Kavanaugh Vote in Jeopardy: Trump Says Delay May Be Needed as Nomineeâ€™s Accuser Goes Public
- Carrie Severino of theJudicial Crisis Network
joins us now for more.
Carrie, what do you makeof these allegations
and the fact that the woman making them
now has taken the step to come forward?
- Yeah, what we've seenhere is allegations
that are totally at oddswith what we have seen so far
of Judge Kavanaugh'scharacter and reputation.
You've got, you know, someone who's been
in public life for 25 years,
undergone six differentbackground checks in that time.
There's never been a whisper of misconduct
in any of those.
You've got women who havealready been on the record
from every stage of his career,
who have known him in allthese different times,
who have said this doesn't sound
like the Judge Kavanaugh we know.
And now 65 women came out
that knew him from high school,
saying the Kavanaugh we knew
was someone who was veryrespectful with women,
that doesn't sound consistent with him.
On top of that, his ownpersonal, unequivocal denial
that this is what happened.
I think it also, whenyou take in the context
of how Senator Feinstein herselftreated these allegations,
she had them since July.
She did not bring them up
in front of the Judiciary Committee.
She didn't bring them up when she herself
was interviewing Judge Kavanaugh.
She didn't bring themup in the closed session
of the judiciary hearingthat is off the record,
so could have predictedin confidentiality.
She wasn't treating these asif she found them credible
or serious or relevant,
and I think it's strangenow to see at the very eve
of the vote, now suddenly,a lot of people using them
to say now we need to delay.
- A lot of people aretalking about the timing,
however, there are Republicanswho are on the committee
who are suggesting thatmaybe the right thing to do
is to delay and hit the pause on the vote,
to take some time to investigate,
and hear from both JudgeKavanaugh and his accuser.
What are your thoughts on that?
- Well I agree.
And I think it's clear thatwe've heard the White House
and the Senate Judiciary Committee say
we wanna make sure we give a chance
for both sides to telltheir side of the story
and get questioned by Senators.
I think the question is,does that become then
a dilatory process.
Are we gonna use this tojust slow walk things,
or can we go and actuallyhave the investigation
and then move on?
What I'm seeing is a lot ofthe Democrats are using this
simply, and these are thesame people who were saying
back in July, let's delaythis, let's not have a vote.
They were saying it in August.
They were saying it in September.
This is, we can't letit be purely political
using this allegation as a delay tactic.
I think giving both sides a fair chance
to hear things can be done,
and still can be donein a reasonable manner,
that it doesn't end up dragging on.
- Carrie, perfect segwayinto my next question.
This has already been
a highly partisan confirmation process,
do you think this is justanother example of that?
- Yeah, unfortunately.
I mean, last week Justice Ginsberg
was interviewed before all this stuff
even started breaking the way it is now.
And she was interviewed by a former clerk
talking about her confirmation process.
Remember, she worked for the ACLU,
she was very active in liberalcauses and feminist causes.
She got confirmed with onlythree votes against her.
Justice Scalia similarly,
very committed to his judicial philosophy.
On the opposite side, hewas confirmed unanimously.
She said the way it wasdone then was better.
The way it's being done now is not right.
And she was very criticalof the circus we had seen
up until now in the hearings
which already was really anoffensive thing to watch,
I think in many ways.
The way it was being usedfor demagoguery rather than
even looking into the candidate.
I'm afraid this is justanother step in that process
and even the Democrats seem to be
using this woman's allegationsas more of a partisan ploy,
as a delay tactic, than reallyeven taking it seriously.
- Carrie, I just wanna ask you,
Politico's now reporting thatthe Judicial Crisis Network
is getting ready to spend $1.5 million
in TV ad campaigns that'll feature
long time friend, the Kavanaughs.
Is this in any way a sign or a signal
that perhaps his supporters think
that his nomination is now in jeopardy?
Do you think that he'll bethe next Supreme Court Justice
on the Supreme Court?
- Oh I definitely do.
What it is is illustratingthe very purpose
that we exist, which isto make sure that nominees
in this kind of position
who are faithful to the constitution,
faithful to the law,
and therefore getting a lotof attacks from the left,
that there's someone thereto be an advocate for them.
We've run lots of adstalking about Judge Kavanaugh
up until now, and this is just the latest.
Trying to make sure peopleare aware of who he is
and aren't just listening to the smears
and the slurs from the other side.
- Carrie Severino, we'll leave it there.
Thanks for joining us.
- Have a great day.