anyone's mind. >> who knows what happens between now and then. does the president say anything? >> our coverage tomorrow morning will begin at 8:30 a.m. eastern. all of us will be back. special coverage will be there every step of the way. i'm sure our viewers in the united states and around the world will watching. special coverage on all of this continues right now. president trump calls accusations against brett kavanaugh false. part of a big fat con job but then says he can be convinced otherwise. what? plus the republican who may determine kavanaugh's fate is said to be unnerved concerned about the third accuse r has coe forward. a u.s. senator is suing the president of the united states to stop a vote happening in the senate on kavanaugh. let's go out front.

good evening. president trump calls accusations against brett kavanaugh, he comes out swinging and calls them all false. trump accuse d them and part ofa con job. exemployees iploesive accusatio. the president questioning all of it. >> why did they wait so long? why did senator feinstein wait until the hearings were over and make this case? why didn't she bring it at a beginning? why didn't they bring this at the beginning during the hearing? you would have had all the time in the world for the fbi. it would have been fine. the fbi did investigate this time as they have five or six other times. they did a very thorough

investigation. this is a big con job. 36 years. no charge. no nothing. >> it happens often. >> people will have to make a decision. >> these are all false to me. these are false accusations in certain cases and in certain cases even the media agrees with that. >> you have that. moments later the president said he could be convinced to change his mind. >> i don't know about today's person that came forward. i do know about the lawyer. you don't get much worse, bad reputation. take a look at his past. as far as the other women are concerned, i'm going to see what happens tomorrow. i'm going to be watching. believe it or not. i'm going to see what's said. it's possible they will be convincing. >> the president went as far as to say he might have to pull the

nominati nomination. >> you're saying there's a situation under which you would withdraw brett kavanaugh's nomination? is that correct? >> if i thought he was guilty of something like this, yeah, sure. >> you would wait until tomorrow to make up your mind. >> i want to watch. i want to see. i hope i can watch it. >> a lot to get to including news of a key republican senator now raising serious questions about kavanaugh's nomination. the president on fire tonight but at time sending some, just one, very mixed signals when it comes to brett kavanaugh. >> reporter: there's no question about that. the president has just returned to trump tower a few moments ago after that extraordinary news conference some 1:20 long. there was something for everything in there as you've been saying. there's no question the president still firmly stands behind his nominee for the supreme court. there's no question about that. that's the headline from this. he cannot take away any of the

things he's been saying for the last week, but the president also seemingly wanting to clear the air a bit and occupy the space on the eve of the hearing. he knows there are concerns among some republicans, susan kcollin collins, lisa murkowski. he was taking pains to avoid some of the things he tweeted about in the last week. raising suggestions why she didn't bring this up some 36 years ago. i was struck by leaving the door open again to the possibility that he may not be confirmed. that's not as preferable out come but the president seemed to be talking more about himself throughout the course of this news conference than about brett kavanaugh. of course, he talked about his own accusations of sexual misconduct. he did say they influence his views but he also said i want to hear from the women. he said i want to hear from the women. that could create issue for republicans on the judiciary

committee. they only agreed to allow one woman to come forward here. unclear if the president helped things or hurt things. i was struck by the fact he's still open to the possibility of having to nominate someone else. they would be happy to use this as a weapon saying democrats brought down this nominee, brought down this good family man. that's not where he's at now. this is unchartered territory. the president made clear he'll be watching and in a separate bit of news, he pulled back from the potential of firing of rod rosenstein. he say he may not have meeting at all tomorrow. he may keep him on board. as we have been reporting for the last 36 hours or so, his advisors have been saying urging him not to fire him. first things first. kavanaugh tomorrow. we'll let this play out.

they are not sure. we have to listen to the hearing tomorrow. >> flthere's a lot to digest fr that press conference. great to see you. thanks so much. the author of under fire it's growing increasingly frustrated. however you want to put it with defense. clearly thought he was going to take it on himself. is that what he saw tonight? >> you saw a president free willing and filibustering and enjoying the sound of his own voice but putting his on

consideration ahead of the fate of the nominee. the idea the president of the united states will quarterback this nomination is surreal. that's another unprecedented moment. the cardinal sin for president trump is whether or not someone can comport themselves on television. brett kavanaugh's interview seemed stiff. the fact he left the door open and kind of a reality show tease of i'll be watching, stay tuned, is not a sign of great confidence. this administration is all in. in part because the president himself, has the weight of the the basic c accusations with hi. his instinct is to blame the women and the real victim is the man in question because that's how he sees himself. >> i want to play another exchange from the president's news conference. listen to this. >> you have daughters. can you understand why a victim

of sexual assault would not report it at the time? don't you understand. >> i only say this, 36 years, no charge, no nothing. everybody -- >> that happens often. >> people are going to have to make a decision. 36 years there's no charge. all of a sudden the hearings are over and the rumors start coming out. then you have this other con artist avenatti come out with another beauty today. i only say that you have to look at the facts. the senators are very capable people. they're very good people. >> he didn't necessarily answer the question directly but he de definitely was saying something. what is he saying? >> what he was saying is his personal past is influencing the preside present and the fumture. he didn't address the fact that he's a father and has daughters.

he's governing or talking at this press conference from his heart and in his feelings from his personal life. he said he is influenced by that. also you have to remember this, the longer this goes on, the worse it looks for this administration because, again, the president's personal past is coming up. also the issue of roy moore and even rob porter has come up into this. you have to remember, politics is playing into this as well. there's chajs thnce the preside could pull the nomination. politics is playing because it's playing with women. women are leaving republicans and going to the democrats. the longer this plays out, the president may have to change his tune. >> that's not the case the president made today. the women he's hearing from are angry how this is playing out. >> polls are showing differently. >> scott you tweeted that you think the president did well. he was clear in his messages on

a range of toinpics. when he said this is a con job and then says he could be convinced to change he has mind, what's clear about that? >> i think hefrs s was saying w lot of people were saying. there's legitimate questions that have been raised about if we're going to accusations and legitimate -- >> that's not the definition of a con job. that's not a con job. >> that's his view of it today. then he said i want to see the hearing which is also what republicans are saying and what they have been working toward trying to get dr. ford from the day they learned about her allegation and name trying to get her in the committee room which they will get to do on thursday. i think everybody will be watching that. what brett kavanaugh has to do on thursday is remain unequivocal and everybody will see dr. ford and people will make judgments. there's still several united

states senator os on the commite who are undecide about how to view this and the committee matters. >> how is this clarity? he was asked you appear to believe accusers -- the accused more than accusers. he said when it comes to roy moore, he didn't like him. that is revisionist history to be kind. he went down and campaigned for roy moore three days before the special election. >> i didn't like roy moore either. i know the president was for roy moore. i was one of the first republicans to come out against roy moore. i heard what he said today and i understand the way he treated it. this is a completely different issue. are we going to listen to dr. ford or not? he said we're going to listen to hear and see what she has to say and let her answer the questions we have for her. that's a perfectly legitimate point of view. >> governor.

>> yeah. >> give me one good reason why in order to clear this up, if he's calling these women and their accusations a con job, why we can't have an objective investigation by the federal bureau of investigation? what is the problem with getting to the bottom of it? if there were a senator who was interviewing a low level staffer in their office who had three public accusations of sexual abuse and worse they would never be hired. >> do you think at this point we can acknowledge because they want to move it along? >> that's not an acceptable answer. >> what the democrats want. they want anything to do to delay this election. >> we want the truth. just take seven days. >> be honest about it. you want to hold this open for two years. you want to hold it open for two

years. >> i want the truth. >> you want to hold it open for two years. >> i love the brady bunch but no one can hear. john, let me bring you in on this. brett kavanaugh is facing another accusation. the president offered up the thought of withdrawing his nomination tonight which i thought was really amazing to hear him even say the word that he hopes he doesn't have to withdraw. he said hopefully he doesn't have to do that. the fact that he went there stuck out to me. do you think this new accuser is a turning point? >> the new accuser being put forward by michael avenatti has taken a sworn deposition and it's a story about that is very salacious about a culture around georgetown prep and kavanaugh

and his friend mark judge that involved not just drinking but gang rapes. kavan kavanaugh is not directly implicated but it's more fuel on this fire. that accusations has chance of creating blow back on the part of republicans. it's such a salacious bas accusation. this is really ugly, ugly stuff. this is a woman who has had a successful career in the government. she's taken a sworn deposition. some republicans will use it to say this is an 11th hour pile on.

democrats say what about 300 day delay for their pick. in reality, in this moment with three accusers facing brett kavanaugh right now with a committee hearing scheduled for tomorrow, the perfect storm is a cliche but it's what we're facing. what is going to happen? is there time for an investigation to happen when chuck grassley say they are working diligently to have it and there's 14 hours left. we're in a real moment here people. next, new details about the third kavanaugh accuser. a top republican is said to be unnerved by the latest allegation. what one top democrat is

doing to try to stop the kavanaugh vote now. oh good, you're awake! finally. you're still here? come on, denise. we're voya! we stay with you to and through retirement... with solutions to help provide income throughout. i get that voya is with me through retirement, i'm just surprised it means in my kitchen. oh. so, that means no breakfast? i said there might be breakfast. i was really looking forward to breakfast. i know... voya. helping you to and through retirement. and an ice plant.rs with 70-megawatts, 35 mules, but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later we continue to build as one of the nation's largest investors in

infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream. we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy opportunlike here.rywhere. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. it's doing a lot of kicking down there. meeting the parents. it's gonna be fine. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... go dani, go! opportunity is everywhere. all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪

♪ ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

new ensure max protein. ahoyy! (excited squeal, giggling, panting) gotcha! ah! nooooo... noooooo... nooooo... quick, the quicker picker upper! bounty picks up messes quicker and is 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand. bounty, the quicker picker upper. on a budget? try new bounty essentials. woman accusing brett kavanaugh of inappropriate behavior. her name is julie swetnick that kavanaugh was present at a party

where she was drug and gang raped. she said she saw kavanaugh in abusing and physically aggressive behavior toward women while in high school. swetnick made this statement in a sworn statement. if she's lying she has a lot to lose. >> absolutely. the committee said they have received it and are looking at it. some of the things she said, she talks about herself and says that she has some security clearances. that she has security clearances associated with the federal government. in other words, she's worked with or for the federal government including the department of transportation, u.s. mint and irs. she talks about the fact she had f formerly held higher clearances. she's making the point here that

she has a lot to lose by coming forward because she has dealings with the federal government and that she is gainfully employ ee and not just coming out of nowhere. she's put that information forward in the very beginning of her declaration. then she goes on and talks about some of those very disturbing allegations against brett kavanaugh and his friend mark judge. she talks about having met them at a party over 1981 through 1983 about ten different parties. her attorney has talked at length about this. brett kavanaugh's attorney has responded and here is what his attorney talked about when she said why did this woman keep going to the parties if she thought something like a gang rape was going on. here is what she had to say. >> when you say you winent to t parties like that and you saw

that happening to other girls, that's a different thing not to report. i understand why women don't report sexual assault, it's very difficult and no one should criticize them for that. this is a whole different level. this is saying i went with other women, other girls at the time, i saw all this happening and i went back. and i went back and i never told anyone and i never brought it up. i never thought about what was happening to those other women. i have a very hard time belie believing that's true. >> kavanaugh's latest accuser saying she didn't know what was happening to other women who were in this private room. she wasn't in the room with the other women when some of this was happening. she says she did see men going into a private room and she later determined what happened because she says she herself was gang raped in what she called a train rape in 1982. she says mark judge and brett kavanaugh were present. what she does not say is they

were the attackers. she said they were present. >> we know tonight the senate judiciary committee has these allegations and is looking into them. thank you so much. scott, a third accusation, a sworn statement. there's a breaking point for every nomination we see to see seat. secretary of this and that or to be the supreme court justice. do you think this is it? >> no, i don't. we haven't had a hearing. no witness can corroborate any of these. all of these allegations are without any evidence or witnesses. we haven't had a hearing on the first one which is dr. ford which comes up on thursday. i think what the democrats want is for what you just said, to achieve a breaking point before they have to produce any witnesses or evidence delaying this past the election to hold it open. it's a perfectly understandable

emotion. they want revenge for merritt garland. their hiding behind we want the truth. it's raw politics. they want to open it up for two years because that's what they think they need to do to get revenge for merritt garland. >> governor, is he wrong? >> yes. it's so warped. >> how is it warped? we know folks wanted revenge. >> let me say if you're worried about some delay then put an end time on the delay, on the investigation. say to the fbi, you have seven days. put everything you have into it. look into these investigations. you're not going to hear from this woman because they have one hearing set and a vote the following morning. you're not going to hear from her. you're not going to hear from the second one. there's breaking news tonight there's another woman that the senate committee has asked kavanaugh about who has similar allegations.

>> cnn does not have that information quite yet but continue on. >> it was breaking news but the bottom line mark judge's ex-girlfriend is willing to come and testify openly about this notion of these train rapes that mark judge confessed to her that he participated in. we're not going to hear any of that. >> you're exaggerating what she said. i've never read she said mark judge has claimed he participated in train rapes. you're exaggerating. >> you better read that new yorker article, hon. >> don't call me hon. >> i apologize. scott, i'm just saying -- >> i'm jumping in. >> give me one second. when it comes to the hearing and this is really important, whoo -- what is being done ahead of time? what is handed over to the committee. quite a bit of stuff, i guess i

would say from the side of brett kavanaugh. they handed over a calendar or pages from a calendar from that year, from back when he was in high school. they say it shows nothing on the calendar that shows he's going to party. just to illustrate like what was in this calendar, in may of 1982, grounded. three weekends in a row. beach week. does any of this mean anything to the committee. >> this is the problem with anything resembling discovery of a 36-year-old accusation that depose back to high schoo-- goeh school. you're not necessarily going to put a party of this nature on that kind of a calendar. it's the surreal difficulty of proving these kinds of allegations. this is an undiscovered country.

george h.w. bush got the f bipartisan to do an inv investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.fbipartisan t investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.bipartisan to investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.ibipartisan t investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.ipartisan to investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.partisan to d investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.artisan to do investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.rtisan to do n over 72 hours. these were adults.tisan to do a over 72 hours. these were adults.fbiisan to do an investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.san to do an investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.an to do an investigation over 72 hours. these were adults.n to do an investigation over 72 hours. these were adults. to do an investigation over 72 hours. these were adults. alcohol and different accounts. is the fact they haven't subpoenaed mark judge. one of the rare cases in the original allegation where it's not purely a he said, she said because there's a third party in the room, so said the accuser. they haven't gone that extra mile. that makes it more -- it makes it easier to accuse them of lack of good faith as the scheduling of a vote the next morning. that's procedural. that may or may not happen.

it indicates they want to hear the woman's story and move on. >> with this latest accuser, april, the twist, her attorney is michael avenatti. this is the definition of the current trump nemesis, i guess we could say. it's turned personal already from twitter to the president in his press conference calling him everything, a con artist or whatever he called him. >> low life. >> does this make it more difficult that aver gnnatti is attorney for her claims to be taken seriously? >> for some, yes. for others, no. what michael avenatti has done has created a name. stormy daniels. he's made it prominent. he's made allegations that have really challenged this white house. michael avenatti may be this low life that the president says, for some, but he's also an

attorney who is in the forefront. who brings this to the forefront for the american public to see. what you have to look at this is a criminal mometical moment in . this is about humanity. women are crying out. this is an important moment. do you negate what they are saying, these allegations just to get someone on the supreme court? this nation is made up of women and men. do you not listen to the cries for help? someone in this se narp ocenari lying. the question is who is it? >> justice is important for everyone involved. that requires process. there is an attempt to kill this nomination under a weight of headlines. that's the point scott has been making fairly. we all deserve to see it to a responsible end. >> great to see you. i appreciate it.

next, has a third woman's claims tipped the scaled against kavanaugh. susan collins may be having serious doubt about the nominee. kavanaugh's law profrs sessor h called him the best choice among nominees. he's my guest. i'll ask. there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) you can do it. we can do this. at fidelity, our online planning tools are clear and straightforward so you can plan for retirement while saving for the things

you want to do today. -whoo! you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

brett kavanaugh facing questions now, tonight, about two additional accusers. this just coming in. two anonymous accusations are on top of the three women who have already come forward. supreme court reporter has these breaking details. she's joining me now. what can you tell us? >> reporter: what's important is these are coming out on the eve of the hearing and the hearing tomorrow is about christine blasey ford allegations. the committee tonight has released these transcripts of conversations they had with kavanaugh over the last couple of days. there are two new allegations in here. these allegations are anonymous. not like the ones that have to do with professor ford.

he has denied them. the first one went to senator cory gardener. it's dated around time the incident happened around 1998. that would have been when he worked for star. it was a mother writing about her daughter and a few friends and the mother wrote that brett kavanaugh shoved her friend up against a wall very aggressively and sexually. the mother says there are witnesses. kavanaugh is asked about it and he says that's total twilight zone. i never did anything like that. another one went to senator sheldon whitehouse. one of his constituents contacted him. he said around 1985 there was an incident about a boat. again, kavanaugh is asked about it in the transcripts and he denies it. thee these are two more on the eve of the hearing. it's anonymous.

>> coming through the committee transcripts as well. thank you so much. two more accusers anonymous, on top of the three we've been discussing. red flags from a key republican senator. senator susan collins raising serious concern at a private meeting about the latest sexual misconduct allegations. multiple sources say she appeared unnerved and republican leaders fought to reassure her. collins is and has been a crucial vote here. how concerned is she over the developments? >> reporter: seems very. sperv the allegations that came in from julie swetnick may have rattled her. the question is how much. our team is reporting that susan collins huddled with republican leaders earlier today and during

that meeting, which was private, that collins appeared unnerved by these specific latest allegations and specifically it was the sworn statement that sew he swetnick gave that carries the weight of potential purgeer for lying to congress that struck a chord with susan collins tonight. she's such a key swing vote. she's not revealed what her vote will be. she did not reveal it to those leaders either. it still remains a mystery. this concern backed up what she said publicly today which was very little but very important. these new allegations seriously and believe they should be investigated by the committee and it's worth repeating her. the devil is in the detail in the math here on capitol hill. kavanaugh can't afford to lose more than one republican senator

in all democrats vote against the nomination. >> the hearing, that begins tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. take us inside the room. what's going to happen? >> i think it's everyone's guess that the committee is trying to make sure they stick to a schedule. you're looking at an early peak that i got earlier of the committee room. it's a very small room, very intimate. you'll see the witness table. it's only about 15 feet from the diet. first we'll hear from chairman grassley and first we'll hear the opening statement of christine blasey ford. she can speak as long as she wants. then it will be five minutes of questioning from the senators. we know the republicans are yieldsing their time over to that outside attorney that will be sitting and questioning here. we'll hear from brett kavanaugh and the intention is for them to never be in the same room as

they both give their testimony tomorrow. sdm,000 h >> how they pull that off, we'll have to see. five minutes of time is not a lot of time for these senators. he was brett kavanaugh's former law professor. he testified to the senate in support of kavanaugh's nomination during his first hearings. thank you for joining me. >> thanks for having me. >> we now have more accusers tonight. today earlier today, the accusations came from a woman named s ed julie swetnick. her accusation is he was present at parties where she was gang raped. you heard this come out, you thought what? >> i thought that this is yet another allegation and it needs to be investigated and i want to hear from both sides. one of things that i admire about judge kavanaugh and his

written opinions is he strikes me as someone who has tried to be open minded. he's surrounded himself with clerks who are liberals as well as conservatives. i think you heard senator collins say she wants to keep an open mind. she wants to hear from both sides. a good judge hears from both sie sides. i think a good senator hears from both sides. your audience might be interested in focusing on two democrats who still have said they haven't already decided. most of the democrats have already made up their mind one way. they were opposed to kavanaugh before the revelations. most of the republicans seem very committed to him on the committee. i'm going the try to keep an open mind and that's what actually brett kavanaugh and his wife, i think, asked america to

do when they appeared on network tv and said we would like you to wait and hear our side of the story. >> professor, you're a self-described liberal democrat. that's why when you testified in support of brett kavanaugh, that got a lot of attention. i want to play one thing you said earlier this month about judge kavanaugh. >> brett kavanaugh is the best candidate on the horizon. he's the best choice from the long list of 25 nominees circulated by president trump. >> do you regret those words now? >> no. because that was based on his performance as a judge over the last 12 years. we didn't have any of these allegations. i still think if you look at the written record of his judicial and scholarly performance over the last 12 years, it's very fine. now there's a new issue that has arisen.

it's possible one can be good in one way and now there's a problem in another. that's what i meant by keeping an open mind. one of the things i admire about judge kavanaugh is i thought he tried to do that in his writing. that's what i think he would actually urge americans to do. we may need more investigation after tomorrow's hearing because certain issues actually might be framed and collar larify and as frl as it is, more investigation may be necessary. there will need to be some sort of agreement between the parties about when the investigation ends and a vote is taken up or down. by the way, if he were confirmed, investigation doesn't end. the press still going to pursue this. if democrats win either house or senate in november, they will have subpoena power and power of oversight and investigation. i think it behooves us all to

remember that no matter what happens over the next couple of days, investigation needs to and probably will continue. >> the important obviously, you will know and everybody who has watched the show, the factor in that is if confirmed and if confirmed, he's serving a lifetime tenure even if democrats -- even if that scenario plays out. this accusation from julie swetnick is the ugliest accusation made against a supreme court nominee ever. as you're talking about this, even if he gets confirmed, is he tainted by these allegations? >> it depends on whether they are true or not. with all due respect, i'm not sure you do or your audience. that's why i want to see what happens and beyond. let's be fact based, evidence based. >> the real problem with that is this is playing out in a senate

committee. as you well know, it's always a big heavy dose of politics involved. do you think the truth will really come out? >> again, 96 people aren't interested this truth and four are, they may be decisive. i've learned his lawyer said, gee, why did you keep going to the parties and she said i didn't know what was going on behind the door? did he know what was going on behind the door even if things were going on behind the door? those are the sorts of things that i expect to be asked tomorrow. i'm very interested in hearing the responses. >> professor, thanks for coming in. >> thank you. a preview of what christine blasey ford will say tomorrow. three words, no one's pawn. president trump being sued. a democratic senator goes to court to try to block a vote on

kavanaugh. it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts

and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training in active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure 911 emergency care is there when you or your love one need it. i am no one's pawn.

this is what christine blasey ford will say tomorrow firing back at critics who is saying she's accusing brett kavanaugh for political reasons. ford will also say this, i'll read you part of it. i don't have all the answers. i don't remember as much as i would like to. the details about that night that bring me here today are ones i will never forget. those details will be put under a microscope for sure when ford faces rachel mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor that republicans are bringing in to handle their questions. former sex crimes prosecutor and former nixon white house counsel who testified against kavanaugh's nomination of his concerns about views on executive power. thank you for being here. so much has happened this evening. republicans on the issue of what will be asked tomorrow, republicans are bringing in this outside counsel. they say to take -- to

depoliticize it. to take the politics out of equation so not to repeat what happened in the anita hill hearing. do you give them that? >> i don't. i think exactly the opposite. they are politicizing it by hiding behind an outside counsel. while the credentials for this counsel are very good. she has a good reputation. she's good with victims of sex crimes. we'll see how she performs tomorrow. >> do you see that they are hiding? >> no. quite the opposite. it looks to me like the republicans have done what they should. they have hired a professional to do a professional job. i think it's the democrats who look to be complaining that a bunch of male senators aren't questioning this woman. i think the republicans have done what they had to do and that is to get a woman and a sex crimes prosecutor to cross

examine kavanaugh and examine dr. ford equally. >> one of the things i heard from somebody is, you know what, those republican lawmakers who bringing in this prosecutor, they are the ones who are elected. they were elected by their constituents to sit and ask questions. bring in an outside adviser to help them formulate the appropriate question, sure. are they shirking their responsibility by not asking questions themselves? >> no. i think quite the contrary. their job is to vet this candidate. their job is to get enough information from the witnesses to decide whether or not judge kavanaugh should sit on the supreme court. they feel that in order to get the best information from both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford is to bring in an experienced prosecutor. i can't see a thing wrong with that. >> that gets to a key question, john. if you've watched any senate or

house hearing, at times you can see sometimes lawmakers are way over their skis in what they are asking. dealing with issues they sometimes seems they have no business asking questions about. if the goal is to get to the truth and get some answers, why not bring in someone from the >> well, i'm a former committee counsel. i started on the house side as minority counsel to the house judiciary committee, very familiar with both the house and senate and i know that occasionally when members of the house and senate don't feel comfortable, they have counsel prepare to do this kind of questioning. but it's rare. if there's any political hay to be made, or political liability, the roles can shift. so i think what we have here is an example of not wanting to repeat what happened during the anita hill/clarence thomas hearings, which have left a blot on both the committee, which has

never had a female on the member -- as a member on the republican side, whereas you have some very competent former prosecutors on the other side. >> francey, as a competent prosecutor, yourself, what do you want to hear asked tomorrow? >> well, what i want to hear asked is whether or not dr. ford's account is credible, and whether or not judge kavanaugh's denials are credible. and in order to do that, the prosecutor will have to take them both step by step through various questions that will include questions about their memory of events, what was going on at the time, their potential for bias, whether their memory is better now or was better then. all kinds of questions that i hope will tell us, at least give us a sense of which one is more credible. that's the goal. who's more credible? >> john, what about you, what needs to be asked tomorrow? >> well, i'm not sure we're going to get any resolution as to who is telling the truth and who is not tomorrow. think they're both going to -- we know have a preview of what

their positions are going to be. there has been no real investigation on a bipartisan basis or by the fbi that precedes this. it's a rough setup. a setup for a he said/she said and we'll see if they vote on friday as they're talking about, then this whole thing is just a sham. if there's further investigation, then they're serious about resolving this thing. >> this thing changes minute by minute. as we know, new accusations have just been leveled. let us see what changes in the coming hours. thank you, both, i very much appreciate it. "outfront" next, 11th hour lawsuit. a senator is suing the president of the united states to stop a vote on brett kavanaugh. senator jeff merkley is my guest, next.

♪

girls are not in school because of economic issues and they have to work. at the malala fund, we help girls stay in school. the malala fund invests in education champions who work in the community and pave the way so that girls can actually go to school. to have our financial partner guiding us is very important. the fact that citi is in countries where girls are vulnerable ensures that we're able to get funds to the people that we're working with. when girls go to school, we're going to maximize their talents. we could have a solution for climate change in that girl. that girl could be the next nobel peace prize winner. ♪

tonight, a hail mary, a top democratic senator is making an 11th hour attempt to stop a vote on brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination. senator jeff merkley of oregon is suing president trump along with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and judiciaryoj committee chairman krchuck grassley saying he and other senators' rights to advise and consent are being violated. "outfront" now, senator jeff merkley. thank you for coming in. >> you bet, kate, great to be with you. >> this is an unprice deecedent move. you're asking a judge to step in to stop the senate from holding a vote. is this a desperate move, too? >> it's not desperate. it's an unprecedented situation. the constitution lays out very clearly in the advice and consent clause that the president nominates and the senate can't interfere with that and the senate deliberates on advice and consent and executive cannot interfere with that. they're meant to be a check on each other. but in this case, on three separate occasion, the president

has deployed his executive team to interfere with the senators' ability to get the key information to review the record of this nominee. brett kavanaugh. that is unprecedented. it hasn't happened before. it's an outrageous violation of the separation of powers and it's compromising my ability and my colleagues' ability to fulfill the pledge they took when they took the oath of office. >> senator, what vote are you actually trying to get a judge to prevent, the committee vote or a final floor vote? >> well, specifically, we're asking for fillatioacilitation,, if you will, until senators can see the documentation that the president's team has blocked. and this includes his service, kavanaugh's service as staff secretary, it includes the more than 100,000 documents related to his service on the white house counsel. and it includes the fact that he deployed his individual who said he was taking his directions from the president to label as

committee confidential. another 140,000 documents which means even what has come to the senate, we can't share that information with the public, we can't describe it to experts. we can't even talk to our staff about it. so in all three of these cases, the executive is interfering directly with the senate's ability to do its responsibility to review this man's record. >> is this only about the documents that the democratic senators all along have wanted more access to, or is this about the allegations that have come out since? >> this is about the documents because our constitutional responsibility is to review the man's record. we can't do it if those records are blocked by the white house. >> i'll tell you, we spoke with a constitutional law professor who's a cnn contributor about the lawsuit and let me read you what he told us. he said "the suit's a real reach. it's almost impossible to think

it has a real chance of success. it's not that the federal courts can't review the interim proceduprocee internal procedures of the senate. wh "do you really think your lawsuit can conduct sesucceed? >> we never had this situation before. go back and read alexander hamilton's drigs description why it was set up with a clear separation between the president nominating and senate confirming, he lays out in great detail why it is that having the senate able to review a person's record is to determine whether or not that person was a fit character or unfit character. to get to that conclusion, you have to be able to examine a person's life. so for the president to nominate and then block an examination of the man's life, completely violates the structure established in the constitution. it is untested ground because we've never had a president engage in this massive, substantial, and direct obstruction -- >> but senator -- >> -- of the senate's review. >> you say this is -- you're

saying this is a politics-pfree move? >> i'm saying is very much about us doing our job here in the senate under advice and consent. >> i ask that because we saw a fund-raising e-mail come out from you. if this is about advice and consent, if this is not a political move, why is there a fund raising e-mail that was put out? >> well, very simple thing is all of us keep our constituency informed about what we're doing. we ask for support if people agree with it. but the point here is that this is all about, i mean, if you can't see the separation between the powers, kate, i really encourage you to read the constitution and see the fundamental structure that's being savaged by this president. >> do you think you should have -- do you regret putting out a fund-raising e-mail on this if you want to make it look like it's not politics? >> well, you're the one bringing it up and making it political in not context. i'm here talking to you about the fundamental nature of this violation. >> senator, i get it. >> of our constitution. >> i get it. if it's not about politics, then keep it politics-free. >> speaking with my own base about what i'm doing and why, if

they want to support me, that's separate from the issue here before us of a violation of separation of powers. >> let's see what the judge says. let's see where this lawsuit goes. senator, thank you so much for coming. . i appreciate your time. >> you're welcome. >> thank you all so much for joining us tonight. "a. "a.c. 360" starts now. good evening. just hours before a woman goes before the senate judiciary committee, and accuses the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexual assault, with a third accuser coming forward just today, president trump went before reporters and we're going to bring you that in a moment because the president certainly made news on a number of fronts. first, another late development. there's word of a fourth and fifth accuser after a third accuser, as i said, came forward earlier today. we know this from transcripts of questioning of judge kavanaugh by republican staffers on the committee that were just released. one question involving a letter from a woman in colorado to republican senator corey gardner about what she says her daughter witnessed.