Exclusive: Ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks out

close

Video

Exclusive: Ex-boyfriend of Kavanaugh accuser speaks out

On 'The Ingraham Angle,' Julie Swetnick's ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, details why the third Kavanaugh accuser is unreliable. Vinneccy says Swetnick never mentioned having been sexually assaulted.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," October 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" coming to you from Washington tonight where we have a show full of exclusives including in his first television interview, the ex-boyfriend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick. He says that there are major issues with her credibility and he'll detail each of them.

Also, as the obsession over Kavanaugh's high school yearbook continues, what about Dr. Ford's? "The Ingraham Angle" got our hands on three years' worth of Holton Arms textbooks. Oh, it's fun to look through them. It is like a walk down memory lane when she was there of course. And we are going to share our findings. But first, Christine Blasey Ford's credibility gap, that is the focus of tonight's Angle.

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford last week has produced a report. Her findings are fascinating and speak to Dr. Ford's credibility. Her overall appraisal, Mitchell finds the assault allegations against Kavanaugh to be weak.

And in the legal context, here is her bottom line. She writes "A he said- she said case is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee. Nor do I believe that the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard." That's a lower standard.

Mitchell then offers a nine-point critique of Ford's account based on the evidence at hand. She writes "Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened." In her July 6th text to the "Washington Post" Ford said it occurred in the mid-1980s.

And then she changed her story in the letter to Dianne Feinstein, where she claims it happens in the early ‘80s. But in her polygraph statement in August, Ford said the assault happened one high school summer in the ‘80s. It changes there.

She explicitly crossed out the word "early." Ms. Mitchell continues, saying "Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question -- details that could corroborate her account."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MITCHELL, PROSECUTOR: In your letter, you said that they went down to the stairs and they were talking with other people in the house.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, ACCUSER OF BRETT KAVANAUGH: Correct.

MITCHELL: Were you able to hear that conversation?

FORD: I was not able to hear that conversation.

MITCHELL: How do you know there was a conversation?

FORD: I am just assuming since it was a social gathering, people were talking. I don't know.

MITCHELL: You said that you do not remember how you got home, is that correct?

FORD: I do not remember.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Other than I did not drive home.

MITCHELL: OK.

Has anyone come forward to say to you, hey, remember I was the one that drove you home?

FORD: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Ford can't recall who invited her to the party, how she got to the party, the location of the party, where the alleged abuse occurred. Well, doesn't know where it was, nor how she got home or even how she arranged a ride there.

All of this leads Mitchell to her next point. "Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended including her lifelong boyfriend." Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick Smythe all deny any such party ever occurred.

Ford's friend, Leland Kaiser, goes further saying in a sworn statement that she had no recollection of being at a party with Kavanaugh and never knew him. Now, recall that when Dr. Ford was questioned about her really good friends testimony, she kind of threw her under the bus.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCHELL: Do you have any particular motives to ascribe to Leland?

FORD: I guess we could take those one at a time. Leland has significant health challenges and I am happy that she is focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs and she let me know that she need her lawyer to take care of this for her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So, guys, we have inconsistencies -- we have discrepancies and inconsistencies, and shades of changing the story. It goes on and on and on. Now, if the media cares to examine Kavanaugh's credibility on questions of whether he drank too much, whether he blacked out, fine, have at it, OK. Do it. But you've got to hit these other issues as well.

To me, it is just fair. And that is the question of media credibility, reporter's credibility. It can't be off limits. If you're going to have an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegation after the process of confirmation has already concluded, and you're going to go before the committee, and you're going to say all this stuff, and then the media is not going to question you, I just find that to be absurd.

By the way, Rachel Mitchell goes on to suggest that in her professional opinion, Ford, as I said, has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault. And so, this just keeps on shifting and shifting. The therapist notes indicated that four boys were in the bedroom when the assault occurred.

Then Ford told the Washington Post that four boys were at the party, but only two were in the bedroom during the assault. In her testimony, she said four boys and her friend Leland were present at the party, but she couldn't recall the name of the fourth boy. No one claiming to be the fourth boy has yet to come forward.

Now, perhaps the most damning of her Mitchell's critique was this one. "Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to the allegation, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITCHELL: Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to the Washington Post?

FORD: I don't remember. I remember summarizing for her what they said, so I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK, forget her recall about an assaults 35 or 36 years ago. Ford couldn't recall events from just a few weeks earlier. During her testimony, Ford couldn't remember if she gave the Washington Post a complete or partial list of her therapist notes. It's a pretty big deal -- or whether she took her polygraph the day of her grandmother's funeral. That's a pretty big day to forget.

Now, none of this is of interest though as I said earlier to the media. They spent the weekend fact-checking and questioning the credibility of Judge Kavanaugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILARY ROSEN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It has to matter, in my view, to the senators who are considering their vote, whether or not Judge Kavanaugh actually lied about his activities and his behavior over the course of his younger days.

JIM KESSLER, CO-FOUNDER, THIRD WAY: There were other places where I thought it seemed like he was not forthcoming and was not telling the truth.

SUSAN HENNESSY, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL ANALYST: Questions into whether or not he lied in his testimony is relevant to his broader credibility.

KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, CNN ANALYST: It is no longer about the credibility of the accuser so much of it is about Kavanaugh's credibility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: In light of Mitchell's sober analysis, which she released without the input of Republicans or anyone else, shouldn't the media be concerned about the credibility of Dr. Ford's account? Credibility rest in part on recall, sometimes long ago, substantiating witnesses, corroborating witnesses, and evidence.

But when all three are called into question by a seasoned sex abuse prosecutor like Mitchell -- she's not a political actor -- isn't it time for the media to at least entertain the possibility that they may have gone too far in their coverage? And that's the Angle.

Joining me now for reaction, Democratic strategist and former advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Richard Goodstein and former Secret Service Agent and NRA TV host Dan Bongino. So Richard, why aren't Democrats taking the report from Mitchell a little bit more seriously?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think their view is this whole notion that we are looking at this as a criminal proceeding as a misdirection. And I think actually people feel sorry for Rachel Mitchell, that she thought she was being brought in to a serious proceeding and is being used as a pawn.

As evidenced by the fact that when she started questioning Kavanaugh about July 1st on his calendar, man, she got cut off, right? And that was the last we have ever heard of her, when she seemed to be getting close to something that was actually fairly damning towards her. Look, the fact is, a real prosecutor would have spoken to witnesses face to face not just in that kind of perverse setting five minutes versus five. They would have gone --

INGRAHAM: Hold on a second Richard because I really want to keep this focused one at a time. My question was a simple one. Why aren't the Democrats, journalist, for that matter, why aren't they more interested in examining the facts of this case? I understand people are emotional. Victims come at their conclusions in different ways. There is false memory syndrome, they are people who suppress memories. I get all that.

However, there are real discrepancies in her own account that she has told to the "Washington Post," Dianne Feinstein and to investigators. Ms. Mitchell is not a political actor. She did not come in here as a trailblazing pundit saying I want to get -- I want to get Ford or I want  exonerate Kavanaugh. So, it seems like it is way overboard on the other side. Question Kavanaugh, that's fine, but it seems like no one wants to touch Ford's credibility, which I think is odd.

GOODSTEIN: Well, let's let the FBI question everybody who was there, including Mark Judge whose girlfriend says that Mark Judge --

INGRAHAM: Stay on point.

GOODSTEIN: OK, but I'm just saying.

INGRAHAM: I get what you're saying. Stay on point on this.

GOODSTEIN: Look.

INGRAHAM: I am focusing on Christine Ford's credibility.

GOODSTEIN: -- Ford was very, very. very specific about the bedroom, the bathroom, the stairway, the laughing, the running up, the configuration of the house.

INGRAHAM: She doesn't know how to go there.

GOODSTEIN: No, she did remember the house, right. This is traumatic for her in a way it wasn't for anybody else, who was there, right. So why should Leland --

INGRAHAM: None of the people she said were there said they were there.

GOODSTEIN: No, no, no.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

GOODSTEIN: They did say they didn't remember.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Her closest friend --

GOODSTEIN: Right.

INGHRAHAM: Her closest friend said that she never met Brett Kavanaugh. She had no memory of the event.

GOODSTEIN: That's what her lawyer's letter said, again, to listen to Dr. Ford, she's ill and she --.

INGRAHAM: And she threw her under the bus. She threw her under the bus. Her friend.

GOODSTEIN: And her friend said that she believes here. So let's let the friend get examined by the FBI and then we will see what she actually believes.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: All right, Dan Bongino, your reaction to just what we heard from Dr. Ford of course last week. But this very detailed, very kind of matter- of-fact report from Mitchell.

DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Well, the report is devastating. I mean, this is a trained prosecutor in these matters. I did criminal investigations for many years, granted I did not do sexual abuse investigation, but I'm experienced in interviewing people as a federal agent and a former police officer.

And Richard just doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean, he's playing a democratic activist on the show and frankly, I'm going to pray for his soul. I mean that because his role and the democrat goons, who took part in the shaming of this man's character, while not willing to answer an honest question from you Laura about the credibility of Ms. Mitchell's report.

Having been praised by Janet Napolitano of all people, who is a known Democrat and Obama appointee, refusing to answer a simple question why Dr. Ford --listen, by all means, her story was heard, the Republicans were very respectful. I've been respectful of that. I think it's time that people like Richard, everybody else pay the same respect to Judge Kavanaugh and start to answer honest questions about the massive, gaping holes in Christine Blasey Ford's story. It is only fair.

GOODSTEIN: So let the FBI, Dan -- look, I will concede that the FBI and no political actor should get to the bottom of every one of these facts. They should basically put Chirstine Blasey Ford through the mill and make sure that if there are holes -- if they are inexplicable, fine, and if they're not, they're not.

BONGINO: Richard, have you ever done a background? Have you done a federal background investigation? Just asking. Have you ever done one?

GOODSTEIN: I have tried cases in federal court.

BONGINO: OK, I have. I have. No, no, I have. See, I did this so you don't know how this works. And what you are saying is that the FBI does criminal investigations and backgrounds. They don't. What they do because I've done them with the Secret Service, are criminal history backgrounds

GOODSTEIN: They get facts.

BONGINO: They don't do criminal investigations into areas they have no purview on. This is not what the FBI does. You're making this sound like they're going to go back and put people on polygraphs to conduct a criminal investigation. It is a lie and a misdirection. Come on.

INGRAHAM: I want to talk about how the goalposts have shifted in this case from whether an assault occurred to you whether Brett Kavanaugh drinks too much or drank too much in college. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: The cut reports that Kavanaugh and his crowd whom (inaudible) characterized as loud, obnoxious frat boy like drunks, were the hardest drinkers on campus.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You also have the former friends and classmates, and roommates who say that he was, as we heard yesterday, they say that he was a sloppy drunk.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You have these other people from parts of his life who have said that he was belligerent when he was drunk and other things.

(END VIDEPO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, I don't know, but having been to a few Dartmouth attorney parties in my day, that's pretty much a lot of people. I just think you lose so many people. Well, he was a sloppy drunk. Is there a neat drunk? What is a neat drunk? I have never heard of someone who was a neat drunk. I think you can be a happy drunk. But I just think this is looking so ridiculous. It now it's like an animal house kind of deal. This is where we are. I thought it was an assault, now he's a sloppy drunk. Oh, come on.

GOODSTEIN: So there are two issues here. One is, and Amy Klobuchar is trying to give him this opportunity to say look, if you didn't really remember things because you did drink to excess, which a lot of his friends say. And look at his comportment. If a woman was up for Supreme Court justice and comported herself at the hearing the way that he did, she would be labeled hysterically and utterly unfit.

It is amazing that a guy can do that and somehow act like oh, well, what would you expect? He is under attack. I'm sorry. Those I think the issues that people are trying to get out of here.

INGRAHAM: I wouldn't say a woman was being hysterical. If she was actually defending herself against false charges, I think people have a right --

GOOSTEIN: And asking a senator how much they drink and what --

INGRAHAM: He was sitting for hours and hours. I got to say people have to be given a little, I mean, he apologized. I think it was smart for him to do that. I thought Klobuchar was actually pretty good in her questioning, I have to say. Guys, thanks so much.

And doubling down on the Kavanaugh charges might have seemed like a good idea for Democrats, but how will that strategy play out in November? One Democrat predicts that the Kavanaugh allegations could be responsible for a red wave in the midterms. Writing for Fox News, Bryan Dean Wright says if Democrats thus fall short this November, they will suffer the rightful consequences of using the victims of sexual assault to advance a political agenda."

Bryan joins us now to discuss. Bryan, now, if this tactic worked in the past though, why wouldn't it work now?

BRYAN DEAN WRIGHT, FORMER CIA OFFICER: We've hit a different point here. Look, people have used people's backgrounds to slime in D.C. That is not new. But what we have here started end of July through middle September. There was a victim sexual of assault with the allegations could have been held, or investigated with the degree of discretion, with a degree of care for this woman.

But instead, it was held and then dropped as a political bomb right before the final vote. And I am telling you that not only victimized her again, but those of us who have been victimized by different folks in our lives, sexually, it has re-traumatized many of us.

And so for folks that are watching this out in America, I guarantee you a whole bunch of people are incredibly frustrated, left, right and center, on having to go through some of these accusations in their own lives, let alone watching this woman be dragged through the mud. There is a line that has been crossed.

INGRAHAM: There is some polling that indicates that it is kind of split. I mean, most Republicans believe Kavanaugh, most Democrats don't. Independents are kind of split down the middle. There are some interesting state races. In North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp now has a 10 point deficit and of the issues that voters are siding is the Kavanaugh hearings. We will see how that plays out. It is still early, but that is not great news for her.

In Missouri, Claire McCaskill is down two points in one poll. Obviously, she is the incumbent. Has been fairly popular in Missouri against Josh Hawley and is also after the Kavanaugh issue and after she came out against Judge Kavanaugh.

Could this be, when it all boils down to the end of this whole saga, could this be that the year of the woman that we saw in 1982 becomes the year of the man, or the year of the women who are sick of all of these charges? Not to try to put too fine a point on this, but maybe it is going to flip? It could happen.

WRIGHT: You know, I think there is two things, less gender, and I think this is more of a partisan issue at first. We are seeing a lot of Republicans who have otherwise been a bit soft and turns the winner up, they'll show up in November, rising up and saying this is a line that has been crossed, that it is way too far.

The real question is independence, which right now are split. But I think if you see an FBI investigation come back that says there's nothing there. Independent and a whole lot of folks, even on a Democratic side, some of those conservative Democrats, moderate Democrats such as myself, are going to see through this for what it is, and it is an absolute fraud that is unforgivable.

INGRAHAM: All right, Bryan. Thank you. And as Democrats push the FBI to investigate the wild Kavanaugh accusations made by Julie Swetnick. Her former boyfriend joins us next in a television exclusive to explain why he thinks she is not reliable. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now the claims of Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser, Julie Swetnick, are so outlandish that we were skeptical from the start. Now that doubt seems oppression as numerous stories about her past have trickle down including one from our next guest, Richard Vinneccy, Swetnick's ex- boyfriend of seven years, claiming she threatened him and his family.

For more, we are joined in a television exclusive by Mr. Vinneccy himself along with his lawyer, Marcia Hanson. Both of you, thank you for joining us tonight. Richard, what are your motivations for coming forward now?

RICHARD VINNECCY, SWETNICK'S FORMER BOYFRIEND: Yes. This has nothing to do with political issues. I mean, I believe so I came over here yesterday so I could tell the truth. I think it's my civil duty to do so and that is why the reasons why I came.

INGRAHAM: Now, you claim, Richard, that Ms. Swetnick threatened you after you broke up with her. What types of threats are you alleging?

VINNECCY: Right after I broke up with here, she basically called me many times and at one point she basically said will never, ever, see your unborn child alive and, you know, I just want to go over there, I'm going to kill you guys.

INGRAHAM: She said she was going to kill you?

VINNECCY: Yes. And that really scared me a little bit.

INGRAHAM: Well, you told "Politico" originally, Richard, that she threatened your family and your baby.

VINNECCY: Correct.

INGRAHAM: But you meant -- the unborn. You meant the unborn child, is that right?

VINNECCY: I meant the unborn child that's correct. I was not married at that time when this happened.

INGRAHAM: Did she ever discuss with you in your seven year relationship, was from 1994-2001, the issue of sexual assault, or did she mention ever having been sexually assaulted?

VINNECCY: Never, never once she mentioned that to me. And we used to talk about it, just about everything and she never once mentioned that at all.

INGRAHAM: Did she have a political background? Was she interested in politics?

VINNECCY: Not that I know of. You know, she was always wanting to be the center of attention and then she always want to do something major. She is always trying to impress me with everything. She (inaudible). She was exaggerating everything.

If anybody knows Julie, I'm the person, I mean, I know because I lived with here. And everything that came out of her mouth was just exaggerations. She never mentioned that to me at all. And it was something that I was very surprised to hear this. Actually, I was very surprised to actually see her making these accusations because she had never, ever mentioned that to me at all.

INGRAHAM: Now, you filed a restraining order in March of 2001 after these threats. You said in repeated phone calls to you, threatening you, and your unborn child and your family. But you never follow through with it. You never appeared in court. If you were so threatened by Julie Swetnick, you know, your ex-girlfriend, then why didn't you follow through?

VINNECCY: Yes. That is a question that everybody is asking. And the reason I didn't is because, you know, I knew that I have to see her again. I talked to at that time to my family and we decided not to do anything. Not to follow because I didn't want to provoke her.

I am not the type of person, I mean, I knew the type of person Julie is, and I was afraid, to be honest with you. So we decided to just leave it alone in the hopes that this would go away because at that time, the only thing I was concerned about was my family and the well-being of my family. So we decided to change our numbers and move and that is basically what we did. And right after that we never heard from her again.

INGRAHAM: And after you came forward in that initial interview with "Politico," did you hear from any of her representatives or did you hear from her at all?

VINNECCY: Not at all. Not at all.

INGRAHAM: Your own credibility has been called into question, and I know you know this, by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. He appeared earlier tonight on CNN. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Her boyfriend says she can't be trusted, that it's a credibility thing. Swetnick can't be trusted. I've said it three times. Are any of them impressive to you?

MICHAEL AVENATTI, LAWYER: No, it's ludicrous. Chris, first of all, one lawsuit was filed. It was almost immediately dismissed. The claims by her ex-boyfriend, I mean who doesn't have an ex-boyfriend or an ex-girlfriend that might say bad things about them?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, ex-boyfriend, you know. Breakups are brutal, right? They can be brutal, in this case, yours was really, of course, really not fun. But people are going to say you don't like her because you were with her for seven years and that you had a bad ending.

VINNECCY: Yes, like I say again before -- like I said before, if anybody knows Julie Swetnick, I know. She is -- if you asked me personally if I believe her, I don't believe her. Personally, I don't believe her. I really don't believe her. No one knows better -- I mean nobody knows Julie Swetnick better than me. And, you know, he can say everything he wants, but the facts are that I know her and that is what I came here to tell the truth. I know how she is.

INGRAHAM: Well, you were with her for seven years. I mean, you are describing her like she is a total nightmare, but you spent seven years with her. Why were you with her for seven years?

VINNECCY: That's true. For the first couple of years we had a nice relationship. We weren't together for seven years. We were together off and on for seven years. The first couple of years we spent in -- about a year and a half we spent in San Jose, and then another couple of years we were in Bethesda. And then I was transferred to Panama. And then I came back a couple of years later.

But anyway, we were seeing each other once in a while. But the more I saw it, I mean, the more I saw her and I basically experienced the things that she was doing. I just didn't like it. I mean the fact that she was lying to me, she pretty much talked about everybody. She talked about lawsuits.

She was like, I don't know -- she was like talking about lawsuits. She was trying to -- at one point, I remember she told me that she was filing a lawsuit, harassment lawsuit against American Airlines or lawsuits. I mean, so, I tried and decided, listen, you're going to have to stop these lawsuits thing because it is ridiculous. She would talk to me about her family. She would do odd things about me. Every time we would get into fights, she would get right in my face. She would ask me to hit her.  That's just really weird. Most of my friends did not like her. In fact, they can testify about that. And it was --

INGRAHAM: Wait, wait, hold on, Richard. Richard, hold on. She asked you to -- she was like "hit me?" Why would she say that?

VINNECCY: I don't know. That was for any minor issues that we had had, she would always get into my face. The first time I experienced that, it was like, oh, my God. This is incredible. She would get right in my face.  She would say hit me. Hit me, Richard, hit me. And then she would say something like, remember what happened to my ex-boyfriend. And I would just walk away. It was just impossible to --

INGRAHAM: Richard, Richard, I know you've had some financial issues in the past, and you haven't shied away from that, correct? You got underwater on a mortgage, you've had your own issues, correct?

VINNECCY: That is correct, like everybody else, I guess.

INGRAHAM: When you watched her testify last week, when she went through the very heartfelt description of what happened to her at the hands of what she said was Brett Kavanaugh, was went through your mind? When the rest of the country was saying she so credible, she is so believable, you knew her for seven years. What was going through your mind?

VINNECCY: Well, first of all, when I first heard her name mentioned on TV, I'm thinking oh, my God, totally amazed.

INGRAHAM: She obviously didn't testify. Excuse me, rephrase. She obviously didn't testify. When you heard her come up with these allegations of this hideous attack, a gang rape, a sexual assault, you had been with her for seven years. Did she ever say anything about gang rape?

VINNECCY: Never. Never. Never. We talked about everything. She never once mentioned this to me at all.

INGRAHAM: Richard, Marcia, thank you so much for being with us tonight.  We'll probably try to have you back if other things come up, but we really, really appreciate it, and we appreciate your time.

All right, another exclusive tonight, Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbook under intense media scrutiny. But what about Christine Blasey Ford's? We have our hands on three years' worth of them, and we'll reveal our findings, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Activists on the left have created basically a deadly ideology where harassment and even doing bodily harm has become essentially a legitimate tool of the resistance. To allow this dangerous trend to continue of the kind of stuff we have been seeing is going to take our republic and our politics to places we dare not go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now we on "The Angle" have been warning for some time about these increasingly hostile tactics on the left. And when two activists cornered Jeff Flake in an elevator, they saw they can get results. "Think Progress's" Ian Millhise tweeted shortly after "Tell me again why should we shouldn't confront Republicans where they eat, where they sleep, why they work, until they stop being complicit in the destruction of our democracy."

And this weekend, a Georgetown professor took it a step further, tweeting "Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminist laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus -- we castrate their corpses and feed them to the swine." Yes. Wow. This is quite something.

Joining us for reaction, Monica Crowley, senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. All right, Monica, we have so many things to get to with you. I'm so glad we have you. Do Democrats, though, really believe this extreme behavior is going to carry them to victory in November? Where is the line drawn, or is the line gone?

MONICA CROWLEY, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Laura, the left is either engaged in performance anger or destruction theater of the kind we have seen targeted against Brett Kavanaugh, or they are engaged in inciting violence against those with whom they disagree.

We have reached a tipping point here. And I thought we had reached it last year when a leftist shot up a baseball field where the Congressional teams were playing and nearly killed the House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. That actual act of violence I thought would wake up people on the left that they can have their radicalism, they can try to fundamentally transform the nation. But I thought that they would back off from their incitements to violence and their radical violent behavior.

And instead what we have seen since that point is that they have actually ratcheted it up. They think it works because over many, many years, in fact, it has, not just here, but elsewhere are around the world where leftish has tried these tactics. So they are not backing off. They are actually ratcheting it up.

INGRAHAM: This started during the campaign. We saw the violent reaction to the president, then candidate Trump when he traveled to California. We saw what happened when he planned to go to Chicago. They basically threatened him out of Chicago, threatened violence and so forth.

OK, I have got to get your thoughts, though, Monica, on this next exclusive. While the media was busying itself with analysis of the high school that Brett Kavanaugh attended, nobody seems interested in the other side of the equation, the culture at the accuser Christine Blasey Ford's high school Holton-Arms. So we got our hands on three years of Holton-Arms yearbooks, and the pages inside, there's some normal stuff. Sports and all of that stuff, pictures. But also there's like a raucous party like atmosphere. We have been talking about Kavanagh's party habits, but what do we know about Ford's partying ways? And nobody seems interested in asking this question. I think a lot of people because I've talked to some of them are afraid to say anything because then you are shaming the victim, but this is not a criminal trial. This is a Supreme Court confirmation process with no corroborating witnesses, Monica.

CROWLEY: You know what, Laura, the feminist movement was all about equal treatment for women, right? But now, what we have seen with the bastardization of the #MeToo movement is that all women are to be treated as delicate flowers. Nobody is to raise any questions. In other words, women making accusations, some of which are true, some of which may be false, but they are all to be protected in some sort of insulated zone because they are never to be questioned.

Well, isn't that the exact opposite of what the feminist movement was all about? We're supposed to be treated as men are. Well, OK, that's fine.  Then those allegations, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Then let's see her high school yearbook. Was she the equivalent of a nun?  I don't know, maybe she was in high school. But the fact that we are at this point, Laura, the battle of the high school yearbooks in a Supreme Court nomination process is theater of the absurd.

INGRAHAM: Well, look, parents are out and kids party. It describes parties for everything. They joke about this party for Arbor Day, party for graduations, celebrations, anniversaries. It is party culture. That is a fact.

CROWLEY: It was high school.

INGRAHAM: It was high school in the '80s. And it's high school now. They are talking about Kavanaugh. Did you drink too much? He was a sloppy drunk. And look through any of these yearbooks, we've got three of them from when she was there. This is what the kids were doing at all these schools.

But Holton-Arms, hold on, Holton-Arms and Georgetown Prep, they did not have a lot of cross pollinating. Most of the schools, the boys schools that were referenced in these yearbooks, is Landon School. So the Landon School and Holton-Arms, they had a lot of parties together. Not so much Georgetown Prep.

I have got to play one thing for you, Monica, one thing. This is Michael Avenatti talking about Brett Kavanaugh, going back to Julie Swetnick outrageous allegation, the whole gang rape thing, about whether Kavanaugh was seen spiking punch, OK, versus what Swetnick said earlier tonight on MSNBC about the very same thing. We have the soundbites. Put them against each other. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you see Brett Kavanaugh spiking the punch?

JULIE SWETNICK: I saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that timeframe. And there was green punch at those parties. And I would not take one of those glasses from Mark Kavanaugh -- Brett Kavanaugh, excuse me. I saw him around the punch -- I won't say bowls, or the punch containers.

MICHAEL AVENATTI, JULIE SWETNICK'S LAWYER: I had a telephone conversation with a woman who will go unnamed, who lives in Florida, who told me directly that Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh would spike the punch with grain alcohol and Quaaludes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We're almost out of time, Monica, but just real quick.

CROWLEY: So Laura, tonight the "New York Times" has a breaking news story that one time in college Brett Kavanaugh threw ice on someone.

INGRAHAM: OK. He should definitely not be on the Supreme Court.

CROWLEY: In 72 hours we have gone from Brett Kavanaugh is gang rapist to, oh, he threw ice on someone in college. This is where we are.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my goodness. Thanks so much, Monica.

And did "Saturday Night Live" browbeat Kanye West over his Trump support?  We'll show you the video they cut from air, they took it out, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KANYE WEST, RAPPER: They bullied me. They bullied me backstage. They said don't go out there with that hat on. OK. I'm going to listen to you all now. I'm going to put my Superman cape on. This means you can't tell me what to do. Ninety percent of news are liberal. So it's easy to make it seem like it is so, so, so one-sided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That was rapper Kanye West responding to his critics over his support of President Trump. Of course, he was booed by the "SNL" audience who kind of proved his point. Joining me now for debate our political analyst Gianno Caldwell and Democrat Commentator Jonathan Harris.  Jonathan, I think Kanye has gotten everyone spun around. And he is the brave one, going out into liberal la-la land and getting booed because he likes Trump.

JONATHAN HARRIS, POLITICAL ANALYST AND COLUMNIST: I don't think he's getting booed because he likes Trump. I think he is getting booed because he is saying one outlandish thing over another. And I can't figure out -- he has admitted to struggling with mental illness, or if this is just an actual political stance of his and he truly believes it and it's just he is misinformed?

INGRAHAM: Can black people be supporters of Trump and not be crazy?

HARRIS: I don't think anyone can be a supporter of Trump and not be -- no, I'm kidding.

INGRAHAM: We got you. That was easy. End of segment.

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS: No, honestly. It's hard because I think anybody African-American who supports Republicans, people go, oh, they can't do it because they're on the plantation. That's a common talking point from the right. But it's not that. It's just there is no reason to support Trump if you're African- American. He says I cut the unemployment for black. He has lowered the unemployment rate for black people by one percent at this point. Obama cut it in half. So the argument would be that you would be a Democrat because Obama cut it in half, Trump lowered it one point.

INGRAHAM: So you don't think, Gianno, Kanye West is this very -- he is an out their figure. I think he's interesting. I think he is doing like a whole performance art on the whole monolithic entertainment industry, and they don't know what to do. Wait a second, he was cool five minutes ago.  Now he has a red hat on that says "Make America Great Again," so he must be cuckoo.

GIANNO CALDWELL, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: One of the lyrics in Kanye's songs is It was all good just a week ago. So certainly when he wrote songs and he was bold by saying Jesus walks, what I see from this whole situation is nothing less than a high-tech character assassination in public square, social media. I was completely and totally dismayed when I posted Kanye's picture with him on the jet with the "Make America Great Again" hat on and asked people what they thought on my Instagram @GiannoCaldwell. Feel free to follow there.

And if you see the comments, I couldn't believe it. It was outrageous, the names that people called him, cool and the like. This is the same individual who people applauded, we're talking about folks on the left, when he said George Bush doesn't care about black people. My friend on the other side, I'm pretty sure that was great. He said it was great. He enjoyed when he said that. But the moment that you begin to think differently, and I know this as a black conservative, when the moment you begin to state things that maybe breaks or shatters groupthink and monolithic thought when it comes to being a Republican or being conservative, you are considered an outcast. And that is very problematic.

And I don't see why us as a community, and it is not just the black community, it is the entire country almost at this point. You talk about the folks on the left, why is it that we are at this place when it only comes to black people? You don't hear them say that when it comes to white Americans. You don't hear that at all.

INGRAHAM: We are almost out of time, but I will give you the last word on this, because Trump is doing good things for the economy, it is good for all people.

HARRIS: Right.

INGRAHAM: Today it's NAFTA. We haven't mentioned NAFTA, a huge deal, Democrats wanted to do it. Trump actually got it done.

HARRIS: But the thing about saying that you were criticizing Kanye because he is black. It's not. He just said earlier today he said he wasn't sure if he could figure out whether or not Abraham Lincoln was white or black.  He said slavery was a choice.

CALDWELL: And he apologized for that.

HARRIS: It doesn't matter. He is saying stupid stuff. And people are criticizing him. That is what equality is.

CALDWELL: Have you always been correct and accurate in every statement you have made?

HARRIS: No, absolutely not. But I don't have a history of making ridiculous remarks.

CALDWELL: People are entitled to make mistakes, and they are entitled to apologize. We should have that right.

INGRAHAM: You guys, you know what I want to do? I want to have another town hall. I want you both coming, OK, because we have to talk about this whole issue of race in America, where we are today, and I'd love to have you both on. Thanks so much.

The entirety of Dr. Ford's Kavanaugh accusations relies on a single memory.  So could it be something called false memory? A psychologist joins us next with some answers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations from Christine Ford are wholly reliant on the memory of one person, Ford herself. No corroborating account. Is it possible she created something known as a false memory?  Joining us now to explain what that means is Professor Robert Mather, an expert in experimental psychology. So professor, explain in simple terms very quickly how a false memory may be at play here.

ROBERT MATHER, EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERT: Well, thank you for having me on, Laura. False memories are interesting. There's volumes of research that show going back to Loftus' work that you can implant memories and children such as being lost in the mall. And kind of the key to that is that the image has to have a lot of details. It has to be thought about many times over and over again. And easy to imagine. The ability heuristic allows us to kind of base our belief in the confidence of what we are retrieving on how easily we recalled it.

INGRAHAM: Now, what would spur you to create a false memory, doctor?

MATHER: Well, some of Elizabeth Loftus' work has demonstrated that therapy itself -- of course this is not all types of therapy, but there are some issues in therapy were false memories are recovered, and of course, they are false.

INGRAHAM: So in other words if you are in therapy, you're talking about a problem you have currently, and in her case it was with her husband, something about two doors, she wanted two doors at the front of her house.  He got really maybe upset about it. And then something did happen to her, and then she sees Brett Kavanaugh's name mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, I mean, how does the brain work it? I know that is a big question.

MATHER: That's one possibility. In 1975 there was a case of a man named Donald Thompson, and he was a psychologist that actually studied memory and eyewitness testimony in Australia. And what Mr. Thompson did was he was on air giving a discussion of this when a woman was brutally raped. And she recalled seeing his picture and told the police that he was one that did it. But he had an airtight alibi and the fact that he was on television at the time of the attack.

INGRAHAM: Wow. Oh, my gosh. This is the most fascinating interview of this whole show, other than the exclusive of Swetnick's former boyfriend.  Doctor, thank you so much. The last bite, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time now for the last bite. The media now suggesting that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of being a big drinker, and that disqualifies him from sitting on the high court. The president today dismissed the idea and then added this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I've never had a beer in my life, OK? It is one of my only good traits. I don't drink. Whenever they are looking for something, I say I've never had a glass of alcohol. I've never had alcohol. I've just, you know, for whatever reason. Can you imagine if I had what a mess I'd be? I'd be the world's worst.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.