Support for this podcast comes from Verizon business Verizon. business, unlimited plants, unlimited data, no overages and more built right for business with this. Verizon five g give rise. in business unlimited plans from his lows: thirty dollars per line visit Verizon. Calm, slash business, slash plants per month with five, on business. Unlimited start includes paper free billing without open, select, smartphone agreement, discounts, taxes fees in terms apply five g nationwide available in twenty seven hundred plus cities on most Verizon, five g devices find shelter white band available only in parts of select cities from CAFE welcome to stay tuned. I'm prepared I ask you wanna, say she's lying and they said no, and I said do you want to say you're disputing her allegations and they said no. They were looking for someone to try to bring down her account they were actually unable to find anyone who was willing to do it even on background, let alone on the record

that's Jane, Mayor Jesus right or at the new Yorker. I speak with her reporting on bread, cabinet and accuser, Deborah Ramirez, the FBI investigation, and the legacy of Anita him. That's coming up stated everyone were coming to our nations capital for alive show in Washington DC on November, fifteen stay tuned will be at the eye, chronic Lincoln Theatre right next to the also iconic bends. Chernobyl. President Obama view listening. You got two reasons to head down to you street. That night my guest will be Chuck Todd moderator of meat, the press in political director for NBC News, the shows how, the week after the mid term elections. So there's gonna be quite a bit to talk about, but there's always quite a bit to talk about these days. head over to cafe dot com, slash tour, that's cafe, dot com slash tee o. You are for details on our

shows in New York, LOS Angeles in Washington DC see their ip. This is landed from LOS Angeles. My question is that the investigation that pertains to witness interviews, in this case, someone specifically like marked judge who and sworn statement, has said that he has no recollection of the events or sector that affect how does the F b I set out. But the truth was data like that appreciated thanks, landed, thinks requested. That's the eternal question, always isn't it

An investigation had to get the truth is all about what my book is gonna, be about like a little plug for the future book. The wanting to make sure that everyone keeps in mind that some folks into be forgetting in its an important distinction. This FBI investigation is a background investigation, as someone has nominated to the high court in the land and its important and serious, but it is different from the investigation that the FBI or another federal law enforcement agency might do to try to prove that someone committed a crime. There may be that sometimes you get evidence during a backer investigation that is sufficient to prove a crime. I don't think that will happen here, but but there are two different things and their different tools that are permitted zone: a criminal investigation. If we're going out

try to find out if somebody violated the racketeering laws or committed a homicide or engaged in some kind of fraud. The FBI working usually with the U S, Terry's office, would have a lot of ability to do various things, including doing a wire people up. Issue subpoenas for bank documents. Do surveillance all sorts of things, including the use of deceit, to try to find back us who done bad things. A backroom preservation is a serious undertaking, but it's a vetting process. It's not an effort to go after somebody. They don't have the ability to use those kinds of process. They basically use she leather, the interview people they talk to people. These are common sense in this case, are alot of obstacles and get into the truth, namely the positives. Thirty six years in time and the uncertain memories of various people and look,

and who the folks might be with respect to the allegations, either by Doktor Ford or by Ms Ramirez, with respect to the interview of Mark judge I'll just say this about that. Some people have suggested in favour of bread Cavanaugh that their these other witnesses, who have put in a piece of paper which they want to apparently under penalty of felony or perjury or whatever phrase and want to use and that sufficient doesn't work, doesn't work that way. You know lots and lots of people don't want to talk to the cops. You don't talk to the FBI because it will stress them out or you know, because they wanted not implicate somebody in something bad, because her close to that person, it is a very big, differ between its listening from someone, a document that probably a lawyer prepares for them. That's typed up, as opposed to sitting down in a room subjecting yourself to an interview by an FBI, agent and lots of times. People have issued in my own France had issued broad denials or

They didn't have a memory of an event, but then a couple of things can happen when you actually sit down with some one and you have the weight of law enforcement underside and you have a badge you hot you know they have a gun is the gun, and you look somewhat in the eye, and you say what you remember, but you don't go. Quite that way, you know, don't start with the end right. You ask other general questions about that time. No, he may have spoken to what your recollection was: a parties generally the nature of your friendship of Bread Cavanaugh. It's not the questions that you can ask in overtime. If the person does have a recollection which is trying to avoid answering, you have a better chance of them coming forward. Sometimes you actually job people's memories. The point is that the way to get two truth is not just by use of compulsory

sounds like you. Haven't criminal investigation there's a lot that can be learned by going and talking to people and market. Obviously, as a witness was put in that bedroom at that house at that party explicitly by Doktor Ford, so must be talk too. In my view, they should talk to a lot of other people. Also have great. This is done. We keep going from Bellevue Washington. I wonder if you can help explain. What's up at the F B, I persuade first, the director couldn't be reached. I sat or flight last week at a critical moment, and this week investigative journalists working contacted by former peers and broad avenues who are coming forward with information that may well contradict assertion. He gave all under oath during last week's meeting with the Judiciary committee. At least some of these former classmates have said that their not being contacted by the FBI after coming forward. I'd like to give the FBI that then

of the doubt, but am struggling to understand what seems like a very limited scope of response on their part thanks. So much keep up the groundwork. Ben thanks to your question so good to see you right off the bat- and I dont know what to make of these reports, and I believe all of them were taping this around lunchtime on Wednesday, and there had been competing reply author, the weekend about whether or not the White House is directing a limitation on who can be interviewed. Who can't be whether, the way, the council is doing that, whether the Senate Majority leader is doing that and indirectly out of the president's own mouth and

and Conway, I saw saying other placing any restriction at all. I don't know if there are no trying to have it both ways. I think that the FBI, nor to do its job in order for it to be seen to be doing its job properly later, should be no feel expansive. An investigation you're not just for their own reputation, pressing for the reputation of Bread Cavanaugh, also because, at the end of the day, there's no further corroboration found with respect to these allegations and bread. Cavanaugh gets confirm to the bench better for him. It would be better for people's respect for the court, ITALY better for people's respect for the process, if they have done more rather than less no FBI director Chris RE by reputation, not personally, but I think this is a very important moment for him I think this is a moment where the FBI has to pay attention to how it is perceived and make sure that it's not doing no reply. we'll bidding of one side or another you'll hear in my conversational Jane mayor, coming up all the ways in which

in Ronan Pharaoh in the New York or article try to make sure that they were correct in reporting. allegations by Ms Ramirez the interview, lots and lots of folks and now listen for what she said bout that nothing it has a bearing. On the question of what the F b I should be doing, I treat this is short and calling from Brooklyn me art really agitated by your show- and you said something number a month about how I figures. When defence lawyers, when they can't pound the facts, they found the law the care PAMELA they found the table savages. We saw happening in the hearings that it evolved from question investigation about the Saxon, the allegation that manufactured righteous outraged by

grim anyway. I just wanted to say that your comment has stuck with me about there never has been more evidence than by the Republicans. Thank you join them. Thank you for your comments. Last question. That's a very common phrased. Lawyers use in attacking other people's points of view, I can make it up. I wish I had and has been around for a long time, look to my mind, There is a lot of sound and fury some of the coming from the nominee himself like having some of the coming from democratic senator's son from republican senators, and in particular you mentioned Linsey Gram And his under his outrageous manufactured or not, I think it's not well placed. Let me sort of amplify what I said in this. Shall episode under within Milgram a few days ago. In the way I look at a disease

or a bit of using these analyses of this being a job interview as opposed to the criminal prosecution. That's you know correct. As far as it goes he's had a constitution works in here's how to standards, I think really should be applied and thought about. So the constitution provides that two branches of government have a role in the appointment of Supreme Court Justice right. The president appoints present nominates, in other words in the Senate, gives advice and consent to different inflection points where some standard has to be applied about whether to proceed before the person actually takes up his or her seat on the bench. President Trump had a whole list of people that he said he was choosing from and he shows back cabinet and there is a vetting process that took place in the point I want to amplify. Is it if these allegations came along? Let's say the White House Counselling present Trump made a provisional decision to pick Brett Cavanaugh, During the voting process they had occasion interview. Doktor Ford

Ramirez, and these allegations came forward if rational people during that process of deciding, if there are problems in the background have now also relating to his other conduct in high school and whether or not they found him to be credible present trump, would have been well within his rights. Even though he had made a provisional pack for the Supreme Court to pick some one else and to remove him and I'm willing to bet a lot of money. They don't have that Lindsey. if he had been aware during the voting process of all these problems, even if it's not prove beyond reasonable doubt if they were credible both for political and other reasons, I bet would have said you know what I think- per capita good man- we're never gonna get to the bottom of this, but there credible allegations and

We're not going to pick him that would have been a miscarriage of justice know and they would have said it's a miscarriage of justice, because it's not about taking away is liberty. It's about the discretion of one of the branches of government, the executive branch in the process deciding the balancing all the evidence. It would be better to What else so that didn't happen. The rating process, but Cavenaugh is nominated, he's not even Supreme Court right. There's, no step that provided force explicitly in the constitution. Now the Senate gets to do it's sort of equivalent of the voting process. In that you, ve been seeing unfold, and so these things have now come up during the second phase before brick now has been pointed to the bench, and I think are within their rights, even if it's not prove beyond reasonable doubt if they can through credible evidence, I think it's perfectly proper for

to decide on this basis, along with the other basis they might have the brick haven't. I shouldn't be appointed to the Supreme Court. The reason you have such a high standard in a criminal case is people are, generally speaking entitled to liberty and to freedom, and we're going to take that away. Then you have to have a lot of proof and you have to have a lot of due process and you have to have a jury and it has to be unanimous. There's no entitlement to be going to Supreme Court like the rest of general Liberty that'll. This next question comes in an email from Stefan who writes love the show with these new allegations of fraud brought forth by the New York Times. What, if any, of the implications for the Trump Administration Alpine astern incorrectly? Stefan yields unclear what the implications are. A couple wants to make at the outset. That is a really long article. I took a really long time to read at their summaries of it people talking about it. I think it's. Fourteen thousand words which, because I'm thinking in this way, is like a six them

Look. So a lot of work into it, people of commenting, notably that New York Times, whatever you think of them. They do have standards, they do have lawyers and they do care about the allegations that they make notwithstanding what the present may say about them. So you know, there's been debate for some time about whether or not a newspaper should call ally ally at the posted misleading with her newspaper should call something a crime or not, with extraordinary about this article, that a lot of people have been around the block for a while. I've noticed is the use of the word fraud. Is there outright fraud is there and that those are strong words coming from an institution that generally can be some a conservative about these kinds of things that I think important insignificant.

Second, the length alone of the article is not what is impressive about it is that the length is informed by and required by, the tens and tens of thousands of documents that somehow got into the hands of the New York Times and the specificity of the allegations about how taxes may have been avoided. How deductions may have been taken that were not lawful and the implications with respect to no criminal consequence, I think, are minimal and probably negligible because, as you know, there's something called a statute of limitations, all the convict alleged in the article. As far as I can tell goes back a lotta years. So there's probably nothing to be done with two caveats. One is that there may not be the same kind of limitation for a similar case. For example, in York, State Tax Department has suggested that it's gonna be looking at these things, and maybe there will be some concept.

There, but the other thing I would say, as you know, industrious prosecutors, listen to the news and they read the paper and if it's the case that there was a particular mechanism by which money was transferred from Fred Trump Donald Trump and his siblings unlawfully, and that seems to be no said. The M o of the family prosecutor might ask the question based on the newspaper article and other evidence that they might come across. Is this same process happening now with respected Donald Trump and his offspring, which he has many? I think it's an instant question and it might be the kind of question their prosecutor might look at its own it pointed out that trumped doesnt seem to have really denied those things are in a tweet. He said this morning. It maybe it'll be a more full denial later. He said it's old and boring news.

To my knowledge, olden boring is not a to anything. All of the statue limitations might be My guess this week is Jane Mayor twenty four years, Oh, she co, authored the definitive book on you need a hill Clarence Thomas hearings, now she's that's right or the new Yorker. At the centre of reporting on the allegations against Supreme Court nominee for a cabinet. would run Pharaoh a former guessed right here on the show she broke the news, allegations by cabinets, Yale, classmate, Deborah Ramirez, an actual here she still chasing leads. about how she gauges the credibility of resources. Where the F b, I should look and how the Senate would vote. If half the members were women, that's coming up stated, stay tuned, supported by borrow,

Is there anything harder to move in a sofa? We ve all look sofas up downstairs onto the roofs of cars and stuff them into tiny elevators, at least on new Yorkers. Have it's like a right of passage here, but borrow is changing all that, the fully customizable sofa that's easy to move and built to last. The modular design means Sheer can become a loves you and your loves. You can become a sofa simply by adding one seat at a time. Also, if you have a really small elevator, When you order online at borrowed outcome, you can customize it color size, even armrest, height and leg material, Personally, I have a charcoal chair with high armrests. Everything personalized to you or me. In that case borrow was the only show for the grows with you and actually fits with your life gets twenty five dollars off your order by going to borrowed outcome, Slash preach Be: U R, R, o w dotcom, Slash Prate for

Seventy five dollars off your purchase, borrow furniture, that's fit for modern life at home, J mayor. Thank you. So much for being on the show I'm so glad to be here with you. So I had a lot of questions that have been ordered. And for the moment, because something very dramatic happened where recording this on Tuesday about lunchtime in Washington DC at the National Press club in right before we begin taping, you got a phone call and we had to delay. Take me for a couple minutes, because you said you had to take it. You got on the phone and you said, I'm doing alive, taking with perreira. I can't talk to you right now and then use at other things it made. It seem like you, have a new story coming reveal here on the show what that was about I can't do it on the show, but I can tell you that this has been the most extraordinary story. This is the story surrounding the the formation battle of bread care

and there are so many people calling with tips and people sending affidavits that they ve worn out and are giving to the FBI, but there they keeps ringing, and that was that was yet another another lawyer with another affidavit. That's been submitted to the FBI in this case, and then they also call you and then call us yes, because there's a sense. I think that the process may not be working for snuff or well enough- that there's a certain kind of farm dysfunction surrounding this reopened background investigation and people feel the FBI is. Not listening to them. and so these are basic, Citizens who have Information they think is important and I'm not sure it always is. But in some cases I think you're, probably as who- he'll, there's no other channel to go to their trying to get it to the Senate, to trying to get it to the FBI and if that fails, they come to the media. So what kind of the the place last resort, not always sometimes they come

first in some years earlier. Stories have been things that I think one for some officials didn't know about right, that certainly true, sometimes, and traditionally, what happens with this kind of reporting is the press will doc you something? And then the Senate will hold hearings, maybe and look into it, but this is of a very compressed and fraud. Situation, and so people are feeling unusually urgent about it. Garfunkel you just got coming timescales that happen to these days that happens to me. Very rarely normally, but on this story, it's happened to me all day long for the last week in a half through or do we need to take a break We have room so you can check your phone call, someone back with Bilbil to make it through forty five minutes. I think if they can't wake. Forty five minutes probably take it to some other news organization and I'll just lose it that way. But anyway, I'm I'm willing to run that

risk and area have a conversation with the and the call you just got its you think it's a credible claim. I know it's a credible lawyer. I have to find out what in the affidavit and who swore it the matter to you that it's a credible order. I yeah you're in it honourable position is a reporter, where people can try to send you ve information and their very strong feelings on all sides of this confirmation battle, and probably the worst thing that could happen would be to be sniggered into printing, something that's a fake, and so yeah you ve gotta, be incredibly carefully. You gotta make sure that the lawyers legitimate, but also even more so make sure that they affidavit is legitimate. Is Michael Avenue, a credible lawyer I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know- and I have not dealt with Michael monotony that much I find his grandstanding unnerving em all about getting those facts out there, but don't Rick, someone's reputation just with unfair

Did innuendo, I must say he's doing that. I haven't looked to all of the details. Of his current client Julie, sweat, Nick not in a position to say, she's telling the truth or she's. Not telling the truth, I think its impressive and important she swore this out under threat of perjury? She very well be telling the truth, but I feel it would have been smarter if her affidavit spy instead of her lawyer, going out there and going on national tell them prevailing. It in this kind of Barnum Bailey way right. Let's take a step back. The cabinet hearings, the reopened hearings were last week. There was a dramatic testimony. Loud people found credible. Most people, I think, found credible. Even those who support per capita found credible by Doktor Ford, but then you what then a different story with respect to a different allegation by someone Endeavour Ramirez too quickly rise? What that is for folks who may not be completely up to speed on it

Some things have happened in the last day that strike me as very troubling about those allegations and what haven't. I knew about those allegations so briefly. What's the story with Ramirez so. The Ramiro story takes place the year after the Christine Blasi Ford allocation, and it's you now nation made by a classmate of bread cabinets at Yale in the nineteen eighty three eighty four school year and she recalls and spoke to us on the record about her recollection, which is of a ace of Drunken dormitory party, in which she quite inebriated herself, but she remembers bread Cavanaugh. supposing himself to her pushing his penis in her face, which forced heard of hutch it to push him away and she describes how

She was brought up quite conservatively she's catholic and had always hoped to phone having any kind of sexual contact like that of any sort until she was married and she fell. Humiliated. She felt embarrassed. She described hearing him laughing at her, and the other boys who were there laughing at her and when we were this story before we did. We tried to find as much corroboration as we could and I think we found some pretty serious corroboration. We also try to check out, anyone who might suggest she was lying, so we spoke to lots of different people who knew Deborah Ramirez, our people, who might have thought she had a credit many problem or a political problem, and we found none of the above everybody we interviewed, including the people who were put forward by bright Cavanaugh team,

Who knew Devereux Ramirez said she's a very truthful person when you say we your front yourself and it's? Not the royal way, which has some TWAIN once said: it's either the royal. We are speaking in the way because I have worms it's either of those it some its run and fair. who's. My co author on this story, but did you know when you see a story like that in the new Yorker, there's another. We also there's quite a process. Behind it- that readers don't get to see. There's a team of people, so Ronan and I were doing the reporting, but in addition, their effect hackers there's somebody who was on the phone for, I think it over two hours would never Ramirez going through every single fact. With her and her lawyer. There are our lawyer or in house lawyer, whose going through it, whose fantastic and a number of editors, everything from copy editors on up to the editor of the magazine, David Rhetoric, and we were conferring constantly

on this story and doing everything we could to make sure that it was absolutely right, because we knew it was incendiary. What was the timing of your first, learning of the Ramirez allegations, the apron the twenty third, I think of September. So maybe two weeks before the house before that in the story, you and run and right that it took Deborah mirrors a few days to think about whether or not an paraphrasing sir correct me. If I'm wrong that your story to think about whether or not she remembered it correctly, and I think the phrase it has been used to criticise the story was something like she took six days to go over her recollection and consult with a lawyer and after that time she felt comfortable. Stick. By what she had said should not give us a lot of pause about her story. What it, what does it mean to spend six days going back over your recollection? Something happened. Thirty five years ago,

That's one way to look at it, and that is how critics have looked at it. I actually thought it showed her honesty. She was quite up front and we were quite up front. I hope it showed our honesty in being very transparent about this process, probably but than you, but when it comes to, remembering something thirty five years ago. I think I too would have to probably call my friends at that I would say to you remember this: did I say that or did you say that, or were you in the room I mean to me it seemed the most natural thing and I thought it also was impressive, that she cared much. She didn't just say? Oh yeah, I remember this. She wanted to be absolutely certain. She went through it. She confessed up front that she had been drinking so she wasn't in highly certain that her memories were as clear as she wanted them to be, and it was

after she had gone through this process and conferred with others and talked it through with a lawyer that she finally felt that she was comfortable going on the record and telling the story and to me one of the things that was, I think, most important is that? What she was saying is. I want the FBI to investigate this. I want to make a swarms statement on this. If my stay is wrong. I know that I would be committing perjury and what story really was about was saying this. Is what's going on right now? This is a snapshot. There's this nomination moving forward and a woman's coming forward on the record, and she once the FBI and the Senate looking at it in trying to investigate. To that is the state of play in that story? Did she come to you and Ronan in the press before she made any effort to go to the committee or the FBI. She is. She did not come to us. We have her name and when we heard her name- we sought her out to try to

if she would speak to us and Ronan convinced her to speak to him off the wreck and eventually, eventually that six day period she became involved and to go on. The record has become a point in the decision to publish the story about something like the Ramirez allegations, which are serious and have a great consequence for the country. is there tipping point when the decision is made. Now we have enough to publish, is I think people are confused about what the line is when you find something credible? What you published when you publish and also easier and multiple questions, is something to be the competition, so that there is some pressure if you have a seat hurry to put it out before the other guys do, there's always journalistic competition, but that really has to be the least important pressure in your life, I'm in the most important pressure is finding the truth. Beings, it's true and then decide

whether you ve got enough documentation to feel that you can go public with it and so in in the Americas. It was a hard call because we knew it was a devastating story and that it was an embarrassing story, obviously for Cavenaugh and one that could really hurt his reputation. Nobody takes that lightly. So what goes into making a judgment call like that are all those people I talk to you about who involved in the decision and a lot of information that the public never sees part of what was going on by scenes was. We know who the backgrounds Ursus were who were talking to us We knew what their level of credibility was, where the public doesn't get to see that, but our fact checkers speak to them, background sources, in addition to those who were on the record, and they two way in on it, and then there are other bits of information we have that. Maybe we are unable to put on the record- and that is true in this case- and so there's a bigger picture

that we have by the time that we go to press. Then then the public is able to see the problem with that is is the nature of things, but the problem of that is that the publication of the trust all this other stuff you have. That does not reported this, not in the article that gives you a basis for feeling evidence in the reporting. Maybe I mean, but the thing is you also mean that peace was. It was extremely and not kind of unusually transparent about the reporting process, in that you had Ever mirrors, we describe how she gradually came forward and changed, and we also have lots, information in there from the cabinet team, which shows you what questions they ve got about her, and so the public has. collecting information in that story and it doesn't say, nest thoroughly she's one hundred percent right in or that he's one hundred percent right. It's the formation that we had and were sharing it with the public. By the time we went to press

We were actually certain. It was the right story to tell we had Deborah Ramirez on the record. Talking about her first hand, experience and had no reason to doubt her credibility and we had touched based with the White House and with the Cavenaugh team and none of them gave us any reason to distrust her. I wanna get to something that is cut. A troubling has been the news with respect to these allegations in the last day, and let me start by asking this question: do you have any understanding about when it is that the cabin on people or the White House might have known about the rumours patients. Could you said that the EU folks at the new Yorker, only learned about them say MID September, given you reasonably that the cabinet people who are expecting us to come out at some earlier point well, of course, Judge cabin

in front of the Senate swore that he only learned about it from the new Yorker. So it's a real problem for him. If there's information suggesting that he knew of it earlier to be clear for folks who may not have read these reports as well here today on Tuesday. I believe that some point yesterday, NBC reported there apparently text messages from earlier in the year, I think in the July timeframe, between among classmates her breath cabinets from Yale that suggest a concern about allegations by Miss here is so I see the text messages in question here and what they show is that there was a friend of bread governors who was looking for a particular photograph and that photograph. features, Deborah Ramirez and Bread Cavanaugh. Happily, looking like they're on friendly terms at a

wedding. Ten years after they graduated from Yale, it's not clear from the text why? Ah, the cabinet camp was looking for this particular photograph. We need to know that, but if, in fact, they were looking for it in order to create some kind of cover story? I think that would be devastating, but it's not absolutely clear at this point so that their You are aware of that show clearly that bread cabinet was trying to in advance to build up a defence other than this vote. What you can see is in advance of our. Dury running by a day or two. They were scrambling the Cavenaugh team that is There are references to bread and two brats person mean Somebody who's working on his nomination team trying to get classmates at Yale to go forward and cast dispersion on the Ramirez story, with there's one woman in petty

Killer Karen Jerez Savage in this in these texts and she's talking with a friend and she sang my story is that I was really. with friends with Debbie Ramirez, and she never told me this and He then also mentions that she's been asked by Cavanaugh Group to go on the record, and this. So you can see that their preparing a defence before our story comes out. Actually I'm the person who spoke with carrying out our salvage, I mean so I'm I'm. I was the rapporteur the receiving end of these efforts. It is clear may? I can confirm the Cavanaugh camp was putting forward character, witnesses who were trying poke holes in the Ramirez story and that they were. They were from being on the background to calling I can saying they would like to be on the record, meaning they wanted appear to be even stronger and myself was that it was Cavenaugh and his people who were trying to push these witnesses onto the record. To talk about this,

the interesting thing to me, though, as the person who is interviewing these character witnesses per Cavanaugh who were trying to challenge credibility of Ramirez is that they were really weak. in their arguments. I really did not interview anybody even from his group who could say, or who wanted to say outright, the Ramiro was lying in this again important? Why we published the story? No, he said, she's a liar. Nobody she's doing this for political reasons. I am, do you wanna, say she's lying. I gave them the opportunity and they said no, and I said do you want to say your disputing her allegation and they said no, so they were looking for want to try to bring down her account and they they were actually unable to find anyone who was willing to do it even on

crowned let alone on the record, to three clear when you say Cavanaugh people who you referring to you don't mean lawyers who officially work for the White House or for the Justice Department or normally the people you consider to be the nominations team. It was sort of his private policy. I think, and his private capacity. friends who are trying to help him get through this gruelling nomination process. We did also talk, I have to say to the White House, and it was the White House which said in the beginning. Do you want to talk to anyone who might not on your story and, of course, as reporters we'll talk to everybody, we want to know If there's a flaw in the story, we want to know it before we go to press we, so we got. The name for carrying out savage and her phone number from the White House on a scale of one to ten. much pushed back. Did you get on the story, and I assume that it are sometimes where you know people are screaming and threatened legal action? That's a ten

and you know as your or one is where I can find go ahead. You you ve got a totally right and then the second question is does that factor in any way in confirming the correctness of your story, depending on where, on the spectrum, the push back is or not It's really interesting the reaction to the story, because the push back from people supporting Cavanaugh has been about whether we met journalistic standards, but I have to see any push back. That says the Deborah mirrors Is a liar she's gone? FBI now she's, given her account the former bolder district attorney. Who was her first lawyer in this said she was the most credible client he had seen and thirty five years, people who are classmates who know her classmates we're friends of bread, Cavanaugh who know her nobody, saying this woman is a lie.

so we're not getting the push back that you get. If you ve made a big mistake, wouldn't nothing like it, we're just getting people who were unhappy. We wrote the story about the prospects for a moment and fairness. They don't have to call her a liar because there's enough in the story. If you want argue this, given that she took six days to refresher writ recollection of your recollection, and sat with a lawyer. It's been a long time, so it may be the best way to refute. It is not to cast aspersions in her as a liar, but to say you think they ve been doing like she's just wrong the biggest issue really that's been raised is if this party took place and this behaviour took place there, why Are there no eye witnesses willing to speak out about it and I will say, as somebody who did a lot of reporting on the people who were at the party, the devil

Maris has given us names of people, she thinks we're there and we have gone to the ends of the earth to get a hold of them, and I will say that I think fit the likelihood that his friends who were implicated in the same situation the likelihood that there come forward and say sure I was there and he did. This is always gonna be fair. very low you're not going to get people who were involved in some kind of scandalous. Failure to come forward and say I was a participant in it. Let me tell you about it, so it and strike me as surprising that, basically, what most of these people who have been named to be at the party did when we reached out to them, was och, some of them have never returned phone calls, and others have said she. I just don't want for that and what I think is real. Important to know now, since we know Their names is. Are they speaking to the FBI? Is the FBI speaking to them? Some of these people.

Might say to a reporter gee. I don't remember, but when the FBI, I knock on the door. The question is: do they give a mistake men or do they say. I just don't want to talk and how many people did the New Yorker speak too. Who may have had knowledge about the party or at the party somewhere bout, a half dozen? I would think it was a group of about a half dozen p, that could have been there, that we believe were there and with proper spoken to between fifty and a hundred people who were in a position to know something about this so much this question. If you spoke to that many folks as journalists to decide whether or not it was up to snuff, to put in the new Yorker in how the FBI has been given, presumably authority to investigate this allegation, do you believe that they should do the same amount of work that you

did before published an article. I think it would be good if they did. I really do I mean I think this is an incredibly important, allegation, as is Christine Blasi Ford's allegation. This is a lifetime appointment, we're talking about on the most important court in our country, so I think the importance of getting it right is absolutely paramount to everything else. I don't understand why any artificial time limits would be put on this. They consequences could scarcely be bigger, so they better very right when hand in a report, and it does time, I mean the one thing I know from investigative reporting is the one thing that makes the difference is time. It takes a while to find the right people to talk to and to talk to them enough that you feel that you ve gotten the truth from them and to find any kind of documentary evidence that can it just takes time

Do you have a view on whether not Brook capital should be on the screen court? You know I try not to even think like that says it's a bit of secession. How can ask you? Is it your bridging list? You in fact, or any one else, I mean, maybe we have a view and you're entitled to that. But how do you keep that from infecting you're reporting it's just the way. A doktor or some other professional would deal with a situation you just have to be professionally detached and whether you This person on the court or not, if this person committed a sexual assault, even if they were you, every candidate. You would still be beholden to the public to her. to put that information out in even they're, your least favoured candidate and some. he's making a false allegation. You would be beholden to get that information on and I think in the best way to illustrate the how this is not a political job is dead.

Less story that Ronan Pharaoh and I worked on prior to the cabin a story was about Eric Schneider men, the attorney general at the time of New York State, it would be hard to find and a more outspoken critic of Donald Trump. and someone more up to his eyeballs in the fight against Trump. So if this were pulled coal and we were just trying to help one side of politics and not the other. We would never have that story which resulted Eric Schneider men having to step down in two hours and fifty seven minutes from his job. None stop one if it wasn't just very precisely

it was so incredible. I was sitting there at the dining room table with my husband and my daughter and look at our phones, and I thought he would probably have to resign, but I didn't think would happen quite that fast without an easier publication decision, the story but urge nitrogen and for the record store that you guys wrote making clear that originated in head. physically assaulted people with whom he had romantic relationships, was at an easier story device uneasy story. I don't think the thing is. None of these stories are easy among things there. feeling you have as a report or at least that I have that year, strong somebody's reputation, someone in public life in both cases on the basis of things that have to do with their private behaviour. It's not a fun thing to do. It feels like it's a public service. I feel important, but there's not like a sense of glee in doing these things and its incredibly important to get it right. So

None of these things are easy. You really have to be really certain you're, not new. To this kind of thing. You wrote a book very acclaimed book about Clarence, Thomas and you need a hill hearings and lots of people who don't remember history so well or drawing power also when I ask you and expert who is doing live reporting in the instant case and also deeply reported what happened twenty seven years. what are the real parallels and where the real differences between what happened then? And what s happening now, or so we no the outcome yet the big question is: will it come how differently, in this particular case, they of course they're not exactly identical their different charges that had to do with sexual harassment this has to do with sexual assault. One thing act I should say front is, as we have seen before, it takes time to really get to the bottom of you know a fight like this and when both sides, him credible and in the case of the Clarence Thomas cover

nation hearings? It took Jill Abrams in the former leader of the New York Times and free mind since high school and myself three years to get the story right and even then, when we publish strange justice which came out in ninety ninety four, we said the boy Hundreds of evidence appears to make it seem that Clarence Thomas I'd, but you couldn't say one hundred percent. It was the preponderance of the evidence and so you're. In this case, we are talking about something is happening in real time unfolding really fast. in a matter of days, and so it's much harder at this point to know how this is gonna come But there are a lot of parallels for one thing, but need a hill and Chris in bloody Ford were reluctant witnesses, they didn't want to come out and public their name.

were leaked and they had to make a decision about whether to step forward into the limelight in what was sure to be a thankless for In the case, though, of a need a hill, the F B, I played actually a bigger role. They really go and interview a number of people. Here they had to be dropped Did you know in a last minute compromise when the Democrats are up in arms over it, and Senator flake was confronted by two women in an elevator screaming animate took all of that to get the FBI and lose anything different today in the culture and in people's understanding of search from his conduct and harassment and assault From your perspective, you both as a woman and as somebody who has written incredibly important pieces about me to allegations. It is something different about the public mind now and awareness of these issues that you think will cause people to react

Lee than they did twenty seven years ago. There is so much more social awareness of sexual harassment actual assault as issues and women are so much more emboldened to come forward it that one of the things it's been interesting me covering this, is that first, you had Christine Blasi ward and she was kind of pushed out there. But then I had people who saw that and are coming forward saying. I too want to speak about this. So, for instance, there was a former girlfriend. Mark Judge who was the other man in the room supposedly high school students in the room, when Christine Plaza Fort says she was assaulted by bread Cavenaugh, he was there and he, had a girlfriend college who reached out to me, and she said I can't stand by and watch him lie. I want to come, Lord other women, feel I'm not gonna. Let Christine blogs, you forges, hang out their unsupported the way and need a hill hung out their unsupported. I

that was part of Ramirez is feeling about why she wanted go on the record which she felt there's more to this. It's not just Christine Bossy, forts allegation. Other women felt I'm gonna speak up also Who'd you things more angry the people who support Cavanaugh, where the people who oppose cabinet As we saw a lot of anger from a diagram- and you know just seen reports about the fall out may be in the election. What's your view cover these things for a long time and by the way, also noting in your book what happened after the need a hill hearings. It is true that class Thomas got confirm to the Supreme Court, and I think I may have is wrong, but simply like eleven democratic senators voted for him in a bunch of those folks got voted out of office, the falling you're in in a democratic centre from Illinois scenario and Dixon outlets actually right? Who who thought they would avoid war

followed at home. Buyers were begrudgingly voting for Clarence Thomas and he got defeated by Karl, mostly brown, the first black women to serve on the Judiciary Committee That's actually right many of the senators at the time of Need Hill thought it was the easy vote, the safe boat to just go ahead and confirm him, and the voters just took it out on them. Afterwards, there was just a wave of women who went to the polls and a number women who were elected that year, including Diane Feinstein, whose now the ranking Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, so One of the things that also changed in this particular court fight now is that its women's rights in many ways in the Senate that are up in the air that both sides are fighting for. You ve got Senator Collins from in and Senator Mc Caskey from Alaska and those votes Words are of the once. Did it dead, are gonna, probably decide this and they're both women's votes, giving if we had

number of men and women in the Senate, distributed between the parties that this would even be close vote now. It has helped us bird. I doubt I think women. in Vienna, women? It's been amazing to me how many women have come forward privately to me and said this happened to me to things like that happen to them also women. I work with all kinds of men. Women understand what these women are saying and what do they say about the men who don't seem to believe these allegations And the angry them or do you know what I mean it? I mean it's not just women who were so who are critical of the men like Lindsey, Graham, I think, there's a sort of a certain theme, that's being propounded by the supporters. have another. All boys will be boys, and this is just how guys are and really what's the problem. I know a lot of men who said to me: that's not how we are married David many men beforehand. That's not

the men I knew were or how my husband is. So that argument, maybe I would some people, but it assured us and fly with a lot of women, and it also doesn't fly with a lot of men I'm not going on my own personal polling, which is only a handful of people who are friends and people. I know look at the polls. The poles are really in sting they show that the first of all covenants now. Popular nominee to begin with, but he is absolutely opposed, by a majority of particular college educated women. So I have to ask this question- and maybe you get this into an annoying question, but on several of these Is there not written by one person written by you and you been up award winning major investigative journalist for a long time? but they were written by you, Enron and Pharaoh, and in some quarters people have noticed, when It's been commentary on the reporting sometime.

people mentioned Ronan and they feel dimension Jane. Do you notice? That is the reason for that. Does it bother? You is her sexism, and that are you mad at me for asking the question, I've noticed that my twitter feed is filled with people, saying don't forget chain, and you know the truth is I hadn't felt forgotten is so I feel highly celebrated and highly lucky to have this job in and ass, she very lucky to have grown in the two of us. It's As for the new Yorker, we didn't have double by once there until you know we ve started doing more kind of breaking news for the web, and it's been years since I've somebody to work with Jill Abrams in and I, for instance, should work together on a book and and some other things and Romans fantastic to work with. I think it's only natural I mean face it, he's a star he's the child of movie stars, there's a phenomenal amount of interest in him and he just one the Pulitzer Prize and he seems to have every other war you can think of from you know road skull

ship, and I was you, know, teasing and recently I think he's a bit of a slack cause, I don't think he's he's not one Wimbledon yet will depends on you know. The cheer up is like in order winner exactly and slammer, then, as we discussed on the show tested are, can question how is cited whose name goes first in the violence ordinarily, what happens is its alphabetical Pharaoh's named first and then Mayor but sometimes one person's done a lot more work, the other and then they then they would reverse it. So every now and then I think, on the Schneider piece. My name came first because I'd written it and did you know an awful lot of their the run and did very important reporting very important reporting on a two that would be the tip off. Jane. I want to thank you. We spend our time talking about cabinet, which I think is urgent, but we didn't have time because we don't have enough to talk about reporting on dark money on interference in the election but

courage, every body whose listening to religiously region mayor things you ve been in the past and everything you right come up and you'll. Let me know if that weird dramatic phone call that you took right before we started taping health, and something ok and re, told me the first two now: ok, now you mockingly but internet thank you for having me. It was so much fun but before that through the where, in the show positive to come one is something For me, the news and the other category. Thus frequent is you know what I did over the weekend and his this falls into that second category, so hobble indulge me there's something I mentioned before it's worth mentioning again. So if you follow me on Twitter, you may have seen that last week. Saturday after very terrible horrible weak with respect it bread, Cavenaugh hearings tomorrow, what side of the earlier on

your ideologically. I think, if you're an american last week was tough Thursday seem to go on for about ninety days and the twists and turns and what the futures can hold for the country because of the court and with the elections coming up, you know it's. I sometimes does take a step back and member. What's important personally to people and remember people who were important to you and who made you what you are so with some. happiness I traveled South New Jersey to my old high school, where I was given the honor of being able to induct the best teacher. I ever had Dr Barbara Tomlinson into the High school Hall of Fame, Barbara Thomason. If you've heard me talk about her before was my American Literature teacher AP lit teacher she's, my american history teacher, she was also the faculty advisor to the school paper,

which I was the editor in chief and interestingly lady. As far as this week goes, she was also the faculty adviser to the yearbook and I think, if you take a look at various peoples, yearbook pages from those times in the 80s, none of them would have a problem with the Judiciary Committee. I don't think most interesting about the event. Was lots of students there who had Barbara Tomlinson years ago and is Doctor Tee said in her own remarks, lots of you, came up to her and remembered particular things that she had taught them, or particular moments in class. Thirty years later, thirty, five years later that stuck with them, she has met with those things. She had a lot of students over a long period of time and she how gratifying it was to hear the things I said and lessons I taught have stuck with people. I had a number of such exams,

my son. I remember an assignment she gave once on how to run introductory paragraph two, an essay literally just riding introductory paragraph an essay on the civil war, they tell me more about writing about organizing your thoughts than anything else. I remember towns like a simple thing, but it was an important thing and Barbara Thomas and also said in the interesting thing about being a teacher You come in and you try to students everyday and you don't really know if you made any difference if it mattered to anyone, except that she said on days like this, so I just want to let folks know. I told this to her and I'm saying it to my listening audience of tens of me that if you tune in- and you have some respect for the way, I think about things, if you have some respect for the way, I talk about things if some respects the wearer

black on history or on the world. A lot of that is because a doctor Tomlinson summoned by saying, if there's a teacher in the world who made a difference to you, should look at it. no it took me a Lahti night- fell out of touch with my teacher for many many and then we got reacquainted when I became the US attorney. My mother sought her out and wanted to make sure that doctor T was at my swearing in ceremony in two thousand and nine we've been in touch since, but don't lose touch with people. That meant something to you and if you have an opportunity to thank them, you should, and in second to all the teachers out there, who, I think are underappreciated underpaid, undervalued, know that even if students don't take the time to have a platform of a microphone or a podcaster is stage that they appreciate you, they miss you and they wouldn't be where they were. Without you,

Well, that's it for this episode of statehood, thanks again to my guest, Jane Mare, if you like the show rate and reviewed and Apple podcast Every positive review help new listeners. Fine shall send me your questions about news and politics, sweet them to me. It pretty the hashtag ask free or give me a call at six hundred and sixty nine, two hundred and forty seven, seven thousand three hundred and thirty, eight that six thousand six hundred and ninety two, or creed, or you can send me an email to stay tuned. Cafe. Dotcom Satan is presented by cafe. produced by the team? The pineapple street media cat Aaron Crisper obey Henry Malarkey Courtney. Harold generalise, Berman, Joel Level and MAX Linsky. Our music is by Andrew, does and special

thanks to Julia Doyle, Jeff, eyes, element in a body and tomorrow supper. I'm prepare our stated.