speaker 1: plus at least four Republican governors are calling for them
Speaker 1: to sort of pump the brakes on this so that
Speaker 1: there can be an investigation. Is any of that going
Speaker 1: to hold any weight. That's entirely up to Lisa Murkowski
Speaker 1: and Susan Collins, right, which it really has been the
Speaker 1: whole time time. If you remember back to when UM
Speaker 1: Professor Blasi Ford first came forward, UM, Susan Collins was
Speaker 1: really the one holding all of the cards, and what
Speaker 1: would satisfy her is what Grassley was willing to do
Speaker 1: in the way of process. So when she initially UM
Speaker 1: didn't think we needed to hear from Mark Judge and
Speaker 1: didn't need to have a full FBI investigation, well, the
Speaker 1: Committee helped firm on those points. And so it's going
Speaker 1: to be entirely up to her and Lisa Murkowski as
Speaker 1: to what they're satisfied with. If they were satisfied with
Speaker 1: yesterday's proceedings, then the Senator had the votes to run
Speaker 1: this through, um, And if Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski
Speaker 1: demand more in the way of developing evidence and more
Speaker 1: in the way of inquiry into the allegations, then more
Speaker 1: will take place. Now let's go in order of the witnesses.
Speaker 1: What did you think of a doctor Blaisie fords a testimony?
Speaker 1: And then what did you think of Judge Kavanaughs testimony?
Speaker 1: And and the merits of each of each witnesses testimony. Well,
Speaker 1: I think um, Professor Blasi Ford was obviously credible. Everyone
Speaker 1: who commented on the hearing said she was credible and
Speaker 1: compelling and sincere and earnest, coming forward out of motives
Speaker 1: that had nothing to do with anything other than to
Speaker 1: tell the truth, to get to the bottom of it,
Speaker 1: and a sound of civic duty. Um. Given that, I
Speaker 1: don't see how the Senate can, in any kind of
Speaker 1: principal fashion do anything other than for their investigation. As
Speaker 1: for Judge Kavanaugh, I thought his remarks were incredibly partisan, UM,
Speaker 1: and sort of belied the idea that he has the
Speaker 1: kind of temperament to be on the Supreme Court, that
Speaker 1: he can be trusted as a neutral arbiter when matters
Speaker 1: like I don't know to like, like, well, what's going
Speaker 1: on with President Trump and the the Moler investigation, which
Speaker 1: are all headed for the Supreme Court. How can he
Speaker 1: sit on the Supreme Court and be regarded as a
Speaker 1: fair arbiter of whether whatever it is the President Trump
Speaker 1: does to stop the witch hunt, um, is constitutional or not.
Speaker 1: I wonder if it's worth mentioning. The Democratic Coalition filing
Speaker 1: another complaint against Kavanaugh, this one saying that he violated
Speaker 1: the Judicial Code of conduct by line to the committee,
Speaker 1: what does that filing mean and where would it go? Well,
Speaker 1: it's not going to go anywhere. Um. You know, really
Speaker 1: that the game is the Judiciary Committee, and the game
Speaker 1: is Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. If they're satisfied, he's
Speaker 1: going to go through and the complaints of the Democrats
Speaker 1: in the Senate they won't amount to anything. What about
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh's comments, He denied the allegations. Uh, he basically
Speaker 1: acted as his own prosecutor against doctor Blasi Ford um
Speaker 1: and attacked her testimony kind of point by point. Mhm, right.
Speaker 1: But if if you regard her testimony as credible and compelling,
Speaker 1: and virtually every member of the committee said exactly that.
Speaker 1: If that's right, then you need to hear from Mark Judge.
Speaker 1: You need to inquiry into well what she what what
Speaker 1: she told her her counselors and psychiatrists back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve and thirteen. Right, there needs to be
Speaker 1: a full development of the factual record, um, to try
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of it. Because sure, he's
Speaker 1: denied and point by point denied that he did any
Speaker 1: of the things he's alleged to have done. Um, that's
Speaker 1: not at all surprising. That's exactly what everybody expected him
Speaker 1: to do. But given how credible and compelling Dr Blaussi
Speaker 1: Ford was, Um, at the very minimum, I think it's
Speaker 1: incumbent on the Senate to do more inquiry. And very briefly,
Speaker 1: we only have about twenty seconds left, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you about that partisan process that you had
Speaker 1: just referred to. Of course you were referring to Mr Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: But has the process itself for the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: get someone on this on the Supreme Court? Has it
Speaker 1: become two partisan in about twenty seconds? Sure, yes, it's
Speaker 1: become far too partisan. Um. This particular process was designed
Speaker 1: to come to the conclusion that well, this is he said,
Speaker 1: she said, so on he goes. But overall it's far
Speaker 1: too partisan. Neil kin Coff, Professor at Georgia State University
Speaker 1: School of Law. Thank you for your analysis. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on
Speaker 1: bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg d co Dependent DA comp