6:25 p.m. eastern. news continues right now. cuomo "prime time" starts now. >> we could be on the eve of the most important night of the president's presidency. a dumpster fire burned in new york city. set by the president of the united states. in the form of a news conference as you wrestled to bring the supreme court nominee back from the brink. he was fuming. most of the time even though he was at the un were spent on the mounting allegations against brett kavanaugh. that are all quote false to him. a big fat con job he called them. orchestrated by the democrats. and the man we're about to talk to. the defense for his nominee saying the accuser lawyer is a bum. his name is michael avenatti. the same man who exposed trump as a bum. in the truth about stormy daniels and the deal made on behalf of the president.

avenatti is here. to respond within seconds and talk the truth about what his client can offer. we're going to talk to a senator calling on her republican colleagues and president to recognize the value of women. and end this nomination. even before the hearing. we are 13 hours from history. what do you say? let's get after it. another wild day. cracks in the dam you could say. why is he fighting? because in just the last four hours, we have seen a lot happen. president trump opened the door to withdrawing his nomination. he did. i don't know if he intended to say that. he said it. even as he defended the judge who tonight faces three on the record female accusers. and two additional allegations.

they are anonymous. hard to put weight on those the same way. we'll talk about it. one from 1985. one from 1998. anonymous. the latest two claims being that way, you have to look at them as not carrying that much weight. at least not now. they were enough for the senate judiciary committee to ask kavanaugh about them. because we have gotten the copy of the transcript or part of the transcript of the dealings with him. remember, what kavanaugh says to that fox reporter that's not a crime. if he says things that aren't true. if he doesn't tell the truth to the senate staffers, that's different. what do we know. kavanaugh has denied all of the accusations that you have heard about and the new ones. then, there's christine blasey-ford. her legal team is released these images of ford taking a lie

detecter test last mornt. after she decided to contact congress about the allegation of a sexual assault by kavanaugh in the 80s. today a third accuser came forward. with extraordinary claims of this really ugly culture vournding the prep school. that cavern went to. aggressive behavior and alcohol fuelled parties. illegal sexual activity. her attorney michael avenatti is with us. the president this afternoon in a rare solo press conference stepped up his defense calling all the claims false and a big fat con job. his attack extended to michael avenatti the lawyer for stormy daniels. take a listen. >> 36 years there's no charge. all of a sudden the hearings are over. and the rumors start coming in. and then you have this other con artist. avenatti. come out with another beauty

today. >> michael avenatti is with us now. welcome back to "prime time." you are not the story. i do not intend to make you as such. i think you have to be given a chance to respond to the president of the united states. who called you a con man. >> if anybody knows a con it would be donald trump. based on the last two years. he has zero credibility in the yis of most americans and certainly in the eyes of the world. he's a habitual liar. trying to distract the way from the very serious allegations made by multiple women. against brett kavanaugh. who has no business being on the u.s. supreme court. i said a while ago that he should go to the next name on the list. that's exactly what he should do. look, as it remits to my client. she stands behind them. she's 100% credible. we want the fbi involved immediately. to vet the allegations.

to take interviews with all the witnesses. including mark judge. and brett kavanaugh. perhaps we can test his claims the other night on fox news. about being such an innocent high schooler. where he would walk little old ladies across the street and bring an apple to every teacher. we want a search for the truth. a legit search for the truth. >> let's start with process. you are calling on the fbi to continue the background. you could see her to the fbi. to launch a complaint. go to local authorities. why haven't you done it? >> first of all i don't believe we could take her to the fbi. i don't think the fbi has jurisdiction over her claim of abuse. or sexual inappropriate sexual conduct. as pled or as stated in the declaration. i think that would be a matter for state authorities and the

state of maryland. we may do that. we may plead out a criminal complaint. let's be clear, even if we were to do that today, or last week, or over the weekend, that wouldn't change or have any impact formally on the judicial nominee process. before this senate judiciary committee. >> all right. next question about this just in terps of look ago at it out wardly. and we'll get into the credibility. this is what the process demands for fairness. what do you believe a that your client can demonstrate that is most damaging to brett kavanaugh? in reading the affidavit, one it has some holes. fact gaps. more information that would be needed in this process. she doesn't blame him. she doesn't point the finger at kavanaugh. for ever doing anything to her. or ever having seen him do anything to anybody else. what is the most damming nature

of what she can show? >> i won't weigh the allegations in the declaration. here's what i will say. if you even if you negate one paragraph, pick a paragraph. the balance is still sufficient to call in to question his fitness to hold a seat on the u.s. supreme court. you can eliminate half the deck lay ration and still have a problem with the fitness for the position. i don't think your characterization of fair reading of the declaration. i think it's detailed as it relates to the allegations against brett kavanaugh. individually. as well as the allegations against mark judge. and others. >> i'm saying what she says she suffered. which i'm not questioning. i have no basis to question. i'm pulling it out. the idea of what was done to her. she was incapacitated at the time and couldn't form consent. she doesn't identify kavanaugh

as her attacker that's what i'm saying. i'm asking you what do you think she could say if she were given the chance that should mean the most to senators? >> chris, she actually does say she witnessed kavanaugh conduct himself inappropriately. and verbally and physically abuse women. in a sexual manner. i think that's early on in the declaration. it's right there in the black and white. let me say this. >> this is at home. >> thank you. this is a detailed statement it is a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. and these facts if alleged in a criminal context. to start a criminal investigation would be more than sufficient for the process to begin. and again. we're at the beginning stages. we're not at the end. we're asking for an fbi investigation.

in my experience in nearly two decades, when you have an individual that is making a story up. they don't offer to take a lie detecter test. which my client has done. or sit down with the fbi and tell them what they know. and don't offer to identify other witnesses to the fbi. which is what she's doing. >> let's talk about them. you say you have one or two other people that she told at the time. in the affidavit. are those people ready to be produced? willing to come forward. have they written affidavits or made affidavits. >> i think we are going to hear from the witnesses that can support this declaration. in the coming days. and again hopefully we'll sit down with the fbi. and we'll have an investigation. i find it ironic that we allow the fbi to investigate the most heinous crimes on u.s. soil. 9/11. the unabomber. serial killers. a host of crimes we trust the

very capable men and women of the fbi to solve. and yet for some reason graham and the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. donald trump. and others. mcconnell. do not want to trust the fbi with getting to the bottom of the allegations. >> although to be fair to the process, chuck grassly is made that point. that's the name you were looking for. they are not in the business of proving or disproving the allegations or really assessing the credibility. what they could do and what i have been argue about. i don't know how i could assess it. i don't know how the senators can. would be talk to everybody, use the field office. canvas people that maybe the senate can't get as easily and create a record. professionally. of knowing how to ask questions and have everybody in one place with what they say about everything that matters. and then the senate can proceed.

they're deciding not to do that. thank you for gifing us this opportunity. at least to look at and what the challenges are. the idea of what would happen if she were to be asked about this stuff. one of the things that came up in assessing this, is there's an age difference. with sweat nick and kavanaugh. she's a couple years older. than they. i think kavanaugh was born in 65. she was born in 62. that means if this -- again it's approximate. 1982. she would have been in college. still going to high school parties. this isn't a judgment of her habits. but how does he explain that? >> these weren't just high school parties. they were any number of other parties. you have been to parties. there's an age difference at parties. tht wasn't just limited to 17 and 18 year-olds.

there were many different ages that went to the parties. 16 years to 22 years of age. which isn't that big a spread. there was a cross section of individuals at the parties very often. mostly high school. some local college students. some college students home on break. it was a cross section of people like you expect at party. >> understood. that's the age. she says she went to a number of the parties. and sometimes not every time, she heard about spiking. about what she calls a rape train. one of the questions is, god forbid you see anything like that. she's 20 year-old. whatever age she was. when she saw it. why didn't she think look what they're doing to this girl. i have to call somebody. i have to call the cops. this is wrong. she wanted to avoid it. she kept going to the parties and didn't ever blow the whistle. why? >> she was aware of the spiking and the punch. etc. which is why she avoided the

punch and aware of some activity going on in the back rooms. but she was not aware of exactly what was tra was transpiring. there were a lot of people at the parties in general. i think she'll have valid explanations why she didn't report it at the time. i'll put up her credibility against trump or kavanaugh any day of the week. all of these women cannot be lying. how many women are we up to now? accusing brett kavanaugh of inappropriate conduct. there's plenty of judges and attorneys in america that don't have allegations like this in the background. who would be more than qualified to sit on the court for life. >> i hear what you're saying. i'm testing what we have been told in the affidavit and what you can argue on her behalf. i know you welcome the opportunity and appreciate you for taking it. i hear you saying she wasn't

sure what was going on. paragraph 12 she says i witness witnessed efforts to cause girls to be intoxicated. to be raped in another room. i have a firm recollection of boys being lined up outside. she saw this more than once and identified it for what it was. but didn't do anything about it. i'm not blaming her. i want to understand why if she now looks at it as being such a -- activity. why didn't she do anything about it? >> it sounds like you are blaming her. she didn't understand the magnitude of what was going on in the back rooms until she was gang raped at a party. after she was raped, that was tanded by brett kavanaugh and mark judge, she never went back. and look, i think the most

important witness perhaps in all of this relating to the allegations, is mark judge. the fact he is kavanaugh's best friend or one of the closest friends and he doesn't want him to be called to testify to the point where they have him hiding out in safe house. so he's not subpoenaed to testify. tells you everything you need to know about who's telling the truth. >> one other thing. you saw what's in the wall street journal. they have reporting -- this is going to happen. if she wants to be at this level of public discourse, there's going to be a look at her as well. a couple things that came up. she seems to have used the firm of or the attorney of professor ford. dead cats. that either she had somebody from the firm. do you know anything about that? the association between your client and the lawyer for professor ford? >> noi that many years ago she

used deborah cats. an exceptional lawyer. she's demonstrated in connection with with doctor ford. one of leading lawyers in dc on sexual harassment and other claims. it's not surprising she used her. what's the allegation? >> suggestion would be that there is coordination. and the question becomes did cats give you sweat nick? why didn't she use her. does ford and sweat nick know about each other? coordination of concern? >> no coordination whatsoever. my client reached out to me. because she has observed my conduct over six months and the result i have obtained. she knows my background. we vetted her and i agreed to represent her. >> you found out about cats? >> i became aware.

>> the other thing in the journal that again this is isn't my reporting. i'll take the journal face value. exboyfriend says she can't be believed. she took out an injunction against him and had an ugly fight. everything she said was wrong and menacing to him and harassing. can't take her seriously. >> first of all i don't think the boyfriend has any credibility whatsoever. this is a guy that is engaged in fraud. and found to have commit td fraud. he used her resume to obtain jobs without her knowledge and found out and subsequently fired. i'm not here to cast aspersions for the next ten minutes about her boyfriend. i'm sure if you went to my exgirlfriend they wouldn't speak to kindly about me. and the same thing about you although you are one of the nicest people i have met in the my life. >> we know your judgment is flawed by the last statement alone. this is what fairness demands.

she will be put to the test. and that's the right thing to do. to judge the credibility and thank you for the opportunity. >> let me make one last point. i'm willing to make her available. for eight hours of cross-examination. under oath. if in turn she will make her client brett kavanaugh available for eight hours of cross-examination by me. im to it tomorrow. >> right and they will not. they have one set of questioners they'll deal with tomorrow. michael avenatti. this is relevant information. i appreciate you answering the questions. it helps the audience. thank you. >> all right. a week that have ago the president voiced support for the process. remember that? he said everybody has to be heard. that's how we have to do this. what happened? it wasn't the president that we heard today. really, since then, he wouldn't say if the accuser are liars.

he was spewing rage at them and democrats tonight. what will it all mean for tomorrow? next. this is john, and i'm with pactel cellular in los angeles. well, welcome to the demo... (danny dichter) in 1989, a new wireless technology was being tested for the first time ever. it allowed more users to connect at the same time while on the move. other wireless carriers considered the tech too expensive, but we saw it as the birth of reliability and the backbone of a company we all know as verizon. so we were the first to commit to the cdma system and the first to build our entire network around it. today, once again, we're transforming reliability as we know it, building america's first and only 5g ultra wideband network-- with unprecedented capacity, enabling faster speeds and the lowest latency anyone has ever experienced on a wireless network. which is crucial, because we'll be relying on it more than ever. (man) it's really quite impressive,

uh, what y'all have put together here to, uh, to show the quality of the system. why test a hybrid engine for over six million miles? why hand-tune an audio system? why include the most advanced active safety system in its class, standard? because when you want to create an entirely new feeling, the difference between excellence and mastery, is all the difference in the world. introducing the all-new lexus es. every curve. every innovation. every feeling. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. a product of mastery. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you.

dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com - [narrator] at athene, we think it's time for the financial world to stop acting the same old way. in today's complex world, you need a partner that is driven to provide you with better solutions for these challenging times, one that is willing to disrupt the industry, and break free from conventional thinking. (thudding) we are a different kind of financial company. we are athene, and we are driven to do more. 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 they don't give us access we normally get. when they do, president trump invoked everything from george washington to elton john for an hour and a half. he tore through a lot. and you'll hear a lot of people fact checking tonight. a lot of it was wrong. like he said he won 52% of the women's vote in 2016. no, he didn't. hilary had more women over all. he won 52% of white women. that is a demographic he is putting on the rocks with what's going on now. big risk with the push to get kavanaugh through. he claimed he rejected a one on one meeting with the prime minister. obama didn't try to fill open

judgeships. republicans flat out refused to confirm many nominees. what do you think started the toxicity with kavanaugh? his take on a supreme court pick. this is what matters. this was a pivotal point for the nation. it also spent a will the of time with the president saying why it matters to him. take a listen. >> it's a very dangerous period in our country. it's being perpetrated by some very evil people. this is just a game that they're playing. it's a con game. >> con game. con job. that was the language he used a lot. >> i have used much worse language than con job. that's the nicest word i have used. >> fair point. why is he saying it so much?

>> it's a con job. it's a big fat con job. this is a big con job. a big fat con. >> now. first things first he's wrong. the con in con man does stand for confidence. what we're seeing is a trump device. i'll say it a lot. so that makes it true. it doesn't. despite making it clear that kavanaugh is being attacked, trump kept trying to say he wanted to hear from the women. listen to this. >> they're giving the women a major chance to speak. it's possible i'll hear that. and i'll say, hey, i'm changing my mind. that's possible. we want to give them a chance to speak. and given -- well whoever is given a chance. >> no, no. all right. let's take this one part. that was jim. all three women get a chance tomorrow? no, not all three.

okay? one. one is getting a chance tomorrow. this is et up as he said she said. really by definition a rush to judgment. all right? despite the president professions of an open mind it's clear brett kavanaugh is the victim and there are gold diggers out there who make up lies. >> i have had a will the of false charges against me. false charges. i know friends with false charges. people want fame, they want money. they want whatever. so when i see it, i view it differently. it's happened to me many times. >> there's a lawsuit actually against him by one of the women that's been given legal sufficiency to move forward. had talked about four. the rule of trumpism as being a factor of three. he's off. he was asked about his daughters and whether that helps him understand the victims of sexual abuse. didn't answer. the message this language sends to women. he doubled down about how bad false accusations. and asked about the message to men.

and said this. >> is this is everything to do with our country. when you are guilty, until proven innocent, it's just not supposed to be that way. always i heard you're innocent until proven guilty. i have heard this for so long. it's a beautiful phrase. in this case, you're guilty until proven innocent. i think that is a very dangerous standard for our country. >> it's also dangerously false. if we know nothing else from the process and the rush to judgment, they're doing what they can to help insulate kavanaugh from this. i don't know what the judge is standi standing for it. trump will be watching tomorrow. if kavanaugh is guilty, he said although he's not going to be found guilty or innocent or not guilty. he would withdraw his nomination. trump said that. if when he watches tomorrow and thinks kavanaugh did it, he'll withdraw. now, i'd like to get the over under on that.

since he's already reached his verdict. this is stuff we need to talk about. it is the premise fror the grea debate. next. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt. within a few days i went from knowing almost nothing to holy crow, i'm related to george washington. this is my cousin george. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com

how about now? the white house direct the fbi to investigate claims made against judge kavanaugh. here's what the president things. >> the fbi told us they have

investigated judge kavanaugh. six times, five times many times over the year. they know him well. here there was nothing to investigate. 36 years, no charge. no nothing. everybody people are going to have to make a decision. these are all false to me. these are false accusations and certain cases. >> all false accusations. in certain cases. all right. is the president going to change course? nope. but certainly worthy of debate. we have great debaters. ana navarro and keri severino. i have to be honest. i couldn't follow him today. he was all over the place. the president. about this. con job he said like a million times. then he said i'm open to changing my mind tomorrow. if it's a con job, why would you be open to changing your mind? if something is a con. that you say 27 times.

is anybody in the room tomorrow going to know what they're talking about? anybody has enough information to really know the truth or falsity of the what's going to be presented? >> one of the problems with the allegations is they are vague. they go back more than three decades and the attempt to corroborate them have come up empty. >> empty or insufficient? >> contradicted. everyone she said was an eyewitness to the account actually says i don't remember this party happening. her friend says i don't think i knew kavanaugh. >> is her husband contradicted? >> he said sh told me this 30 years after the fact. >> her therapist? >> she refused to release the records of therapist. which is her right. if you want to use them to corroborate yourself you have to release them. there's a really problem here people are misunderstanding what corroborate means. it's showing evidence of something. physical evidence. it could be things like medical evidence from the time.

something at the very least. >> or someone. >> it could be hearsay. the lower level. it has to be contemporaneous. 30 years later somebody told me this is not corroboration. >> depends on context. i hear you. larger point is this, they don't know. this is not a fact finding mission. we know now why the president said today we should have done this two weeks ago. we know why grassly and mcconnell have been moving this along. there's a new allegation every day. we have never seen anything like this. the right will say it's because the left values this position more than any other one. that's why they're doing this. and didn't do it to gorsuch. even though they went to the same school at the same time. and none of this came out against him. >> you asked when you were questioning keri you asked if there was going to be anybody in the room knowing the truth? two people in the room.

brett kavanaugh and dr. ford. unfortunately we'll probably never get a conclude answer. whether it's true or not. all we'll have is both the testimony. the american people are going to make an opinion. and there's going to be senators who are going to vote on what they want. what i'd like is for senators from both parties to go in with open mind, open ears and open hearts. to put ideology aside. you shouldn't be judging kavanaugh on whether you agree with him on ideology or not. don't judge him on whether you want to support donald trump or not. don't be a rubber stamp. you should be there listening. scrutinizing. really paying attention and following your heart. treat this woman like if she was your daughter. or wife. or sister. and treat kavanaugh with the respect that he deserves. one of two things will happen.

either a woman who was a victim and traumatized is going to not get her due. or a man who is innocent is going to have his reputation ruined. and perhaps even still then sit in the supreme court. that's why tomorrow is so important. that's why i'm so disappointed the republican party the republican senators is white house hasn't done more to do things like get the account of of mark judge and his girlfriend. get as much information as possible. this is really important. for lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. it will be issues about sexual assault. that will come in front of the court. and i just don't think they have done enough to really try to get to the bottom of it. they'll pay a big price if they look like they're trying to ram through and plow through this investigation this testimony

tomorrow. >> i'll give you the final point on this. that's all i argued all week. is process. i don't know anything about judge kavanaugh except what i have picked up from reporting and accounts of himself. and the allegations. i don't know why they didn't take the time to give him the clearance that he obviously wants. and say look, we have the fbi do what they do. they won't give us a conclusion. they won't assess veracity. this isn't a criminal investigation. here's what everybody says. it's all in one place in done professionally. and now we'll go through it all. remirz, swetnick, fort. here's what we believe. here's what we don't. here's why. think about how much more trust there would be in going into tomorrow if that was done. >> right. >> first of all i agree i want both sides to get a hearing. i have daughters and sons. i want them to get a fair hearing and not go in

prejudging. the problem with not having a proper investigation is entirely on the shoulders of those who decided to shot the stories to the media. rather than turn them over to the fbi in the first place. and the senate judiciary committee. you could have had a more responsible investigation. you could have talked to witnesses separately for example before they read about it in the paper. first thing. that's how it should have done. that's how it was done in the hill hearings. it didn't. we're left picking up the pieces as best we can. the judiciary committee is performing all the interviews. the democrats have recently come to the table and even been participating at all. they have an opportunity to take some of the testimony and the all of the women making allegations even the most recent ones, and almost discredited by the time they get to the committee. they reached out to every one of them. and said if you have evidence please present it. and that is something that is proper. but you couldn't get them all in

one place. because they come out a new day with more surprising ones. the fifth one already recanted. it looks like an attempt at a sir kis. -- circus. >> i'm -- >> last word. >> if this were a democrat appointee. a nominee. and republicans were running the senate. i have no doubt they would have exerted every effort to get to the truth. and subpoenaed mark judge. >> they're trying. >> they're not. >>@exgirlfriend of mark judge said she's willing to talk. they haven't subpoenaed mark judge. the least amount possible to check the box. and lock like they did something. they want to get this vote through. and the american people are hon to it. >> we'll see tomorrow.

keri and anna. we'll see tomorrow. we'll see what they cover and don't. see how it goes. it will be plenty to learn and it's a big day. thaur tlau we talk to a senator who is out raged from the president today. senator from new york. and wait until you hear where her head is going into tomorrow. (gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream. with the creamy taste of philly, i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique.

hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique.

the hearing with brett kavanaugh and christine blasey-ford. will go forward tomorrow. as of now. one senator already wrote a letter to the president calling for the nomination to be withdrawn. before the hearing. who? democrat kiersten gillibrand. we talked to her not long ago. senator, thank you for joining us on primetime. >> hi. >> in a world of shock a bigger shock today. the president seemed to dispute that. and said in the press conference everybody is going to get a chance. every woman will get a chance. then he had another really wild case of double speak. i'll play the sound. >> they're giving the women a major chance to speak. now it's possible i'll hear that and i'll say, hey, i'm changing my mind. that's possible.

they'll have a big shot speaking, making their case. i can be persuaded. >> two things. who says? who says more than professor ford is getting a chance to speak tomorrow or any day? >> no one i have heard of. the truth is president trump is credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault and sexual harass m. it's not surprising his perspective is to believe the accused. opposed to those bringing the cases forward. >> he says the accusations against him were a basis for people going after kavanaugh. with wrongful accusations. do you accept that. >> no. what president trump again he's attacking survivors. he is attacked the credibility. basically says this whole thing is a scam. and he doesn't believe survivors. he doesn't listen to women. and doesn't value women. that's clear in everything he said over the last two years

about women. attacking them, under mining them. devaluing them. minimizing them. >> now, he says that this is all a big con job. he then says he's going to listen and his mind can be changed. how is that possible? either he thinks it's a con job or he's open to what the truth is. how do you understand that? >> i don't. i wrote a letter to president trump today asking him to withdraw the nomination. because you have three credible accusers of sexual assault. violence and sexual assault. in two cases. that deeply concern me. and people across america. sp american women. and what message is he sending to the girls and boys that what you in high school doesn't count as if the sexual assaults allegations aren't serious? they are serious. and i think he should withdraw the nomination. >> he says the message is false accusations are very dangerous. and that guilty until proven

innocence is not a legit standard. you would agree? not all allegations are equal. you have to have corroboration. you have to have credibility and proof. otherwise you can't change a life just through an accusation. can you? >> i don't agree with the premise. this is not a trial. we are not trying to convict anyone. there's not a standard of innocent until proven guilty. christine blasey-ford doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. we're not sending someone to jail. we're trying to assess the credibility of judge kavanaugh and the integrity and honesty. whether he's trustworthy enough to be a justice and have a lifetime appointment. my job and the job of other senators and it's shocking they can't answer the questions themselves. they need a female prosecutor to ask questions because they can't do their job. it is our job as senators to assess this individual credibility. and whether he is worthy. this is a job interview. not a criminal case.

worthy to be the next supreme court justice and has the character and fitness to be that justice. >> you wrote a letter to the president saying withdraw the nomination. the criticism, too soon. senator. you haven't heard a word of testimony. why ask to have the nomination withdrawn. maybe you'll find kavanaugh very credible. maybe you'll find ford incredible. why ask for action before due process? >> first of all it's not due process. that's a legal standard. this is just a hearing. i have heard from both sides already. i have heard from judge kavanaugh. i heard him on fox news saying this is all not true. and he was spending time with friends and studying. and going to church in high school. we have a very different story from many corroborating witnesses. you have now three allegations from three women. about ways he treated them in high school and college. dr. ford submitted affidavits

today of friends. of what happened. she has her therapist she told five years ago with notes. and affidavits have friends who corroborate she told them in advance before he was nominated that this happened to her. with the same facts. you have ramirez testimony. and that's corroborated by kavanaugh's college roommate. fresh nan year. saying he came home drunk many years and was belligerent. we have the new affidavit from swetnick. who says he was drinking heavily throughout her knowledge of him for two years. the truth is you have this corroborating evidence. that i will i have learned and listened to. i have read and weigh that evidence with what judge kavanaugh has said throughout the hearings and last night. i believe the women. >> so maybe the republicans are right and there's no need for any investigation because i'm

assuming other democrats are in the same position as you. you made up your mind before the hearing. >> there's needs to be an investigation. for any judicial nominee. you have to have a completed fbi background check. these allegations have come to light after they concluded that check. that background check likely didn't include the investigation of these claims. >> last question. you open to changing your mind? >> based on everything i have heard today, no. and before these allegations came to light, i thought his record was disqualifying. his view on women rights and doesn't see the fact he believes insurers have more free speech rights than you and i. if you have a preexisting condition. my boss should decide whether i have access to contraception. all those are disqualifying. his views are so far outside the mainstream. so conservative. i can't imagine him being a force for good on the court.

and can't imagine him actually having the kind of judicial character that is necessary to be a justice on the supreme court. and you add the allegations. whatever he says tomorrow it will not change my view. i have record christine blasey-ford testimony and i believe her. >> thank you for coming on this important eve. >> all right. also at issue tonight. four pages of a calendar from 1982. have you seen judge cavern's calendar? what does it show? what does it not show? next. david. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program,

every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. when you rent from national... it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive. [laughter]

(vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. how many of you have a calendar from 1982 just lying

around? how many of you were even born in 1982? judge kavanaugh does, and he handed it over to the senate judiciary committee. it's filled with really fascinating stuff. i mean i think it's fascinating that he kept it all these years. good thing for him that he did. some typical kid stuff, chores, exams. some entries stood out. he's blocked off beach week. sound familiar? that's on his yearbook page listed as the beach week ralph club. biggest contributor. i don't know about you, but to me, ralphing used to mean throwing up. weird for a guy who says he never had any drinking to excess. drunk to the point of vomiting and proud of it back then. not the impression that he left after his fox interview where he portrayed himself as the virginal teen focused on church and service projects. there are several references to "mark" or "judge," who blasey ford says was there when she was assaulted.

these pages don't show much about whether or not there was an assault of course, but they do show kavanaugh was a privileged teen and that he went to a lot of parties. let's bring in don lemon. i also didn't see in the calendars over the summer, the three months or so that we looked at, of service projects that he says in the interview he was doing all along. what's my point? my point is this -- >> i know what your point is. he's not the choir boy. his calendar -- you know, people are putting a lot of stock in the calendar and what he said in the yearbook. but what's important about it is that it shows quite a difference in what he says he was in that interview. >> look, it's interesting that he had it. it's interesting that it's out there. you know why it's really interesting to me? because it's such a piece of detailed evidence. >> yeah. >> in a situation where nobody is killing themselves to get the facts. >> yeah. >> you know what i mean? to me, it's such a juxtaposition. >> yeah. >> he's got a calendar. look, i kept a calendar from all the way back then.

but they won't even bring in the people who say they want to talk to them today. >> and the people who are listed in the calendar -- listen, philip bump of the "washington post," the folks at "the washington post," they annotated this calendar, and my question to him is maybe it doesn't put these folks in the same room, but does it put them in the same place, and what does that mean? is that corroborating? we shall see coming up. >> look forward to that. thank you, d. lemon. all right. tomorrow is a big day. if you've been watching, i'm not much for the hype. tomorrow matters. you're going to hear directly from kavanaugh and his accuser. now, there's so much that's been discussed about what tomorrow is about, and i'm not looking at any of it for what may have the biggest impact. what will? closing argument, next. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce

joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you.

this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving...

simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. delays by the democrats. the gop rushing to judgment. trump's rabid double speak. all relevant but not the real concern, at least not for me when i think about kavanaugh tomorrow. going on fox was the decision that may come back to haunt. why? because deciding to sit across from a friendly face and give all the perfect answers and face none of the hard questions may have felt good in the moment, but he left himself vulnerable to having his perfection picked apart. and then he told senate staffers every word of that interview is true, and there is a penalty for lying to them. so now the judge has to own all of it.

and if it's all true, fine. if you take the three named accusers at the absolute minimum value, okay, what do we know? someone was not in church all the time. someone was seen drunk a lot for a guy who denies any excess and may have been present for far worse than just drinking. it does not make him a rapist. don't say it does. it's not fair to the process. but these accounts, if true in any way, a minimum standard, they mean something you may hear a lot about tomorrow. brett kavanaugh was not telling the truth about himself. so what? at trial, if he lied about blacking out and being at parties where bad things happened, still can't prove he's the one who committed the assaults. no forensics, direct witnesses. the lies hurt, but they don't convict. no way. what about an election? could it be the difference? doubt it.

why? look at what we just saw. you can lie a ton about yourself and your virtues and even lie about what you, yourself, said about yourself and still get elected. but we're not in either setting. here's the problem for kavanaugh tomorrow. he has set up a perfect story of himself. that account has multiple accounts of women and men who do not coordinate, as far as we know, from different occasions and different settings, all saying he is not who he said he was. enough to send him to jail? nope. but here's the question for the senators. do you put him in a job that is all about the truth? the highest echelon of integrity among all our institutions, the supreme court. so this is not about what he did back then necessarily because i don't see how in this rush to judgment the gop has set up how the truths of the matters asserted can in any way be proven to any reasonable

standard. so this is going to be about how he dealt with the past in the present. if he is judged to be someone who would lie about partying in high school, can he be trusted to be truthful and impartial about the president and major issues of consequence? everyone's so focused on what's true and not and why i believe her and why i believe him. you don't know anything. let's be honest. that's not what this process has been about. this is more about credibility than it is about proof. it's not a trial. these folks have run away from being fact-finders. what i'm looking for is whether or not his story comes back to haunt him. i don't believe that what others say about judge kavanaugh will prove to be his biggest challenge. i think what brett kavanaugh has said about himself will be. thank you for watching tonight. "cnn tonight with don lemon" starts right now, delivered to you early twice. you can thank my time-obsessed

e.p. for that, shorting my science so you can have more time. >> he always says to me, hey, we're short on time. can you and chris not talk so much? and i say, it's me and chris. >> that's a conspiracy. >> she, i should say, excuse me. she. mine as well, she. but, listen, i think you're right. i think if anything comes back to haunt him, it will be his own words. it could be the calendar. i think there's a reason people keep saying, oh, well, the democrats are -- they just want to push, you know, this to go on for a long time, right? >> maybe. >> because they're upset. okay. maybe that's true. >> they certainly want him out. >> why didn't they do it with gorsuch, then? >> a couple things. good point. i think i made it first, but good point. >> you did? i didn't hear it sorry. >> gillibrand says i want him to withdraw it not, and she's not