The NPR Politics Podcast - Kavanaugh Again Accused of Sexual Misconduct; Rosenstein Remains Deputy AG For Now

Episode Date: September 24, 2018

**This episode contains explicit details about alleged sexual misconduct and may not be suitable for all listeners** Deborah Ramirez has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a drunken party at Yale. Kavanaugh denies the accusations, and Republicans are calling it a smear campaign. Plus, amid rumors that he suggested wearing wires around the president, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's future in the job is in question. This episode: political reporter Asma Khalid, national political correspondent Mara Liasson, Congressional reporter Kelsey Snell, and justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Kagan from Utah, and right now I'm sitting with my husband Jace in our box seats at La Scala Opera House in Milan, Italy, where we're enjoying our very belated honeymoon. This podcast was recorded at 2.38 p.m. on Monday, September 24th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. All right, here's the show. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. Yesterday, another woman came forward with an accusation of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And today, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went to the White House where he was expecting to be fired. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover politics. I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent. Let's start with the latest allegation against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Over the weekend, a woman by the name of Deborah Ramirez came forward to The New Yorker magazine.

And, you know, she decided to share her story of an incident that she says occurred during her college days in the early 1980s when she knew Brett Kavanaugh there. She says that she was at first hesitant to talk about this all publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. And I should point out that Kavanaugh has denied that this incident ever occurred. But I'm going to share some details of what she described to the New Yorker magazine. She says that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party. And now I'm going to quote exactly what The New Yorker described, that he thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. The details are shocking, but even more than the first allegation, there is no corroboration. And Kelsey, is that partly why I guess we've already begun to hear from Republicans that seem to feel like this is a very thinly sourced story, that there's just a lot of gaps in this story and are questioning whether or of the claims, but they're also saying that they think that this was some sort of coordinated political attack on Kavanaugh, that these women are working with Democrats in some way. And I feel like there are a couple of different arguments that are happening here. One of them is kind of internal to Washington process, the partisan bickering.

And some of it is a very different conversation about believing her allegations. And I can tell you at the White House that the first allegations kind of hit them like a bowling ball, and it was very unsettling. This one, they seem to feel more confident that they can rebut this allegation. And they also feel that it's possible because, as Kelsey just said, it seems so coordinated that it might even spark a backlash among Republicans in the Senate. Just so you know that Brett Kavanaugh himself has responded to the allegations in a letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he called it a smear, pure and simple. He said it's another, quote, false and uncorroborated accusation. So he's, they are going to fight this. And what I've been told is that Mitch McConnell and the president are both, at least for now, on the same page. They're backing Kavanaugh. They're going to

fight this. You have Senator Lindsey Graham, who arguably has gone further than most other Republicans, but he's really been out there saying that he thinks this is coordinated and political. He tweeted earlier that when it comes to stopping President Trump and his agenda, there seem to be no boundaries. Whether it's coaching witnesses or reporting thinly sourced stories without proper verification, everything is fair game and falls into the category of the ends justify the means. That's a pretty strong statement against this allegation and in defense of Kavanaugh. And what I have found so fascinating in all of this is that, you know, we're hearing both from Brett Kavanaugh, but also from a whole bunch of people on the Republican side, that there is no desire at all to have him withdraw his nomination. I mean, he's denying

this. He's called it a really obvious character assassination and has threatened sort of that if this is allowed to succeed, that it would be used again towards other people. And Donald Trump also has shown no indication that he has any desire to withdraw Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. And we have some tape of Donald Trump actually responding to this latest allegation. He was walking into the United Nations. There's a chance that this could be one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything. But I am with Judge Kavanaugh, and I look forward to a vote. And for people to come out of the woodwork from 36 years ago and 30 years ago and never mention it, all of a sudden it happens.

In my opinion, it's totally political. You know, this is Trump's number one playbook. He has always profited politically when he's been the victim or he's been able to tell his supporters that they are being victimized, whether it's the witch hunt of the Mueller investigation or people unfairly attacking his Supreme Court nominee. So that's where the White House is now. And I can tell you that Republicans are watching four of their members really carefully, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Corker, and actually there might be a fifth, which is Dean Heller, who's the senator from Nevada up for reelection this year. And just to show you the kind of pressure that Democrats are going to try

to put on these members, One of the Democratic interest groups, Demand Justice, released a poll today showing that a vote for Kavanaugh in Nevada hurts Heller. Well, I think it's important to point out why they're targeting those people in specific. So Murkowski and Collins are known to be moderates in the Senate. And they're pro-choice. They are pro-choice, and they have been under tremendous pressure from voters back home, but from activist groups back home. The other side of people being Corker and Flake are two people who have been outspoken critics of the president who are retiring and really don't have anything to lose by disappointing the president or choosing some sort of contrary position.

And just for the math, they can afford to lose one because if it's a 50-50 vote, Mike Pence can come up, the vice president, and break the tie. But Mara, you're talking about five. Yes, they can't afford to lose more than one. I've asked this every single day, you know, how people feel about this group of senators, and I have not been told that any one of them is wavering in a big way. But the one that people seem most worried about is Flake just because they would say he's flaky. But also that he's the one who seems to have the most personal animus between him and the president. Just to be clear here, there are 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, if you include the two independents that vote with Democrats. And they have to get a simple majority to approve a Supreme Court nominee.

And they could call in Vice President Mike Pence to help break a tie. But still, that means they can only lose one person. I have wondered for a while why the administration is sort of digging its heels in and refusing to have Kavanaugh withdraw when in reality, you know, you could sort of make the argument that in some ways this really galvanizes Democratic voters who see him as a really problematic nominee. You could make that argument. And certainly way back when, when the president was still deciding on who to nominate, Mitch McConnell, among others, thought maybe somebody with less of a paper trail might have been a better nominee. But that is water under the bridge.

As much as you have been hearing about how angry suburban college educated women are this year, as a matter of fact, one person said if they were any more energized and angry, they'd have a stroke. But the same is true of the Republican social conservative base. So yes, there's political risk in this, that the Republicans could end up alienating female voters even more than they already have. But if Kavanaugh goes down, there will be a lot of angry and disappointed conservatives, evangelicals, and they might just stay home in disgust. But Mara, couldn't it also benefit them to some degree? Because during 2016, the most

probably salient issue I heard from so many voters, particularly on sort of the Christian right side, the evangelical base, was that they were voting for this open seat. They were voting for the Supreme Court. And wouldn't it actually benefit them in some ways to have something to fight for and actually galvanize that part of the electorate? There's a big debate inside the Republican family about this question. Maybe Kelsey can weigh in here. But what I'm hearing is the first reaction was, oh, you know, this is a way for us to energize our base because once again, you know, we were denied a Supreme Court seat. But most people say failure is not rewarded. The Republicans have every, they have a majority in the Senate. They have the White House. If they can't get this Supreme Court nominee onto the court, their base will just be disgusted and angry. What's the point of voting Republican if

you can't get Supreme Court nominees? And don't forget, this is the, as you found from talking to voters in 2016, this is the top goal. Republicans are about to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for a generation or more. And to have that taken away from them, no, I don't think that ends up being a positive for Republicans in the midterms. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think that this is incredibly perilous for Republicans. I mean, it could possibly energize part of their base if they're going back to a fight in this midterm about the Supreme Court politics. But at the same time, as Mara mentions, a failure here deprives

them of what they expected to be their best selling point, their best closing argument in the last month or so before the election, which was, you know, the tax cuts, they just like aren't really working as a messaging strategy. The idea of deregulation that President Trump has been successful at removing regulations only speaks to a small, you know, a small portion of Republicans. The idea was that Brett Kavanaugh was going to be their proof that Republicans are successful and if this falls apart that would deny them that opportunity. And don't forget a lot of Republicans including a lot of social conservatives and evangelicals made an implicit bargain. They would put up with all the stuff about Trump they

didn't like, the personal behavior, the tweeting, because they were going to get their most important goal, which was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. And if that can't come through, then you sort of wonder why support him? Why continue to support him? Yeah. And it'll look like incompetence. So the story we've been discussing is the latest allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. But, you know, of course, there was this other earlier allegation by a woman who knew him during his high school years, Christine Blasey Ford. And we should point out that there was some news in terms of that particular allegation itself. She has agreed to testify

and discuss what happened to her this Thursday. Kelsey, I imagine that that is going to be a spectacle, to say the least. But tell us what we can expect. So Ford and Kavanaugh will both appear at this hearing, and she will likely appear first. And Kavanaugh will not be in the room for that time. The committee has agreed to give her frequent breaks because it's expected to be a really emotional moment for her. There will be limited press access and it'll be in a smaller room than the original confirmation hearings that we saw televised when Kavanaugh came up the first time. Kavanaugh will likely then come and rebut. And we're expecting that he's going to bring calendars from when he was

in high school that don't reflect a party that she's discussing. And that doesn't necessarily prove that there was no party there, but we're expecting that he will make the argument that he wasn't at any party where this could have happened. Yeah, we should point out that he has repeatedly also denied this allegation as he is the latest allegation as well. Hey, Kelsey, can I ask you a question? There's a lot of talk about who's going to actually question her. Has that been resolved? Because the idea that the all-male, all-white Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee don't want to question her for fear that they might look bad? Well, the committee has said that who questions a witness

in the committee is a non-negotiable issue. The attorneys for Ford have requested that only senators ask the questions. But Grassley, Senator Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the committee, said in a letter that was part of this long exchange that happened over the weekend that that is just not something he's willing to negotiate on. There's been some talk about whether or not a staff attorney or some other female attorney might be brought in to ask some of the questions. That is unclear at this point. It's possible that we could see that happen. But it seems like everybody is aware of the political risks of how it might look if this is a reprise of Anita Hill and it looks like a bunch of old white guys are ganging up on this woman and not believing her story. That's right. And as we've discussed

before on this podcast, there are no women on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee. There are women on the Democrat side, but none on the Republican side. And that is something that Republicans are quite aware of. All right. Well, thank you, Kelsey. We will let you go. And I'm sure we'll be talking to you very soon, Thursday, if not sooner than that. We're going to take a quick break now. And when we get back, we'll discuss the latest with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and why he thought he might be fired today. Support for NPR and the following message come from PBS presenting a new documentary called Dark Money. It's about a journalist trying to expose the dark money groups who contribute

large sums of untraceable money to buy politicians and influence elections. Exploring questions including who are these groups? What are they hiding? Are they foreign or domestic? And what Hey y'all, Sam Sanders here. This week on my show, I talk with actress Natasha Rothwell, also known as Kelly from HBO's Insecure. We talk about that hilarious role and her time writing for SNL. Also, Natasha tells me her favorite Brat Pack movie. Download it now. It's been a minute from NPR.

All right, we are back. Mara is still with us, and we've now got NPR's justice correspondent, Carrie Johnson. Hey, Carrie. Hey, Asma. So, Carrie, this morning, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, went to the White House where it seemed that he was perhaps expecting to be fired. Why would he think that? Well, no small reason. A blockbuster New York Times story from last week suggesting he talked about wanting to wear a wire or have other people wear a wire and record Donald Trump in the White House last year,

shortly after Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey and welcomed the Russians into the Oval Office a day later. The New York Times also said Rod Rosenstein had talked about the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would declare the president unfit to serve. And he thought that maybe he could get the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then DHS Secretary John Kelly to go along with that. Now, Rod Rosenstein in public denied that he ever approved or advanced any plan to record the president in the Oval Office or anywhere else. And he also denied advocating for the overthrow of the president. But obviously, it got Donald Trump very, very upset. So, Carrie, just before we jump into actually

looking at how Donald Trump has responded to all of this, I want to clarify one sort of storyline that I've been hearing, and that is that Rod Rosenstein might resign instead of being fired. Is there a big difference between him being fired versus actually resigning? There is a legal difference. And when it comes to the Justice Department, the law in the process matters. The main legal difference is that if he resigns, the president could appoint somebody into that job who's been Senate confirmed for another position, whereas if he's fired, the normal line of succession at the Justice Department would kick in. And the way that

works is that various people who are laid out in an executive order would advance one step up the ladder. And of course, everyone's obsessed with this because Rod Rosenstein is the day-to-day supervisor of the special counsel investigation. That special counsel, Bob Mueller, investigating Russian election interference, whether any Americans conspired. And there's been a lot of concern that anybody who takes Rod Rosenstein's job would want to put the leash on those investigators, somehow limit their scope or prevent them from pursuing certain kind of criminal charges or other actions. In that line of succession, who would replace Rod Rosenstein? So for the purposes of the special counsel probe, which really is the $64,000 question,

the next person in line to oversee the special counsel is Noel Francisco. He's the current solicitor general, meaning the administration's representative before the Supreme Court. He's a conservative guy. And he has said on the record in the past that he's kind of leery of special counsel investigations and special prosecutors. But he's also pretty close to Rod Rosenstein. So it's unclear how he might perceive his role vis-a-vis the Mueller probe right now. So after this meeting that Rod Rosenstein had today at the White House, we were told that hestein had today at the White House, we were told that he will be back at the White House to meet with President Trump on Thursday. Mara, do we have any sense of what we can anticipate will happen there and how the president so far has

responded? Well, presumably, Rod Rosenstein's fate will be the subject of those discussions. According to the White House, Rosenstein requested a phone call with the president, and they had one today, and they talked extensively about the news stories. At that time, they agreed that since the president was in New York at the United Nations meeting, that when the president got back to Washington, they would meet in person on Thursday. And what we have been hearing for quite some time from Republicans, there was almost a kind of resignation or at least a conventional wisdom that Rosenstein or Jeff Sessions would be fired after the midterm elections. Then when this New York Times story broke, there, of course,

was this big outcry from conservatives saying Rosenstein has to go immediately. That turned on a dime in a matter of hours. And this was one of the most puzzling things about this whole episode. You had Sean Hannity, who's a good friend of the president, Fox News host, a kind of Greek chorus for the administration going on television and saying, Mr. President, this is a message to you. Don't fire anybody. Someone is setting you up. You know, in other words, they want you to fire Rosenstein to cause a political backlash. So I don't know where we are on that. The president certainly hasn't been happy with Rod Rosenstein or Jeff Sessions. He's been kind of attacking them repeatedly on Twitter and at rallies. But whether he is willing to actually move to get rid of

Rosenstein before the election and accept the inevitable political backlash that might affect Republicans' chances there, that we don't know. And we should point out that, you know, he has, to your point, I would say, rather consistently smeared the Justice Department at points in time. But over the weekend, he also did an interview with Geraldo Rivera, in which he specifically did single out Rod Rosenstein. He was hired by Jeff Sessions. I was not involved in that process because, you know, they go out and they get their own deputies and the people that work in the department. And Jeff Sessions hired him. We are looking at it, Geraldo.

It's very early. We just read the reports, you know, very shortly, very, you know, the various reports that came out and have been coming out. And we will make a determination, and I'm sure you're going to be very, very early on, as to those that know. But it is certainly a very sad story when you see it.

Mara, the president here is saying, you know, we'll see. Who knows? They are planning to meet on Thursday. But talk to me a bit about what the implications would be if the president removes Rosenstein, specifically as we're looking at just a few weeks before an election. Well, Kerry laid out the different ways this could happen, depending on whether he was fired or whether he resigns in terms of somebody else taking over. But the bottom line is that whoever takes over would be in charge of the Mueller investigation and could fire Mueller, could curtail the investigation, could make sure the investigation didn't look into certain areas that involve the president. And then I think you would get a political backlash to that. You know, simply the talk that Rod Rosenstein was headed to the White House this morning, possibly expecting to be fired, had Democrats in Congress up in arms. Elijah Cummings, a House member, said we need immediate hearings if that happens. Pat Leahy, a senior Democrat

in the Senate from Vermont, said Saturday night massacres don't always happen on Saturdays. We need to revive this legislation to protect the Robert Mueller special counsel probe. That legislation is really languished and Democrats are calling for it to come back again. And, you know, even Republicans have privately been saying, please don't do this now. It could affect the results of the midterm election voting and maybe even tip the Senate potentially in the hands of Democrats. I've been so amazed at how he's become this kind of hero of the sort of liberal left to some degree. And, you know, you were talking about this earlier, even before, about how there is talk of if he loses his job, people are going to host these rallies, some sort of left-leaning voters. And I would venture it's just one more thing that will galvanize the Democratic base in an election cycle in which

certainly the Republicans do not want that. Yeah, remember, this is strange because this guy is actually a conservative Republican. He served in Republican presidents, actually presidents of both parties, but he aligns as a Republican. He's a member of the Federalist Society, this elite conservative institution. He's a member of the Federalist Society, this elite conservative institution. He's a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee. They both worked on the Ken Starr Independent Council probe together. This guy is not a left-leaning guy, but he's come to stand for something bigger than himself, which is to say the rule of law in this administration.

That's exactly right. All right. So we will have additional details on the fate of Rod Rosenstein by Thursday, possibly if not even sooner. Thursday is going to be a busy day. That will also be the day of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, where one of his accusers will be testifying about an alleged sexual assault. I'm Asma Khalid. I cover politics. I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Justice Department. And I'm Mara Liason, national political correspondent.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.