tv Washington Journal Anita Mc Bride CSPAN September 21, 2018 1:35pm-2:09pm EDT
to every aspect of american life. culture, economics, politics, and in ways that you have detected, the way journalists interact with the ongoing story. c-span's q and a. now, i need aus mix -- joining us now, anita mcbride, good morning. guest: good morning. host: how do you know brett kavanaugh? i was with the bush administration the entire eight years and the first year and a half, transitions are always very difficult, they take a lot of time, there are a lot of late hours, it is putting -- getting
the systems in place the way that you want them to be and brett kavanaugh was the associate counsel in the counsel's office with the attorney assigned to management and administration. i was director of white house personnel. we worked very closely on setting up the systems in place. , very always responsive and even in long hours and the difficulty of a first year of a transition, and particularly that first year after a disputed election, we had a lot of catching up to do. we had lost so many weeks in the transition so brett was a go to prison for me to help me reestablish administrative processes in the white house. host: what do you think about the charges laid against them by dr. ford? guest: i was deeply disturbed and i am not suggesting that did not happen to her,
but this is not the brett kavanaugh that any of us know and i think that we have seen that with people from his childhood, from his early school years, and from his professional lives and his life as a judge and as a teacher that have attested to that personally. i think we were all shellshocked. i know brett and his family are too. host: nothing from the interactions then and the white house with women that would cause you to question or at least professor ford's allegations? guest: absolutely not. absolutely the opposite actually. i spent a lot of time working , and then as a staff secretary, we traveled all over the world. our seats were next to each other on air force one. you get to know a person on long flights like that. he was always very busy, when you are the gatekeeper to the documents going in and out of the president's office or in
front of him, he never really had a relaxing time to sit on those trips. he was always busy and he was working. our interaction was there were a few of us catholics on the staff that in foreign countries we would find catholic church to go to for mass. that is my frame of reference of the judge. host: how do you think about the proceedings that have been going on the back and forth between , the two parties on how this is laid out and the performance of , the senate judiciary committee? guest: this is a big test for all of our institutions. all of our institutions of government are under duress right now. it really does require very cool heads to prevail and give the trust back to the american people. the processes are fair, open, honest, and transparent. i can see where all the tensions and sensitivities are on all sides. what i hope that we can -- and i think we are getting there in
some of the requests that have been made by dr. ford, which i think are fair. i think of the one for her for brett kavanaugh to testify first is probably the one that is not as fair. in what system in our legal or judicial process doesn't someone who is being accused testify on behalf of themselves first before hearing what the allegations are? host: this is our guest anita mcbride and if you want to ask her questions we have kept the , lines from the last segment. if you support brett kavanaugh, it is (202) 748-8000 if you support professor ford, (202) 748-8001 and if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. we have heard about several days of preparations for brett kavanaugh at the white house. is it out of the ordinary to have so many days in preparation, and can you describe what goes on? guest: that is a great question. i have had -- even though i
worked in the george w. bush administration, i worked all four years of bush 41 and i worked six years of the reagan administration. so back to antony scalia's nomination. i remember one of the controversies about that and his nomination, not so much as background, but the fact that he was italian and how italian-americans had to mobilize in the country that we need to move forward from this perception of who we are as a nationality and ethnicity. clarence thomas's nomination of course, that was -- we all know that. it has been replaying out this week. george h. w. bush did make the request for the fbi to reinveste then the nomination process got back on track. of course supreme court , two nominations during george
w. bush, justice roberts and then harriet miers was nominated and that had to be pulled back. i remember watching the alito hearings in my office and seeing seeing martha alito crying and then mrs. bush calling her and saying, it is going to be ok. this is politics. this is what people who go into public service unfortunately have to put themselves through. i hope that it doesn't keep people from being willing to serve their government. when you hit a crisis in a nomination, of course it is important for all hands to be on deck. everybody needs to be in the room together. it is a war room situation. but, the one thing that has been absolutely consistent, both from the white house and that dr. ford should be heard. the other point is that brett kavanaugh has said i want to
uphold my integrity. host: again, twitter available to you if you want to ask our guest questions. you can do that by reaching out on our twitter feed @cspanwj. if you want to call (202) , 748-8000 if you support judge kavanaugh, (202) 748-8001 if you support professor ford, and if you're not sure, (202) 748-8002. again, our guest is anita mcbride and she served with judge kavanaugh on the bush administration and is here to take your questions. walter, in indiana, it a supporter of presser ford. professor ford. you are on. i definitely support to ms. ford. it is obvious that mr. kavanagh
did it because after 35 years with a therapist talking, and then she remembered his name when they told her she was going to go for the supreme court, this is a wonderful new world we live in. all you have to do is make an accusation, no proof, it is the same playbook from the left. i hope i get the same kind of dignity and support for men when men say something like that and it has to be supported. obviously, i am being facetious. it's a show from the left. it's a last ditch effort. to try to undermine supreme court nomination. just of support, you do not support presser ford? -- professor ford? caller: no, it's preposterous. host: well then you're calling in on the wrong line but i will ask you the question. what goes on from here, how does it affect future nominations? guest: absolutely. i think it goes back to the point i made earlier. we are at an inflection point where americans don't trust their institutions and the system that are set up to protect them. that is the incredible responsibility that i think the senate has and anybody involved on this on both sides to get
that back on track. that someone who has faced a trauma like this, that dr. ford says she has, should be in a place where she can get her a fair hearing about this, but also that someone who has now been publicly, through 36 hours or more testimony, certainly can not question his knowledge, his expansive knowledge of history and the law and the constitution. he has passed that test. now, i think brett kavanaugh would agree this is the biggest test of all, the question is character and his integrity. he deserves a fair hearing on that, too. host: let's go to cleveland, ohio. mary, from cleveland. you support professor ford? caller: yes i do. i want to thank you for your
program. itruly enjoy listening to because individuals are heard, even if they have opposing opinions, and there is no over talk on the person who is speaking. rogerwant to say, kavanaugh gives me much hope and how he would allow this process with dr. ford to ensue. it has good psychological bearing. then i would want to hope that president trump would reconsider fbi.nvite the i would truly trust the ongoing with dr. ford or professor ford. lastly, this event, if not handled properly, will haunt kavanaugh to the end of time and it will leave a terrible unrest among the american people if
professor ford is not given a wholesome process. host: mary, thank you. guest: i agree with her. and with her first point, this is why i agreed to come on this show. opportunity toan share what they know and you give viewers both sides to hear what they have to say. we have reached a level of incivility across the board. you do not want to see that restored. host: have you had a chance to talk with judge kavanaugh about that? guest: i have and with ashley as well. of course, i know them both well. ashley was president bush's secretary. she came with him from texas and they are strong people.
they knew it was going to be hard, not quite this hard, but they are going to be fine because they are stronger, decent people. host: how would you characterize their demeanor during this? guest: very calm, strong, resolute, and amazingly, the one thing i always remembered about brett and the stresses of the white house and certainly those were eight stressful years, still maintaining a calm demeanor with a bit of humor, which always helps. particularly when you have two little girls and i understand this is happening to dr. ford's , family, too. i know that family peripherally as well. washington is a small community. washington is a great place to live, until it is not. this is one time where it's not .
it is being stressed and it's being tested. host: have you heard from the blasey family? guest: i have not. host: any indication that he is interested in giving up? guest: absolutely not. i think both of them are not going to give up and certainly not under conditions like this. host: let's go to auburn, alabama a supporter of judge , kavanaugh. joe. caller: real quick, i sat here and i watched this from the start, when he went in front of congress, they questioned him for hours and hours. the left made a circus out of that, and then she comes up with dianne feinstein, and that's been all over the news and she put it out there. that was suspicious.
but i believed it to start with, but this is sickening to our country. they let her get up there in front of congress, let her explain what happened and let -- that's what we elect these people for. this lady in the left keeps putting it off and off. the head of congress, he'll come out, he says all right fine, will move to go. host: all right, thanks. guest: well, i think there are questions about the timing of when this all came forward, and i think that certainly there were some sensitivities around protecting her identity, to which she is entitled to. i am sure dr. ford, she did not
-- who wants to put themselves through this? but, i do think the senate and the congresswoman who received the letter at first really need to examine that whole process on how that was handled. particularly, if senator feinstein had had the letter already, even before she met and had her one on ones with judge kavanaugh, how did some of just -- this not come up, even protecting the identity of the accuser? i think it does again, it stresses our trust in the institutions and we all have to ask ourselves, what if the shoe was on the other foot? what if we were either one of these people, dr. ford or brett kavanaugh? how would we want to be treated by the institutions that we elect to serve us? institutions that we pay for just to know it has been treated
fairly and with dignity. i'm not so sure that's happening right now. host: texas, rachel who is not sure. caller: yes. you know, they are always talking about those teenagers, they was drinking, it doesn't matter. you either have it in you or you don't. people don't do things like that just because they're drinking. another thing, all these other women who came forward like with clinton, and roy moore, and trump, why would these women come out and say something -- they went after these women instead of going after the person that did it and they say well, i met this man, he doesn't seem to be that way. all child predators don't act -- they are not going to let you know they are. a lot of people are focusing on this judge because he's going to reverse roe v. wade, ok. abortion in 1973, we had supreme
court justice rule on this and people need to find out how many republican judges and how many democrats pushed this bill through. host: ok, caller we will stop it there. guest: well, one of the interesting things that your caller said, talking about teenagers. and underage drinking and of course, anybody who is a parent worries about that. i think one of the things that i have seen happen over this last week is attacking the schools that kids in this area have gone to. judge kavanaugh's school, which is a 227-year-old institution, a catholic institution. which, by all accounts, prepared him for a life of service and now is also being called into
question on what kind of boys does it produce? i really hope people can take a step back from that and not demonize boys who choose to go to an all boys school. or girls that choose to go to an all girls school. host: you talked about judge kavanaugh and this being a big test. what do you think were the lessons learned from what he was on the nominations play out for other people? guest: how hard it can be and knowing you have to be prepared for things to come from left and right and center field and that you have to stay firm in what you know about yourself. obviously, the knowledge for him in this case as a supreme court nominee, the knowledge of the law and the knowledge of who he knows he is as a person. he is standing ready to defend that. i think that is important. that is a lesson to learn. you cannot -- as we remember after 9/11 with george w. bush
words, we cannot falter, cannot waiver cannot fail. , host: with these new round of preparations, who are the key players, what is in fault and what is the context of what goes on daily? guest: for any supreme court nominee, there is going to be a team managed by the white house counsel's office. in this case, it is managed by the counsel to the president, don mcgann. i'm sure there are communicators in that strategy session. as there were in other supreme court nominations during the bush administration and other administrations. it is managed by the counsel's office. it is a team of lawyers who know the process. also, it would be people from the legislative affairs team, because they have to manage their relationship and what they are hearing. the vote counting and devote -- and -- and vote gettn vote getting on the hill.
obviously, there would be direct contact with the senate judiciary committee and both sides, ranking and chair. obviously with the leader's office. host: particularly, when it comes to the sessions themselves , will somebody pose a democrat the questioning and the questions that might come? guest: all of that would have happened during the murder board period and preparation for the senate judiciary committee hearing. of which, he showed amazing composure and composure based on the fact of having deep rooted knowledge in the law. i think -- i knew brett kavanaugh was smart. even i was blown away after all these years of how wickedly smart and the expansive knowledge of constitutional history and law. host: but in this new round, you would suspect that the proposing of democrats to the story? guest: absolutely. absolutely i would imagine this process now.
they're not going to reopen his knowledge of the law, i don't imagine. host: from wisconsin, bob is next who supports judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. i would like to know when america lost innocent until proven guilty. it's a very sad commentary for our people. why is it this lady has just come out now? why not under bush, when he served under bush at the very first time he took office? i find this very disturbing by the democrats. can you get someone to ask these questions, why is she coming out now? thank you. guest: well, i think two points that i would like to make to your questions. one, i think when has all of this started to happen and deteriorate? i personally think we have been chipping away at the study of our civic education and our democracy for years. where, at a young age, students
are not learning about our institutions of government and how they operate and how they affect them. i think we have got to get back on track in that. because now, when there is something like this, like a nomination. whether it is a democratic president or republican president that nominates them, the other side goes nuclear without really understanding the full process and due process as this caller said. we have lost a bit of civility again because we don't understand fully and we are questioning our own institutions. to your other point, i think as to why this did not come earlier when judge kavanaugh was nominated for his judgeship in 0s but evenle 200
prior to that, to get a background investigation done when he came to work at the white house. the fbi questions are very probing. it raises questions about these types of things. i don't know why it didn't come out. certainly, i remember going through investigations myself it -- myself. all of your neighbors come all of your friends, your teachers, people are asked questions about you from when you were a young person. so, i don't know why this didn't come out. of course, we are living in a different environment now, where the #me too movement has made it more possible for people to share their stories and feel that they have some protection in doing so. guest: supporter of professor ford from norfolk, virginia. mark, hello. caller: good morning. i would like to first thank you for your needed responses, because if this democracy experience is going to get any
better, i think people like you have to have restraint instead of buying in to the egging on one side or the other. i just wanted to say, how about the idea that both of these individuals can be credible and have high levels of integrity? the problem that i see is that unfortunately, as one of the other callers who was a family counselor he hit dead on. , it would be nice if this was the environment where judge kavanaugh, if these allegations are true, -- >> president trump will be today,g this va facility this is the southern nevada health care system in las vegas. gets as the president ready to sign a spending bill that includes funding for the veterans affairs department as well as water projects, military construction, and operation of the legislative branch.
>> again we are here at the southern nevada health care system v.a. facility. a president trump will be here shortly. he will be signing a bill here today. that includes funding for the v.a. department, as well as water projects and military construction. president trump will be in missouri this evening. you can watch that live at 7:30 eastern time on c-span two.
are yourn networks primary source for campaign 2018 we will have live coverage from former vice president joe biden. he will be talking about a search for the cure for cancer. evening, more live coverage from the campaign trail in texas as republican senator ted cruz faces democratic challenger congressman rourke in dallas for a debate. we will have that live for you on c-span as well. just waiting for president trump's remarks here at the v.a. facility in vegas. >> while we are waiting for the president's remarks, we will
take a look at some of today's washington journal. >> we are joined i michael with the group issue one. a new body of work, taking a look at this topic of dark money. good morning to you. before we start into the details, to find dark money. >> dark money means secret money. there are opaque organizations, secret organizations that are spending tens of millions of dollars in elections without include -- without the -- without disclosing their dollars. changed dramatically in 2010 when the supreme court issued the citizens united versus federal elections commission pulling. if you are a candidate running for office or a political party or political action committee. one of the rules