Skip to main content

tv   Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX News  September 30, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT

11:00 pm
thank you to all our guests. you can learn more by calling us, and henry is up next when the next revolution will be televised. some of your best wor. >> thank you very much. log on and help the dogs. see you tomorrow.>>chris: i am chris wallace. president trump orders the fbi to reopen the investigation >> donald trump orders the fbi to reopen the investigation into supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. after a republican senator wavers on support for the judge. >> i will move it out of committee, but i will not move for sure until the fbi has done more investigation and they have. >> reporter: the shocking develop and after a day of dramatic testimony from both sides. >> what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%.
11:01 pm
>> none of these allegations are true, no doubt in your mind. >> 0, i am 100% certain. >> new investigation into claims of sexual misconduct hurt his chances for confirmation? we will ask sarah sanders. plus. [chanting] chris: supreme court confirmation battle in the age of me too. >> someone could say 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago he did a horrible thing to me. a very dangerous period. chris: we will discuss what the showdown means for allegations of sexual assault with the president of the national women's law center and we will ask our sunday panel will the burden of proof lies these days. and our power play of the week, hollywood tighten on the rewards of giving back. >> university a u-haul behind the hearse. chris: all right here on fox news sunday.
11:02 pm
hello again from fox news in washington. tomorrow the supreme court opens with eight justices on the bench. brett kavanaugh's nomination facing another week of uncertainty after donald trump, under pressure, allegations of sexual misconduct by his nominee. all of this just 5 weeks before the 2018 midterm elections. in a moment we speak with sarah sanders but first, fox news white house correspondent kevin cork has the latest from capitol hill. >> reporter: the fate of the supreme court nominee was thought to rest in a few fence sitting republican senators but it is in those of the fbi which has opened up as a little background investigation into judge brett kavanaugh. >> reporter: the probe comes in the wake of a series of sexual misconduct allegations dating to
11:03 pm
his high school and college years. debra ramirez confirmed agents have contacted his client, an indication of the probe looking into the allegations of christine blasey-ford. the scope of the investigation was in question. saturday nbc accused the white house of limiting the probe since the president quickly denied tweeting i want them to interview whoever they team appropriate at their discretion. the white house spokesman rosh hashanah talked about the fbi probe, the white house is letting the fbi agents do what they are trained to do. in west virginia the president reiterated his support for his embattled nominee. >> a vote for brett cavanagh is a vote to reject the ruthless and outrageous tactics of the democrat party. mean obstructionists, mean resistance. for the last 18 months democrats have spent every minute trying to overturn the results of the last election.
11:04 pm
>> reporter: michael avenatti, the attorney for 30, is yet to hear from the feds. the investigation is expected to wrap up by the end of this week. chris: joining me now, white house press secretary sarah sanders, welcome back to fox news sunday. >> great to have you. chris: let's pick up on this report overnight. has the white house limited in any way who the fbi may talk to and has the fbi been given a list of potential people to talk to that does not include julie s swetnick and college friends who may contradict brett kavanaugh on the issue? >> the white house is not micromanaging the process. the senate is dictating the terms, they laid out the
11:05 pm
request. you heard the president say do what you need to do. the fbi, this is what we do. we are out of the way letting them do that. chris: to the white house counsel give the fbi a list? >> not that i am aware of. the white house counsel has allowed the senate to dictate with these terms look like has what the scope of the investigation is. the white house isn't intervening or micromanaging the process. it is a senate process, has been from the beginning, we are letting the senate dictate what it looks like. >> do you know if they are saying don't interview her? >> that is something have to ask the senate, not something the white house is engaging in. >> the white house is in charge of telling the fbi. >> at the end of the day the fbi will go through this process, they don't come to a conclusion. they are going to provide information and the senate will
11:06 pm
have to make a determination to vote for brett kavanaugh or not. this can't become a fishing expedition like the democrats would like to see it be. you have to go back to the very beginning of day one of when donald trump nominated brett kavanaugh. from that first moment before any of these allegations had been brought up democrats said we are not going to support him or vote for men do everything in their power to fight him. we have seen that play out in the last couple months. they have been absolutely disgraceful in the way they handled this process, and exploited brett kavanaugh and doctor ford. we cannot allow the people who acted in bad faith to determine and allow this to become a total fishing expedition by the fbi. senate republicans are going to lay out and dictate those terms and we look forward to wrapping up. brett cavanagh has been part of it.
11:07 pm
chris: donald trump said the fbi investigation in his words could be a blessing in disguise but here was the tweet he put out thursday after the hearing. democrats search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct and resist, the senate must vote. does the president think democrats demand for this extended fbi probe is part of that? is part of what he called a big fat con job and republican senators like flake, collins and murkowski fell for it? >> i don't know that he thinks those individuals fell into the sham but they want to see this process play out. the people that have been bad actors in this as the president laid out are the democrats. dianne feinstein and her staff knew these accusations, could
11:08 pm
have done this in a private way to protect doctor ford. instead, for the people who claim to champion women democrats have exploited doctor ford and exploited this process and it has been totally disgraceful and i don't think anyone has hit the nail on the head better than lindsey graham. chris: why go along with it? >> that is something you have to ask jeff flake but the end of the they we want this process to be completed and for brett kavanaugh to take the bench and be a supreme court justice without the cloud over his head and if this allows us to do that let's get this done this week but the senate has to make a decision and a determination and they have to vote based on the information they have. >> here's what the president said after the hearing about christine ford's appearance before the judiciary committee. >> i thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman. very fine woman. certainly she was a very credible witness. she was very good in many
11:09 pm
respects. >> what do the president find compelling and credible about doctor ford's testimony? >> i think certainly anybody who watched that can't ignore it and invoke some emotions but this isn't about emotion, it is about facts and the facts legal on brett kavanaugh's side, certainly all the information that came through that hearing there was no corroboration, nobody could deny her testimony was compelling, impactful and it appears something happened to this woman i don't think anybody in america would condone there or be okay with that. the question is was that brett kavanaugh? based on his testimony and the information he provided you can come away and say it wasn't. chris: you are not only the white house press secretary but you are a woman. how did her testimony affect you
11:10 pm
personally? and how do you explain that she could be that compelling, that believable and yet you think she's that wrong? >> i think her testimony was compelling but there was no fact-based information that supported the accusation. equally compelling if not more so was brett kavanaugh. you point out i am a woman and a mom am i have a daughter and two sons. i think it is a very dangerous place into various dangerous road for america to go down to simply taken accusation and make it fact. we have to look at the information provided based on what we know. i think brett kavanaugh was very compelling, very credible and have a lot of corroboration to back up his side of the story and that is equally important that you have to take that into account as well. jason chaffetz let's look at some of her testimony this week. >> i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help.
11:11 pm
when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. >> what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident? >> indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. chris: how has the president which coulter not only compelling but credible explain that she could be so credible and so specific in putting brett kavanaugh and one of his best friends, mark judge, in that room is the wrong about it? you say something happened, not necessarily with brett kavanaugh, how does he explain it? >> i don't think any one of us can know 100% but we have to look at the information provided. there is no doubt her story is heartbreaking and heart
11:12 pm
wrenching, i watched it a number of times. i think you have to look at brett kavanaugh's testimony as well, equally heartbreaking, look at the destruction of his family, how this has played out. the biggest thing is so disgraceful and so disgusting is the way the democrats have allowed this process to play out and allowed both of these individuals to be so beaten down, so destroyed by the media who played a big role in this, not that they shouldn't report it but putting so much information and pressure on these two individuals and this could have been avoided had dianne feinstein done this behind closed doors, not done this in such a public setting, that is what doctor ford asked for, she wanted to be done in a private way and it wasn't and it could have been and a lot of this could have been avoided and the pain-and-suffering she had
11:13 pm
to relive that brett kavanaugh is having to experience could have been avoided. chris: donald trump said his mind was open and fevered information that in fact brett cavanagh had committed sexual assault, he was open to withdrawing his nomination. does he stand by that? if the fbi were to find something over the course of this week that contradicts brett kavanaugh's testimony will he pull the nomination? >> i won't get ahead of what the fbi may or may not find. the information we have up until this point and look at the president's comments last night, brett kavanaugh is an incredible individual, great intellect, great temperament and you can't just erase everything by what happened over the last week, this is a person who has had peers and colleagues from the time he was a small kid until today talk about who he is, the type of character he has, he has
11:14 pm
been to six different fbi investigations and this is one of those. they are very thorough, not like they sit down with one person and call it a day. chris: he said he has an open mind and with us and affect. will he listen to the fact of the fbi investigation? >> certainly will listen to the fact but 6 of them have been done. at least chris: they weren't about this. >> they don't look at one thing, they look at everything. a standard fbi investigation goes into the depths -- chris: if something new comes out -- >> we don't expect that to happen. we are pretty confident given we have been through this a number of times but we will assess it at that point. chris: there is other news in washington, to my version of the lightning round, when will the president and deputy attorney general rosenstein sit down this weekend is the only issue on the table whether or not rosenstein did in fact talk about wanting
11:15 pm
to wire himself to the president or invoke the 25th amendment, is that the only issue if the president is satisfied that is not true? >> i wouldn't be surprised of other topics get up. i will not talk about his conversation with the deputy attorney general. i can see it pushing back another week given all the other things going on with the supreme court but they have to keep the press updated on that. chris: the president signed a spending bill that funds the department of homeland security until december 7th after the midterms and provides no new money for building the wall. if congress does not pass after by december 7th when the funding runs out at least $5 billion more for the wall which is what the house once will the president shut down the government? >> we will have to wait and see what happens with the president
11:16 pm
is committed to making sure we build the wall and get funding for it and if i know anything about donald trump healed and we will get what he is fighting for and that will be the wall. chris: this takes me to my days at the white house briefing room. >> welcome back anytime. chris: i still get ptsd about it. we are happy to have you here. you have not had a white house press room briefings and substantive 10th which would be three weeks ago tomorrow. are you thinking of ending the formal briefings or taking them off camera because you believe white house reporters especially tv reporters grandstand? >> i won't disagree that they grandstand but that is not why. chris: i am not saying it. >> i think it is pretty widely known that it happens. we talk to the press in a number of ways. the briefing was initially created, the answer was in
11:17 pm
credibly different and you didn't have the same access and ways to communicate with the american public. the president does more short q&a sessions than any president has prior to him. we look at those numbers. chris: the former white house press briefing on camera. >> we will continue to do that. i think if you can hear directly from the president and the press has a chance to ask the president of the united states questions directly that is better than talking to me. we try to do that a lot and you see us do that a lot over the last two weeks and that will take the place of a press briefing when you can talk to the president of the united states. chris: since he has become president he hasn't talked to me. >> we will work on that. i will put in a good word for you and make that happen. chris: despite this interview. thanks for coming in today and we will try to stay on top of all the fast-moving developments. up next we bring in a sunday
11:18 pm
group to discuss the surprising 1-week fbi investigation and how big a threat it poses to brett kavanaugh getting on the supreme court.
11:19 pm
11:20 pm
11:21 pm
>> i think it wo >> i think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi continues to do an investigation limited in time and scope. chris: jeff flake's stunning demand forcing donald trump to reopen brett kavanaugh's background check. time for our sunday group.
11:22 pm
senior political analyst britt hume, georgetown university's institute of politics and public service, former democratic congresswoman donna edwards and kimberly straw soul of the wall street journal. what did you think of jeff flake's decision supported by two other moderate senate republicans to go along with the democratic demand for an investigation in this case, a 1-week fbi investigation of brett kavanaugh? >> i don't think it was a compromise because with a compromise both sides give something. i don't see what the democrats gave for this, this is exactly what they wanted, all of what they wanted. they would have liked is going to perpetuity. i don't think mister flake got much for his so-called compromise and you have to remember this. everyone knows on that committee what an fbi background check is like. it is not a criminal investigation or and if it -- in-depth association.
11:23 pm
it is simply a background check in which you interview people about a nominee or candidate and they will look into these charges and it is worth remembering in all these instances no one has corroborated the charges that is hard to imagine when the fbi finishes this they will find corroboration no one else has been able to discover witnesses who denied they saw this or that it happened. chris: i went to pick up on that. we all agree christine blasey-ford was an extremely compelling witness and nobody could watch her obvious pain in recounting the story without your heart going out to your. on the other hand she did not offer any evidence except her own recollection and everybody else she puts in that house that day says they don't remember this happening. >> they wouldn't remember it happening because they weren't in the room. one person who was in the room, mark judge, hasn't been talked to.
11:24 pm
he has written a letter. that is not the same thing as an fbi agent showing up at your door and asking you very specific questions than that has to be done. in most instances of sexual assault there is not another witness. i think it was appropriate for jeff flake to do this and keep in mind the votes were not there because clearly senator collins and senator murkowski were not on the same train without this fbi investigation. republicans want to move this nomination forward, they got to finish this investigation. they have a week to do it. chris: i know you are not going to like brett kavanaugh anyway but are you willing to say if the fbi comes back and says no evidence this guy did anything wrong are you willing to say on that front case closed? >> a lot of people won't be
11:25 pm
voting for brett kavanaugh anyway. but on this point, democrats agreed with jeff flake the investigation would be open for this week. we will see what the fbi comes up with in the nomination will go forward or not. it is important to do what can be done in this week. i look at doctor ford and i worked over the years with a lot of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, she was incredibly credible, the things she could remember were, and she said, indelible to the hippocampus and i think the fbi is going to get some truth in the scope of the investigation should not be limited and you have got to look at his drinking, his companions during this time period and there will be people to interview, i bet that house will be identified and we will get to the truth.
11:26 pm
chris: kim? >> we have lots of people go into lots of confrontations on a daily basis in courtrooms, outside courtrooms, present both sides as credible, credibility is not the question. it has to be evidence-based and this is what the fbi is now attempting to do but it remains a case before these hearings and after these hearings but there is not a single piece of evidence beyond christine blasey-ford's word that this happened. if you're willing to overthrew do process in the country and say that won't be the standard anymore, one accusation is enough to lose you your job, your life, your home, we have some big problems so the fbi, you see democrats undermining the very fbi probe they called for saying it is not long enough, not wide enough, not going to go on long enough. i can promise you this probe
11:27 pm
will not change when democrat's vote at the end of the day. this is about more delay and jeff flake and others need to understand that. chris: let's be honest about this. the democrats don't want this nomination and one of the things they are trying to do is delay it. to what degree this called for an fbi investigation, all respect to congresswoman edwards, she said we need to go, a week isn't enough and try to push this past the midterms in hopes democrats take over and donald trump never gets another supreme court justice? >> i think unfortunately there are some democrats where that is true. i don't think that is where majority of democrats are. there are some democratic activists singlets the labels and find something else to delay and something else after that and they are doing the democratic party of which i'm a proud member a disservice but to the fact there are democrats who
11:28 pm
believe when there is a credible allegation like doctor ford's, for someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, that is worth doing a real investigation. i don't believe she was treated with the respect and credibility many people are patting themselves on the back saying they gave her. democrats are often criticized for saying they came out against him before this started. republicans were saying before the hearing started that they were going to vote for him afterwards. i don't think her allegations were treated as credibly as people say they were and that is why -- >> you think brett cavanagh was treated well? >> i think this whole mess has just been disgusting. >> the question about how christine blasey-ford was treated, she wrote a letter
11:29 pm
anonymously on question of anonymity to a democratic congresswoman from california who passed it to diane feinstein who did absolutely nothing with it. chris: at her request. >> she did not say do nothing. >> he wanted to remain anonymous. >> democrats -- >> i am not -- >> please -- >> what then happened, the matter was not look into by a committee confidentially at all. weeks and months passed and that it was leaked. she was forced into the public eye and manipulated into the testimony she gave under obvious emotional duress. it is not fair to say she was treated well by the democrats, she was not. >> doctor ford said she was not upon, she was not engaged in politics, she felt strongly, once her name was leaked, that she -- i don't know who leaked
11:30 pm
it. what i am saying is i don't know who leaked into where it came from, diane feinstein said it didn't come from her office and i take her on her word but we would rather politics and process than the fact the substance of these allegations and requirements for the highest court in the land that we get this right. chris: we have to take a break. a senate confirmation battle in the age of me too, what it means for the movement, the head of the national women's center and oscar-winning actor denzel washington and giving kids the tools to deal with life's ups and downs. [music]
11:31 pm
11:32 pm
11:33 pm
[music] [music] >> opposition to brett chris: opposition to brett kavanaugh's nomination centers on what kind of justice he would be but this week amid allegations of sexual assault
11:34 pm
the focus turned to what kind of man he is especially in the age of me too. we reached out to all ten senate judiciary committee democrats to join us today and for the third week in a row none of them accepted. we are happy to have the president of the national women's law center which opposes brett kavanaugh's nomination. you support the decision to reopen the background fbi investigation into brett kavanaugh but do you oppose the idea of limiting it to one week, why? >> no question about that. to begin with, they should have done an fbi investigation prior to this hearing and the sham process we saw during the hearing reflected the problem of not having it. chris: the fact they didn't have it before the hearing was democrats didn't ever release it to the fbi. >> they had more time when they
11:35 pm
first went into doctor blasey-ford than when they had the hearing. chris: weeks between -- >> now they have a 5-day -- there is concern that limiting it in scope, the question is talking about an issue like sexual assault, are you treating it with the seriousness it deserves? are we really going to have a situation where we allow the sort of doubt to be held with a lifetime appointment to the supreme court? chris: you were in the room for thursday's hearing and you say you believe christine blasey-ford. here was senator lindsey graham. >> there is no house, there is no location. i have been a prosecutor and defense attorney of the judge, there is no way to investigate something that happened 35 years ago when you can't tell the month, the location. chris: in addition to that
11:36 pm
everyone christine blasey-ford put in the house that night, none of them back up her story. >> the graham's conduct during the hearing was shocking and was reflective of the real concern, you have this woman who has come forwarded given such edible testimony and around the country whether you were in the room or not people believe this woman. what do you do with that? what you should do when you have such credible testimony is treat is seriously, investigate thoroughly, not have a process where you have doubted her with the process and the graham has. chris: he is saying, other people are saying you don't know where the house is, don't know how you got there, how you left the house, you mentioned four
11:37 pm
names, brett cavanagh, judge, her friends, none of them back up the story. >> the irony is doctor blasey-ford had to testify about her personal experience and she ended up being the expert on how trauma works. it was a powerful teaching moment for the country that around why people don't tell in the first place and how memories work when you have a traumatic experience when you're young. it is perfectly typical to remember quite vividly things in the room, the sound of laughter, and not remember the address or even a specific date. the laughter is haunting her and many survivors. chris: let's look at the accused, brett kavanaugh. here was some of his testimony.
11:38 pm
>> this has destroyed my family and my good name, a good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the american government. chris: you believe brett kavanaugh is guilty of criminal mistreatment of at least this one woman. on what basis? chris: i believe it because i believe her testimony and brett kavanaugh did not do himself a service in that hearing or before. the thing is when you have missed truth about small things the way was trying to minimize the drinking in high school and college and even when people were asking questions about what does it mean, coming up with things that didn't sound logical. not sure why he wasn't being clear about the small things --
11:39 pm
chris: this and the court of law. this is a job interview for one of the most powerful jobs in the country but in a situation where she says he did it and he says he didn't and she can't provide a single corroborating fact, leland keiser, her friend, not one of his friends, set i don't think i ever met brett kavanaugh. >> that is why people wanted an investigation in the first place, to interview people who knew them both, people who may have been there rather than people running cursory statement saying i don't want to talk to the committee and don't plan to come forward. i want to push back but she didn't have any corroboration. she took a lie detector test, it wasn't admitted and we didn't have testimony for the person who administered it, that is important. she also has evidence that she told people about this when it didn't matter to him. she told her husband many years ago in therapy, she told her
11:40 pm
friends. chris: that is her testimony. >> those are the sorts of things when you are talking about something when it doesn't matter but in and out of a court of law people would consider. that is what is important. the question is does he have the right temperament, the right credibility to sit on the supreme court and after debbie and julie swetnick for risking everything for their truth as well. let's talk about julie swetnick, the third accuser in this case, she claims she attended several parties in the early 80s where
11:41 pm
she saw brett kavanaugh spike the punch so women could begin engraved. all the lawyers in the world, she chose michael avenatti, story daniels's lawyer to represent her. do you believe her story? in 16 or 17, brett cavanagh was involved in serial gang grapes and the fbi did 6 background checks and never got a with of this? >> here is the thing. her account is horrific and startling, but from the work at the law center, one in 3 girls experience sexual assault before the age of 18 and often alcohol and drugs are involved. a totally horrific account is actually not totally extraordinary. i am not sure why her choice of counsel matters at all. chris: it is great doubt on how legitimate a lawyer he is and
11:42 pm
his -- >> i hear the concern about counsel but what i am concerned about is her and whether or not -- chris: you believe her when she says michael avenatti -- 40 and slip, brett cavanagh -- brett kavanaugh participated in serial gang grapes? >> i believe someone has to look into it in a serious way and it is my understanding counsel is saying they haven't yet been contacted by the fbi. not sure if that is the case but if it is not it should be. they should take this seriously because sexual violence is an issue that is serious. chris: thank you for your time. next up we bring back our sunday panel to discuss the showdown between senator jeff flake and two sexual assault survivors and who bears the burden of proof
11:43 pm
these days.
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
>> >> always i heard your innocent until proven guilty, i have heard this for so long and it is such a beautiful phrase. in this case you are guilty until proven innocent. i think that is a very dangerous standard for our country. >> donald trump raising questions about the burden of proof and standards of evidence in accusations against her supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. i hope for the next 7 minutes we can all take off our washington pundits hats, former congresswoman hats and act like real people and discuss some of
11:47 pm
these issues. the me too movement says accusers must be heard. what should the standard be on they should be believed? >> one of the problems with this case is it is undercut to a certain degree the me too movement because what made this case is so compelling and why did we decide we had to listen to these women and not ignore them? these women had evidence when and how it happened, the time period to give contemporaneous accounts, in the case of harvey weinstein a lot of people come out, a lot of people step out and say there's a problem here. when you begin to have a standard in which one person, no evidence, no pattern, no details, really threatened to change the standard and make it less believable whenever a woman comes forward.
11:48 pm
chris: when jeff flake was in the capital he was confronted in an elevator by two women who said they had been victims of sexual assault. here is a bit of that. >> look at me when i'm talking to using go your telling me my assault doesn't matter. it doesn't matter and you're going to let people do these things. that is what you are telling me when you vote for him. chris: is that fair? don't we need to hold open to the possibility that someone is unjustly accused? >> burden of proof applies when there is a criminal case. the potential to lose your life and liberty. this is a job interview. this is a circumstance where accusers are speaking up at the men have a conversation with their wives and girlfriends, they find out a lot about what they experienced.
11:49 pm
when you talk about standard of proof, burden of proof, in court proceedings absolutely, the highest standard possible. we are not. standard for a judicial nomination always has to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. chris: there was a moment in the hearing -- >> i welcome whatever the committee wants to do because i'm telling the truth. i am telling the truth. >> i want to know what you want to do. >> i'm innocent of this charge. chris: have we reached the point, for all practical purposes, the burden of proof shifted from the woman who accuses to the man who was accused. >> the sense of what is being argued here, what congresswoman edwards said, this idea that it
11:50 pm
is only in court of law and the committal case of some kind that your innocent until proven guilty is far more deeply embedded in our nation and culture, the next ordinary sense of fairness and to have another standard would mean someone out of the blue with an accusation under certain circumstances, guilty until proven innocent, that is manifestly unfair, unverified allegation use to ruin your reputation and damage your life forever without verification. it is absolutely impossible to think we as a nation are going to go there and yet three members of the committee, the judiciary committee and minor leadership are all said there is no presumption of innocence, that is where we seem to be going and i hope and trust the public won't stand for it. >> put aside the politics and specifics, can you imagine anything more frightening than
11:51 pm
being unjustly unfairly accused of doing something you didn't do? >> other than being a victim of something like this which would be more frightening. i'm going to try to take off the title of politics because this question is playing itself out in corporate board rooms, newsrooms, all sorts of other venues outside politics across the country and it is complicated and it is hard. i a guy and a data for sun and don't want to be accused and don't want my son to be falsely accused. i also have a daughter and if god for but she was ever in this situation i would want her to be heard and believed. this is a cultural badly merging in a way that we were talking about an agreement earlier, this is probably one of the most divisive cultural issues, we have faith that polarized assassination as far as i can remember. i believe women not to be heard,
11:52 pm
and when these charges come up and accusations come up and questions come up in corporate board rooms, newsrooms and other venues whether it's political or not they need to be looked at, investigated, women need to be treated seriously. do we have to be fair to both the accuser -- >> of course we do. >> and the accused. >> in any situation this is not about a court room. due process is at the center of our entire civil society. if you don't have it, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence we are talking whether this is a case of an employment dispute, doesn't have to be in the courtroom, everyone's and is out there at risk. chris: we will go on. >> power player of the week, denzel washington on the club that made him the man he is today.
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
chris: for many kids the hours between 3:00 and 8:00 are when their futures i decided. for more than 100 years one place opened its doors to make sure kids have a place to go after school and stay out of trouble. there is our power player of the week. >> where i learned so many life lessons and having fun.
11:56 pm
>> reporter: denzel washington is talking about the boys and girls club's of america. 4000 local places that provide afterschool programs for more than 4 million young people and in the process change lives. he was in washington this week for the group's annual dinner. >> i remember the first day, how i felt, how special they made me feel. >> reporter: daughter the national youth of the year. 18-year-old malachi haynes of colorado who had been going to be substance he was 6. >> being a leader and role model in my community is my purpose. >> a lot of energy. >> reporter: washington used to run track for his club and remembers when a new kid came in and started running faster. one of his mentors took him aside. >> he said he had natural ability but that ability to take him so far. i applied that to my career, my
11:57 pm
first two years when i started acting in college. >> reporter: washington won the first of his two oscars were his role in glory. about an african-american military unit in the civil war. for more than 30 years he has played a series of indelible characters. >> to protect the sheep you got to catch the to take the water catchable. >> i was never interested -- we were sort of new york theater. i want to be james earl jones. i was hoping to make $650 on broadway. and i did. >> reporter: your father was a preacher and iran in various points in your life you thought about becoming a preacher. >> it was prophesied that i would preach by this woman and i said maybe that is what i'm supposed to do but you already have a pulpit. chris: at age 63 washington is more about giving back. >> university a u-haul behind the hearse. whatever you have you can't take it with you. what are you going to do?
11:58 pm
chris: washington's oldest child john david is building his own career starring in the movie black klansman. on the tv series -- >> who got those 14? >> being the son of denzel washington -- >> earning more money than he was before they got married. she faced the first date. >> i said let's take a cab and i'm watching the media so she paid for the ride home. i remember paying for the date. she says we split. >> i know about being the son of somebody famous and you go into the same business. is that been complicated for the two of you? >> i guess more for him. >> reporter: the boys and girls club's feel the ups and downs of
11:59 pm
life too. kids do better at school, less likely to do drugs and volunteer more. malachi started his own program to improve reading levels. >> our reading -- getting to know the kids. >> reporter: denzel washington says that is the real message. >> we are bombarded with negative news that one can feel what is the news? listening to these young people saying we are going to change it and do something about it is inspiring. >> reporter: i asked washington where he sees himself at this stage of his career. he says he used a stuntman more but is excited about the unknown and what comes next in his life and career. that is it for today. have a great week. see you next fox news sunday. he
12:00 am
next revolution" will be televised. . >> dr. ford, >> doctor ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> and then of these allegations are true? >> correct. >> no doubt in your mind? >> 0. >> not even a scintilla. >> not a scintilla. 100% certain. >> is where the god? >> i swear to god. >> talking accusations, riveting defense and no evidence or corroboration but now the fbi is digging. the nomination of the us supreme court justice, emotions are running high.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on