Kavanaugh Confirmation in Doubt After New Allegations

and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. As Republicans pushed to confirm Brett Kavanaugh before the next Supreme Court term begins, his nomination is facing new uncertainty after a California psychology professor named Christine blaisie Ford came forward and accused the Appeals Court judge of sexually assaulting her when they were

in high school in the nineteen eighties. Speaking with CNN last night, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins responded to the news, well, I obvious surprised, and uh, it's an issue that I brought up with him last Friday, and um he denied um, as he did an this written statement. Kavanaugh issued another statement today saying this is completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes to her or to anyone joining me. Is Steve Sanders, professor at

Indiana University Mara School of Law. Steve has the response to the accusation changed since Ford went from being an anonymous woman to identifying herself. Well, I think it depends on who you're thinking about is doing the responding. Certainly the White House and the most partisan supporters of the Republicans in the Senate, and if Kavanaugh really haven't changed their position, which really positions it seems to be one. This has come up so late that that it's not

fair to include it in what we're considering. Another angle is that this happens so long ago, memories can be cloudy. We can't judge by the credibility. We can't judge the credibility. So I don't think so. I I think the you know, the most serious responses coming from those in the middle, the sort of vanishing middle I think in this in

this media environment, who say these are serious accusations. They're not yet proven, they're not solid, but they need to be investigated, and we need to keep an open mind and do as much as we can. That is the sort of stock and trade of lawyers in the legal system, and that is making careful assessments of evidence and credibility

on both sides as the story moves forward. So send a Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said he plans to start with follow up calls to Kavanaugh and Ford rather than calling on Ford to testify before the committee. Alton Democratic senators on the committee are seeking a delay. In your mind, what should take place next? I think there have to be hearing. So as of this morning, uh, miss Ford, the the alleged victim in this case, has said she's through her attorney that she is very willing

to testify openly about this. And I believe just this morning Judge Kavanaugh has said the same thing as and so if you have the two parties to this incident willing to talk publicly, willing to testify about it to the Judiciary Committee, I don't see how the Judiciary Committee cannot reopen this matter, cannot appear to be interested in

assessing the truth. And at least one Republican on the Judiciary Committee, UM Jeff Lake, has also suggested he thinks that um, we need to slow down the process until this issue has been fully aired. Now. Brett Kavanaugh has hired Beth Wilkinson from the law firm Wilkinson Walsh and asked of it's to be his attorney, what does it tell you that he is hiring an attorney. Now I don't know the details of her background, but you know,

I think it's probably a wise course. Anytime anyone is accused of wrongdoing and faces consequences, where their criminal consequences or something else, I think you always want to be sure you're thinking clearly, that you're understanding the consequences of things you might do or say. There's an old, old saying that says a person who serves as his or

her own attorney has a fool as a client. And so I think it's probably wise that even someone is well versed in the law, as Judge Kavanaugh is deciding, you know, in navigating these very serious accusations, even if I'm not facing criminal charges for them and he can't because of the statute of limitations, I think, um, you know, I need some wise objective counsel as I move forward. Now.

We can't help miss not miss the comparisons to the Anita Hill hearings, and last year Joe Biden, who was then the Judiciary Committee chairman, said that to a Vogue, I wish I'd been able to do more for Anita Hill. I owe her an apology what could be done this time to avoid making it a trial of this woman as it was. Basically it's called the Anita Hill hearings,

not that Clarence Thomas hearings. Yeah, I think so much of that was just because of the seemingly dismissive attitude that many senators as well as the public took to

Anita Hills testimony. I think it's less likely that will happen this time, just because, as has been already said in lots of commentary about this, we're in a different moment now than we were in the nine eighties, with the Me Too movement, with the increased awareness of consciousness of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, what women have had to endure at the hands of male co workers and male friends, and so, make no mistake about it, we're also in

a very highly polarized time and so again I think the most partisan UM supporters of President Trump and the most partisan defenders of Judge Cabinet will do anything possible UM to undermine UM this person's credit ability, this accuser's credibility. Uh, They'll have you know that. They will be interested in

getting it the truth. But I think the mainstream story that we all take away the impression we all take away from this incident through the media coverage and the broader discussion, will be more respectful of her point of view. Whether or not that means most people will be convinced that the story happened the way she says that is

a different question. Now. Many people have said that Justice Clarence Thomas has been under some kind of a cloud during his entire career as a justice because of those allegations. Might the same be true if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Well, I think it will certainly be the case if if there are no hearings, I think it would be much

worse for Judge Kavanaugh. If if the Republicans simply tried to sweep this under the rug at this point, then I think it would be much more likely that he would have that sort of cloud, that sort of sting attached to him if there are hearings, if he is forced to answer tough questions about this, if his accuser is forced to answer tough questions, I think it's just hard to predict at this point what the lasting damage

might be to Judge Cavanaugh. With the lasting impression or stigma might be that would cling to him I think in this environment, with things changing literally by the hour, you simply can't make predictions about where we will be a week from now, a month from now, a year from now, by the hour, perhaps by the minute, even Thanks so much, Steve, and let's talk some more later about what's going to happen um with Judge Kavanaugh tomorrow.

Steve standers, He's a professor at Indiana University Morrow School of Law. Last Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller's team scored a significant win as former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to conspire against the United States and agreed to cooperate in the Mueller investigation. However, speaking with Fox News, Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani said manaforts plea had nothing to

do with President Trump. The reality is there was a quote put up by source close to Manafort that the play agreement has and the cooperation agreement has nothing to do with the Trump campaign quote. There's no evidence of collusion, my guest, as former federal prosecutor Robert Mint's a partner M Carter in English, Bob Mueller seemed to be using the classic prosecution strategy of making deals up the chain, And we know that before the plea there were proper

sessions in which Manafort revealed information to prosecutors. So does that indicate that Manafort has important information to give on those up the chain? Absolutely, m Prosecutors do not agree to these cooperating deals unless they already know what it is they're buying. So the process that had to have taken place here was that Manafort and his attorneys had to go have met with prosecutors and given, as as you said, a proffer indicating the information that he would

be willing to give were he to cooperate. And so we can absolutely assume that prosecutors would never have struck this deal if they didn't already know that the information that Manafort has to offer was going to be useful to them in some future prosecution. So what's your reaction to Giuliani's statements throughout the weekend that there is no evidence that this agreement has anything to do with the Trump White House. Well, he's technically correct. We just don't

know at this point what Manafort knows. The only thing we can say is that he does have useful information. Now that useful information can go in any number of directions, one of which is to provide additional information about the Ukrainian money that he was involved with the as the superseding information, which is quite voluminous, quite detail, talks about some other entities that were involved in this, one of which is the law firm, one of which is about

was a powerful Washington, DC lobbying entity. And it's certainly possible that his information could lead to further charges in that direction. But there's no question that the other area that prosecutors will be questioning Manaford about and have already questioned about is the meeting in Trump Tower and any information that he may have regarding Russia during the time

that he was involved running the Trump campaign. Under his cooperation agreement, Manaford has to not only talk fully with the prosecutors to anything they ask any questions, but he has to testify if Mueller wants to even participate in undercover activities if requested. Is that especially broad or par for the course with plea deals? Now, that's really the way these plea deals always work. You cannot cooperate with the federal government and with prosecutors unless you're a one

pent in. They don't accept partial cooperation. They won't agree to provide information about some things but not others, because ultimately, if you have to testify, you have to be prepared to answer all kinds of questions on crossing domination. So you're one percent in giving every bit of information that you have. That all right now you're asked about to federal prosecutors. That's up to prosecutors as to what they

can do with that information. But he is on the government team at this point, and in order to get any kind of favorabul treatment from the prosecution, he's going to have to cooperate fully with everything he knows, and he cannot get caught in selling something that's untruthful or his deal will blow up. I've heard different assessments of how much time he'll be spending in prison. What's your assessment, Well, the answer at this point is nobody knows. It really

depends on how useful this information is. I think we can likely say that even if we were to provide very useful and for nation Um, it's unlikely that the judge will not give him at least some jail time. But I think a ballpark is that without cooperation, he probably would have gone to jail for the rest of his life, and he who can ride useful information here.

Depending upon how critical it is and whether he ultimately testifies in a whole post of other factors, he possibly could walk away with a sentence somewhere in the range of five to eight years, and that would given the opportunity to perhaps get out of prison and have some life after his time at jail. President Trump has not commented on Manafort specifically so far, But will this heighten the legal pressure on Trump? Well, it really all depends on what it is that Manafort knows and is going

to tell the government. I mean, I think we can safely assume that whatever he does know, he's giving up now. So what that is and what kind of conversations that may have taken place, you know, only he knows. And those conversations may have taken place with the president, they may have taken place of other members of the President's team. And remember also June that his uncorroborated testimony is not going to be enough for prosecutors to really a forward

with anything. Prosecutors will listen to Manta for it, they listen to what he says went on, but then they're gonna have to go out and corroborate that testimony with other evidence, because otherwise they really can't use it to

go forward with the prosecution. They will have some insight though, into that June meeting at Trump Tower that's been talked about so much about a minute here, Yes, and that is exactly one of the focuses certainly is going to be about that meeting, because he's the only person who they have the opportunity to talk with now who is

president at the meeting. They'll want to know what happened leading up to the meeting, what happened at the meeting, and what happened after the meeting, And that information I think is ultimately going to be known either by way of further criminal charges or in some subsequent report that the Muller team puts together down the road. Okay, Bob, not the last time we'll be talking about Manaford, Thanks so much. That's Robert Mints. He's a partner at McCarter

and English. Also remember that Paul Manafort is forfeiting and estimated twenty two million dollars worth of real estate in New York in courting Manhattan apartments of Brooklyn Townhouse, a home in the Hampton's. He's also forfeiting bank accounts and insurance agreements. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg