the highly respected presidents and in the case of canada, the prime minister are satisfied with the deal. it's good for canada and good for mexico. good for all three. this is good for all three. just that fact makes it good for us. this is good for all three. this is a much different deal than nafta. much more of a reciprocal deal for the united states. go ahead, peter. we will do the kavanaugh questions. you talk about being treated harshly. we will do that in a -- let's finish up trade. you have a lot of people who want to run over to the "wall street journal" and start writing. i can't hear you. a mexican journalist? >> you are going to keep the tariffs on mexico for steel?

>> until such time where we can do something that will be different like quotas, perhaps. so that our industry is protected. we are not going to allow our steel industry to disappear. it was almost gone. if our country kept going the way it was going, within two years we wouldn't have a steel industry. we have to have steel and alum numb. we are working on that, but we will do something and if you want, you may want to say a couple of words about that. we are talking about that one hour ago. >> i guess i would say, two separate things. we know there are grave interests to both countries and we are engaging in talks with an effort to preserve the effect of our program and still take care of our needs. >> and really take care of the needs of our steel companies. i don't want plants closing.

they are hiring thousands of workers all over the country. i'm not giving that up. we have a very good understanding. really good. >> yes, sir. go ahead, please. >> just hoping you can reiterate on the tariffs, what specifically would it take for canada and mexico to be exempt and secondly, did you consider dairy the deal breaker? >> dairy was a deal breaker. now for the farmers, it's substantially opened up much more. i know they can't open it completely. they are farmers also. they can't be overrun. i told them that. look, i understand you have limits, but they can do better. we opened it up to the farmers so the folks up in wisconsin, i went to wisconsin and iowa and joanie knows better than

anybody. scott walker who is a fantastic governor talks about it all the time. our farmers were not treated proper lie by canada and now they will be treated with respect and fairly. in that reciprocal way. very important. go ahead. >> there was give-and-take on both sides. i wonder what is your biggest concession to canada and why you decided to make that concession. if you can dive into more about thoughts on justin trudeau. you talked about tensions and what did you learn about him and what the state of the relationship is with him today and going forward. >> i think my biggest concession is making the deal. we are the one that people come and want to take from. i'm talking about every country.

that gives us a tremendous advantage in negotiating that we never used before in past administrations. every deal we had is a loser. almost every country we have trade deficits. we lose with everybody. i think my biggest concession was making the deal. we could have done it a different way and it would be nasty and not nice. we have a great relationship with canada and it will be better than ever. the only problem with justin is he loves his people. he is fighting hard for his people. we always had a very good relationship. it got a little bit testy in the last couple of months, but that was over this agreement. i understand that. i think justin is a good person and doing a good job. he felt very committed to his people and that's what he did. again, this is good for

everybody. this is good for canada and good for mexico also. yes, please. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. as you mentioned, you will be signing this agreement and your counterpart of the sign over the next 60 days and then it's up to congress. you are confident? >> not at all confident. not at all. tell me, are you guys going to sign it? i think they do. >> if congress is controlled by democrats -- >> they might be willing to throw one of the great deals for people. and the workers. they may be willing to do that for political purposes because frankly, they will have 2020 in mind. i dream about 2020 when i look at what's going on. they have 2020 in mind. they want to do as well as they can and trying to reject even great deal like this. great for our country and other countries.

it's a great deal for our country and great for our workers. i can't tell you whether or not they will obstruction and resist. the whole campaign is resist. i see the signs. resist. they don't even know what you are resisting. let me think about that. they can't answer. they said what are you resisting and they were unable to answer the question. i can't tell you about delay, obstruct, resist. right after this election and think we are going to do well, although history is not on our side. in history, whoever has the white house doesn't do well in mid-terms, but the difference is we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. that's a problem, too. people who voted for me. i'm not on the ticket, but they would be voting for me. congress is on the ticket. but it's the same thing as me, in a sense. that's the same thing.

think of it as the same thing. i think we are going to do well. i actually think that. we have senate races that were not even in play six months ago. when i started looking at it closely, i won't mention names, but senators that were not in play. you know what i'm talking about. numerous of them. they were not in play. in other words, let's not go here and let's not go to this state. now they are like even races in one case. they are up two points. who knows what that means. there are a lot of repression polls or polls that are not accurate because i see polls that i know having to do with certain other races. we had areas and we had congressional seats, too. i know it's going to be a positive outcome, but you look at what's goinging on and it doesn't broadcast. i had that with my election. they were telling me i was in

trouble in certain states that i won in a landslide. i knew i was going to win them, but they wouldn't report it that way? you know why? fake news. >> right behind you. >> do you believe the trade agreement will be a great agreement? >> it's a good agreement. why don't you just extend nafta. that would have been a disaster. we are losing $100 billion a year at least to mexico. just look at the results. and a substantial amount to canada. it's not even. we lose a substantial amount. i think it's a hard thing to defend. that's okay. i understand the world of politics as well as anybody. i haven't been doing it that long, but i have been. i have been doing it on the other side. i do understand. they can take the greatest thing

ever done and try to make it sound as bad as possible. this one is tough. people are coming out for this one and saying that's incredible what we have been able to do. behind you. please. >> thank you. now that you answered several questions on trade, i would like to turn to kavanaugh. >> do you have a question on trade? >> you answered several trade. >> don't do that. excuse me. don't do that. do you have a question on trade. >> my question is on judge kavanaugh. you said the fbi should interview whoever they believe is appropriate. does that include julie swetnick and can you promise to release the full findings after they finish the report. >> give me your question, please. give her the mike, please. >> thank you very much. was border security or funding for the wall for the negotiation and who will pay for the wall?

>> we are getting 1.6 billion for the wall. we are doing a lot of work. people don't realize. i could build it quickly at one time, but we have been building it with $3.2 billion. i have a big decision to make after the election as to whether or not we go forward. you know what, border security to the people of our country, very important. the wall is a big factor in border security. i believe that the people of our country, they want the wall and they want border security. they don't want open borders like the democrats. they don't want crime pouring in and ms 13 pouring into our country. they don't want that. i think i have a big decision to make sometime right after the election. very quickly. you know what comes new after the election? do i want to do it before the

election? yes, but i don't for a different reason. i have very fine people running and it may affect them. i happen to think it would be good for them, but border security for our country, our people want security. the women of our country want security. they don't want to have thousands of people portion across the border. i will tell you why. they want to have i.c.e. i.c.e. walks in and the gangs and they treat them like it's just another day in the office. they are rough and tough and they love our country. i'm treating i.c.e. good and law enforcement good. the democrats don't want to take care of our law enforcement and our military. we will have a decision close to after the election is over. that will be on border security and the wall, but border security. the wall is a big factory. >> but was that part of the conversation and the negotiation? >> yes, it was. we talked about it.

it was a big part. certain things and certain understandings. at the same time, we don't want to mix it up too much. it was a big deal and a good deal for everybody. border security and security generally is a very big factor. we also have drugs. some people would say it's a similar thing, but we talked about drugs with mexico. that's a very, very big factor. very, very big. we have a lot of good understandings and we will be discussing that with them. but it was a factor, absolutely, in the deal. let's go. you want to get off trade. people are falling asleep with trade. to me it's the most exciting thing you can talk about, right? let's go. come on. >> in a tweet you said it's incorrect to say you are limiting the scope of the fbi investigation into judge kavanaugh, but your own statement made it very clear this investigation must be limited in scope. so which is it?

>> i didn't say anything. i said let the senate decide and whatever they want to do is okay with me. i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. at the same time just so we all understand, this is our 7th investigation of a man who has really -- you look at it his li until this happened and what his family has gone through. the trauma for a man that never had any accusation and never had a bad statement about him. i think he was number one in his class at yale. he was number one in his law school at yale. what he's gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. so i want the fbi, this is now the 7th investigation. it's not like they are just starting. i want them to do a very

comprehensive investigation. whatever that means according to the senators and the republicans and the republican majority, i want them to do that. i want it to be comprehensive. i think it's a good thing for judge kavanaugh. not a bad thing. it's a good thing. with that being said, i would like to to go quickly. the reason i would like it to go quickly is simple. it's simple. it's unfair to him at this point. what his wife is going through, what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. it's not describable. it's not fair. i think it's fair to do it to me because i have been going from day one, long before i got to office. for me it's a part of my job description to handle this crap.

but as far as -- this is a man, this is not from his world. if they are not going to want him and i think that would be a shame. i'm with him all the way. a charge made was said to have occurred 36 years ago and nothing happened since. i feel badly for all parties. i feel badly for everybody. i feel badly for our country. this is so bad for our country. i watched the senators on the democrat side and i thought it was a disgrace. partially because i know them. i know them too well. you know what? they are not angels. >> your white house put no limitations? >> my white house is doing whatever the senators want. you don't understand what i'm saying. you do understand, you just don't want to report it that way. >> my white house is doing whatever the senators want. i'm open to whatever they want.

the one thing i want is speed. now, they started, i believe on friday. could have been earlier than that. they started and they worked around the clock on saturday, sunday, they are working right now. they are covering a lot of territory. this is the 7th investigation of judge kavanaugh. number seven. this is is not number one. they started on friday, they worked all weekend and gone late into the evenings. the fbi is really working hard. they are putting in a lot of hours. so hopefully they can come up with what everybody is looking for. i'm guided by the senate. i want to make the senate happy. they are making the judgment. i made my judgment. the senate is making a judgment on judge kavanaugh. that's a very important thing to do. go ahead, peter. >> just for clarity so that it's

clear, it's up to you to instruct the fbi. >> it is up to me, but i'm instructing them as for what the senate wants. the senate is making the decision and i am instructing them as for what the senate is looking for. >> will you instruct the white house counsel don mcgahn to give the fbi free to interview whoever they feel is are in? >> i have so instructed him and i did it again over the weekend. i see the press was -- yo ept to say misleading. it's much more complex than most people understand. essentially i have done that. i did also say within the bounds of what the senate wants. we don't want to use an expression often used by me. we don't want to go on a witch hunt, do we? >> just to be clear, should the fbi interview all three of brett kavanaugh's accusers. >> it wouldn't bother me at all.

i don't know all three. certainly i would imagine they will interview two. the third i don't know much about. i heard that the third one has -- i have no idea if this is true, has very little credibility. if there is credibility, interview the third one. i want it to be done quickly. it's unfair to the family and to the judge. it's unfair. it's so unfair to his kids and his wife. >> how about for the accusers. has it been fair to them? >> certainly we gave the doctor a tremendous time, which is great. she spoke well, but there are questions that haven't been answered like what year was it? what day. do you know the location and do you know the house? a lot of different things. people are saying what's going

on? you cannot say that we have done anything but be respectful. and i do. i respect her position very much. i respect her position very much. i believe, and again, this is republican senators and the senate, i believe they have been very respectful to the doctor. dr. ford. >> isn't that why the fbi should interview all of them? >> they should interview anyone they want within reason. you have to say within reason. they should interview, but also be guided. i'm being guided by what the senators are looking for. they have to make the choice. go ahead. now you can go. >> should brett kavanaugh be interviewed by the fbi. >> i think so. it's fine if they do. i don't know. that's up to them. i think he spoke very conclusively and very well. i think it has been a very rough period of time and i guarantee

he never had a rough period of time. when he was chosen, everyone said it would go quickly. people thought 10 years ago brett kavanaugh was going to be a supreme court justice because of his intellect and because of his career and because of the fact that there are no games. now they talk about alcohol and all of the things that you hear. frankly, you take a look at -- they are bringing up subjects we wouldn't know about this over the last 20 years or 30 years of his career. what happened? they are going back to high school and saying he drank a lot one evening in high school. i tell you what. i know united states senators. one on the other side who is pretty aggressive. i have seen that person in very bad situations. okay? i have seen that person in very, very bad situations. somewhat compromising.

i think it's very unfair to bring up things like this. however, whatever the senators want is okay with me. they are going to be making a decision, whatever a want is okay with me. go ahead. that's enough, peter. go. i think the press has treated me unbelievably unfairly. i said the good thing is now the press finally gets it. now they will finally treat me fairly. they got worse. they are worse now than ever. they are loco. but that's okay. i put up with it. go ahead. i use that word because of the fact that we made a deal with mexico. no, no. sit down. >> thank you, mr. president. >> you are going to be next. >> i have questions about judge kavanaugh. there are concerns he may have lied or mischaracterized his

drinking while testifying. if they find he did, do you think that bars him from being the supreme court nominee? >> i watched him and i was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer. he's had a little bit of difficulty. he talked about things that happened when he drank. this is not a man that said alcohol was -- he was perfect with respect to alcohol. i thought he was actually going back so many years. i thought he was excellent. the interesting thing is nobody asked him about what happened in the last 25 or 35 years. there were no bad reports. there are bad reports on everybody in here. most of the people sitting down here, except for mike pence, by the way. we find one on him, i think that's going to be the greatest shock of all time. there are bad reports on

everybody. i'm looking at people. look at some of these people asking me questions. look at blumenthal. he lied about vietnam. he didn't just say that. for faen years, he thought he was a war hero. he had a nickname. he never went to vietnam and he is up there saying we need honesty and we need integrity. this guy lied when he was the attorney general of connecticut. he lied. i don't mean a little bit. when he got out, he dropped out of the race and won anyway because democrats always win in connecticut. probably the closest ever. here's a guy who lie and he is up there talking like he is holier than thou. take a look at his record. when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying and the tears were all over the place and now he accounts like how dare you.

take a look at the judge who has led an exemplary life. you go back to high school because he had beer? i think the judge has been pretty amazing about describing his situation with alcohol and with beer. take a look at cory booker. he ran newark, new jersey into the ground. he was a horrible mayor and he made statement that is when he was in high school or college, what he was doing. he made the statements. now he is talking about judge kavanaugh. i could go through a whole list of them. look at dianne feinstein. you are talking about time. she knew about this two months earlier. if she wanted a thorough investigation, we had all the time in the world. she didn't have to wait until after the hearing was closed essenti essentially. she should have said listen, i have a problem.

i have this report. i'd like the fbi to look at it while we are doing the hearings. we had two months. no, she didn't do that. she waited until we were closed. then she probably leaked it, but, you know, who am i to say. she leaked it based on her very bad body language the other day. for her to have waited that period of time and for you democrats and i guess i'm including you, too, the media. i consider you a part of the democrat party. for you, for the democrats to be talking about we want more time for the fbi, if you wanted more time for the fbi, why didn't diane finestein bring this up. you know she showed this to other democrats. there were more than just her that knew about that big confidential thing. it was confidential until the hearing was over. after the hearing was over, they

went public. why didn't they do it during the hearing and we could have had all the time in the world. you know why? they are dishonest people. >> you didn't answer my question, mr. president. so if he did lie about his drinking, does that mean you will pull his nomination? >> i don't think he did. i'm not a drinker and i can honestly say i never had a beer in my life. one of my only good traits. i don't drink. i never had a glass the alcohol. i never had alcohol. for whatever reason. can you imagine if i had? what a mess i would be. i would be the world's worst. i never drank, okay? i can tell you i watched that hearing and i watched a man saying that he did have difficulty as a young man with a drink. the one question i didn't ask is how about the last 20 years. nobody said anything bad about him in many, many years. they go back to high school.

i graduated from high school and while i did not drink, i saw a lot of people drinking. they drink beer and go crazy and they were in high school. they were 16, 17 years old. i saw a lot of it. does that mean that they can't do something they want to do in their life? it's a tough thing. i believe he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot and i don't know whether it's a big discrepancy. >> just to wrap up. >> you had enough. you really had enough. go ahead, please. >> thank you, mr. president. judge kavanaugh said he was being targeted by democrats. has he made the process over being political and how can he show the american people he will be able to deliver impartial decisions. >> you will have ask him, but he has been treated horribly. he's a good man with a good

family. lindsey graham i thought was terrific. he brought up one point that is now being discussed by a lot of people. who is going to want to run for office and be in office and take an appointment to not just the supreme court, but many positions. i have 360 people that aren't being approved. they are very qualified. nobody said they are not, but senator schumer is not approving them because of resist and obstruct. it's much longer than ever in the history of our country. double the time. it's far more people than anybody in the history of our country. these are routine approvals and they gave up jobs and their life to serve our country and schumer and his group won't approve them. they are slow walking them. everything is going at third hours, meaning they take them out for 30 hours. it's a disgrace. when the judge brings up whether

it's politics or not, i don't know. you have to ask them. he has been treated really, really horribly. >> but are you concerned -- >> i'm not concerned. you know what i'm concerned? that we get great, great people on the u.s. supreme court. i want great people and i don't have to have to call people for any court and have them say it's a great honor, but no, thank you. i can't do it. i just can't do it. that would be a sad day for our country. we will come close to that because i know people now that say i don't know how he does it and why he would have taken this. nobody knew a thing like this could have happened. when justice gorsuch got approved, it was rough, but nothing like this. like what they are doing to this man and what they are coming up with? in many cases fabricated. many stories were pulled back. they were horrible. what they are doing to this man

and his family is very, very sad. very bad for our nation. >> mr. president, you said senators are not angels -- >> i would say some of them. >> could you tell us who and what situations? >> i will save it for a book like everybody else. i'm not giving it to you. please, go ahead. >> mr. president, if the fbi found other witness who is can corroborate the account of any of the accusers, would that be enough? >> i would look at that. i'm open. i think he's a fine man. he's a great scholar. i still believed him when he said what he did, he focused on being number one at yale. on being number one in high school and number one at law. i can so understand that. it was so important. the way he said that made an impact on me. he was so focused on being number one at yale.

i believe he was number one at yale. i understood that very well. >> i wanted to ask about something else. the las vegas shooting. there is frustration that more has not been done about bump stocks. >> you are wrong about that. in order to eliminate and terminate bump stocks, we have to go through a procedure. we are at the final stages of that procedure. the lawyers were just telling me and over the next couple of weeks, you can't just write it up. rules and regulations in this country are tough. even for something like that. we are knocking out bump stocks. i told the nra that bump stocks are gone. to do it you have to go to public hearings, which we had. you have to go through all sorts of regulatory control systems. is our attorney around?

i will be able to write out bump stocks and it's a process that takes about a year to do. to do it properly. >> any other actions you are planning to help prevent? >> yeah and we are working with congress on both sides. we are working on a lot of different things. that was a horrible thing, but we are working on both sides of that question. the bump stock is almost gone. to do it so it's meaningful, the lawyer just said it. we have gone through a whole procedure. you can call derek who you know very well and he's gone through the full procedure. we have done it by the book and in a short period of time bump stocks will be ruled out. okay? you had one. yes, ma'am. go ahead, please. please, sit down. >> mr. president, a final trade question. since steel and aluminum won't

be coming down from canada and mexico, can you talk about the discussions of ending those retaliatory tariffs. >> they are not retaliatory. they are trying to get bad things from happening. they were dumping in our country. dumping massive amounts of dead steel. it's called dead steel. it's also imperfect steel. inside that steel was a lot of bad things that make for a weaker steel. when you have other quantities of other material in that steel, that's a bad thing and very unsafe. it's not just economic. we have the miners that have been thankful. you saw that the other night in west virginia. we have mines that are opening up to get that incredible stuff.

used not just for heating and cooling and electrical, but they are used to make steel. the price is going to end up being less because we don't have the shipping problems. when you ship it, you will see. we have hundreds of new plants opening and competing against each other. outsiders won't be able to compete. so you understand what was going to happen, they were going to knockout every steel plant we had and double and triple the price. billions of dollars is flowing in. in the back, please. >> staying on trade. the stock market has announced the dow is up 250 points or so. because of the threat of future tariffs, it could stifle an e n economy that is hot and today

you have once again said as it relates to china, more tariffs could be coming down the line. are you worried that you are suppressing this economy? >> i am using them to negotiate. and hopefully we can make a great, fair deal with china and the reciprocal deal. a great deal and a fair deal. we have a lot of catching up to do. when they drain up for $500 billion a year. probably the real number. that's not including the theft of intellectual property and other things. a lot of people say it's hard to value. that could be $300 billion a year. that's a tremendous -- you can't let that happen. no. if we are unable to make it, mexico and canada, they are way beyond that. the nice part about the deal we make with them is it's not a

specific product, but a product across the line. whether it's dairy or a lot of products. many, many products. they are all included. it's across the board. >> with china, one more on trade if you don't mind. >> go ahead. >> if the fbi does find something and brett kavanaugh falls, is there a plan b. >> i don't want to talk about plan b. i hope he gets approved and the report comes out like i really think it should. i think it will. i hope. i hope. i'm waiting just like you. certainly if they find something, i'm going to take that into consideration. absolutely. i have a very open mind. the person that takes that position is going to be there for a long time. i have a very open mind. i think he's an outstanding person and has been treated horribly. even if you are going to bring

up some of subjects that were brought up, they didn't have to treat him so viciously and violently as they treated him. >> on trade -- >> thank you all very much. thank you very much. >> celebrating what is a big win for him and his administration. getting canada to agree to replacing nafta. candidate promised a new trade agreement saying it will be a boost to the american economy. he resisted questions about brett kavanaugh at first and making quite a bit of news there. number one saying he is open minded and if the fbi finds damaging information, he is willing to take a look at it.

very significantly, the president was asked about the defining question, what about the fbi investigation and are there restrictions? the president insisting he personally has not put restrictions on the fbi and notably the president on several occasions saying he is following the advice of the republican senate majority and wants the fbi to answer the questions they wanted asked. that some democrats are complaining will limit the scope and it should be noted he had no problem and thought it would be good for the fbi to investigate and question judge brett kavanaugh as far as this expanded fbi investigation. after the president first said not now, trade first. kaitlan, a remarkable event. i admire you for your persistence. tell us what it was like to be in the rose garden.

>> the approximapresident came refused several questions on brett kavanaugh making clear he wanted to talk about the nafta deal first. then we did get around to and the allegations made against him as we were in the middle of this fbi investigation. the president made news on several fronts. my question to the president is if it is to you understand that brett kavanaugh did lie when he was testifying about his drinking habits, would that be enough to disqualify him from being president trump's nominee on the supreme court. that was questions several democratic senators have raised since the testimony that riveted washington and president trump didn't say it would bar him from being the supreme court nominee. he said he thought brett kavanaugh was truthful about his drinking, saying he struggled with it even though that's not what brett kavanaugh said. he tried to characterize his drinking as pretty normal in his college years and said he still drinks beer to this day. the president was asked if the

white house is limiting the scope of the fbi investigation which is what some democrats and critics of the president have complained in recent days, saying they are only giving it a week and interviewing certain people they deem credible. does that include julie swetnick. he said he couldn't say for sure, but he thought the claims for the woman who said she attended party where is there were gang rains and excessive drinking and behavior from brett kavanaugh, he doesn't believe she has a lot of credibility. he said he is not limiting the fbi's scope, but he doesn't want them to go on one of his favorite terms, a witch hunt. that's what we heart from president trump there. when we were talking about whether or not judge kavanaugh lied, he launched into the tirade against the senator who is criticized judge kavanaugh, namely richard blumenthal saying he lied about service in vietnam and apologized and said he

mischaracterized. it he talked about that and cory booker and didn't say if lying would disqualify him from being the nominee. we got more into what the white house wants to see from this fbi investigation. if president trump's mind could be change and they find more allegations of misconduct against judge kavanaugh and that would cause him to pull his nomination. president trump said he has an open mind and he is listening and waiting like we tor fiare at came a few minutes after he said he made up his mind about brett kavanaugh. not a lot of clarity about how the president feels and if he would be willing to pull this nomination. what he made clear is he thinks this is a witch hunt against brett kavanaugh and this is unfair. he cited multiple times how brett kavanaugh has been treat and how his wife and kids have been treated, but didn't voice concern about whether or not this person should qualify to be on the supreme court.

as we heard from several people in washington and we know are the concerns of people like senator susan collins, lisa murkowski and jeff flake who spearheaded this fbi investigation in the first place. he didn't answer my second question. when the fbi does conclude the investigation, will you release it to the public so the american people can say what it is they found in their statements and investigation that they conducted since friday? no answer for that question. >> kaitlan collins after a remarkable event in the rose garden. we head into the investigation for brett kavanaugh. a lot of ground to cover there. the president was sharply political towards senator blumenthal and senator feinstein

on the two big questions. he said i'm waiting like all of you. number two, he was washing his hands of the questions about the fbi scope, saying he was following the wishes of the republican majority. >> yes. that is what he said and the official white house line, but we all have to remember that the senate majority, particularly the three senators who are undecided on the republican side or undeclared as of now said they wanted it to be narrowed to current credible allegations. it is the white house that is as josh campbell, former fbi agent and a member of our team said is the client. maybe the president himself is not directing the fbi, but boy does the administration have a lot of say despite what they say on capitol hill. that that is why the skepticism and confusion even and especially among those who are

going to be making the decision. the critical votes. senator collins and senator flake about how far the fbi is and will go. it's not just about credible allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct, but also potentially credible allegations about the fact that he didn't tell the truth when he was talking about one of the major lines of questioning. his drinking habits. whether or not he blacked out. people coming forward in public statements and priority statements saying i was there. that's not true. >> at the moment, democrats are worried the process is being constricted. the nation is gripped. the nation is watching this. it is a consequential swing. there is a most important jury of three. senator jeff flake and susan collins and lisa murkowski. what is there. minimum. if that's the big question, they wanted mark judge interviewed. will they be satisfied if they

interview him and does not go back to professor ford and not questioned by what you call the professionals. the fbi. if they don't talk about judge kavanaugh or does the credibility and the truthfulness about his past and his drinking come into play? >> the scope has to satisfy three people. jeff flake, susan collins, lisa murkowski and to some degree, joe manchin and heidi hide camp. they wanted a narrow look at this and they were talking about the gathering and they wanted the judge interviewed for sure. maybe the other people. they did not envision a full-blown investigation. certainly one that extends into whether brett kavanaugh had blackouts and that sort of thing. they wanted it done in a hurry. some talk they could have it

before the end of the week. they are the ones that have to be satisfied. they are talking about the white house and certainly through the officials about what is going to happen. this was the danger that mitch mcconnell was worried about. the week goes on and it gets into other areas. i think the president, what he was saying about the drinking, that didn't seem to be something he thought was going to be part of this investigation. probably one of the most memorable lines of the administration so far. i would be a real mess. i was a drinker. >> can i say one thing through my reporting on your very important question about what is the scope? what's the standard from the perspective of the three senators? the answer i have gotten is they don't know the answer to that. they are not sure. they didn't anticipate that the initial ask was to look at the

claims, but now you have people coming out again who are contradicting what brett kavanaugh said in his testimony. that is raising questions. they don't know what the standard themselves hold. >> they are going to have a conversation with the majority leader asap. you can take from that what the president said and good for him to take the questions. you have to ask the trade questions first and you can take from that, they should follow-up their leads and have a free reign. should they interview judge kavanaugh, the president seeming open ended, but didn't specifically ask will you instruct don mcgahn to say they have free reign and he fell back on the limited in scope, do your business, but follow the wishes of the republican senate majority which is very limited in scope.

>> what is going to happen is that anyone who disagrees with the testimony that brett kavanaugh gave and knew him during high school or college, those people know that this is their window. the fbi is going to cover them, they go to the fbi. people who voluntarily come forward to the extent they exist, they could have a lot to with whether the fbi wants to broaden. >> excuse me for interrupting, but a classmate at yale issued a long statement saying what he said about the drinking is not true. he was spending times when he was drunk and belligerent. it was not an exception. it was common practice. is that relevant or not? do they say he is not on mitch mcconnell's list. >> why the scope has gotten confusing is the time limit. they put it at one week. even if the president keeps saying he is open to looking at this or that, he wants it done

in a week and so does mitch mcconnell. that was the agreement that everyone came to. if they started broadening the scope, the confirmation gets pushed back. that's something republicans don't want. mitch mcconnell and president trump don't. >> that's the big question. the deadline is friday. there is a possibility they could get it done before that. if you are the field agent and you get a call or e-mail interviewing witness a and you want to go see witness b, does chris wray have to okay that? what are the private conversations about how to proceed and what needs to follow. here's the president's public outline. he said comprehensive. >> i want them to do that. i want it to be comprehensive. i think it's a good thing for judge kavanaugh. i think it's actually a good thing, not a bad thing. with that being said, i would like it to go quickly. the reason is very simple.

it's so simple. it's unfair to him at this point. what his wife is going through. what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. >> impossible. i don't care what your politics are, it's impossible to argue with that. you want the judge's family, professor ford's family and everyone to get to the other side of this. whatever that is. tracking the what's in and what's out so far. if you are a kavanaugh ally, are you comfortable with that? >> if you are supporting kavanau kavanaugh, he can be investigated by the fbi. they don't want that. they feel like he already gave his testimony and if the fbi goes in and interviews kavanaugh, that's going to take

more time. whatever the senators want. which senators. are we talking about the small group that is the target audience here or is he targeting other witnesses who said they should come forward. debra ramirez gave the names of other witnesses with. the whole beer question. he spent a lot of of time on beer and people who drink too much beer and the unknown senator. people who support kavanaugh said look, he has been through six or seven background investigations and any problem like that would have come up. here's one thing that he stayed just where people want him to. he did not attack ford there. through the press conference, he did not attack her. >> that's critical reporting there. my big question here is who is listening to whom in the sense that if you are chris wray, you are the fbi director and it's your job to tell people to go out and do this, but not this.

what does chris wray take from that? does he have to call don mcgahn and say i need clarity. at the end of this, we know the president attacked the fbi repeatedly and they have been reluctantly in the middle of the dram a. you do not want to come out of this with more questions about the fbi. how do you get clarity on what you are supposed to do right now? >> i think one problem with this, we all watch a lot of tv and think this is a full-blown fbi investigation. i don't think it's happening like that. they have a certain number of people. i don't get the sense that they are going to move far beyond that party and then the yale incident. i think they are working within the parameters. the big problem is the way this came together. there was thrown together very quickly. there was no real arrangement made about who was in and who

was out and how to do it. they gavelled that vote through as quick as they could. this is what we are stuck with today. i will continue to say the people who can tomorrow the scope of this investigation are those people. they can object and say this was not far enough. >> this was not far enough. >> whether they will take her senate testimony to get to the other. we don't know the answer to that. the yale student who said she was at a party the freshman year where brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her. julie swetnick is the third woman and a lot of people raised questions about her including the past litigation she was involved in. should the fbi reach out to all three accusers? >> just to be clear, should the fbi interview all three of brett kavanaugh's accusers? >> it wouldn't bother me at all. i don't know all three of the

accusers. i imagine they are going to interview two. the third one i don't know much about, but it wouldn't bother me at all. i heard that the third one has -- i have no idea if this is true, but he has very little credibility. if there is credibility, interview the third one. i want it to be done quickly because it's unfair to the family and to the judge. it's unfair. it's so unfair to his kids and his wife. >> among those watching, the senate majority leader and up on capitol hill where this is the defining question of the week. when will the fbi conclude its work and how broad will the scope be? >> it's very clear and if this hasn't been made apparent already. if julie swetnick is not answered within the scope and that's by design. this really comes down to where

three senators are. what i have been told is behind the scenes in mcconnell's office, susan collins and lisa murkowski. there was a discussion about the scope of the investigation. the statement noted credible claims. they don't view the third as a credible claim. there is a caveat. mark judge is mentioned in the first and third accuser's allegations. mark judge is one of the key people that they thought long have been left out of this issue. he said he would cooperate and the fbi is planning to reach timeout to him and interview him. they contact him and he could be asked about the oligation and the third accuser herself. they have not heard from the fbi based on the directive and scope designed from the white house by those senators. it's not going to happen at any point. i think the key point here is

this. what those three senators laid out on friday in senator mcconnell's office is the guiding force behind what the directive is that point. could that shift? susan collins put out a statement saying they were confident they go wherever they want to in this. it's clear that senate republicans in the white house would like to take it as narrow as possible. given the timeline as well it. the bigger question right now is what's the tlerve hohreshold? that will determine where this goes or if it expands at all. >> great point. that is the question. number one, will they be happy with the thoroughness, but number two, the question, i don't think we know the answer to. what is the standard? you could not corroborate professor force and debra ramirez. i vote for kavanaugh, but you came back and said he was dis n

disingenuo disingenuous. he was not truthful to the committee. >> that are is key. just as phil said, we reported realtime that the directive on the scope initially came from conversations with those three senators. those three key republican senators and there is a feeling that the standards should and could shift based on the statements that are coming to senate offices and the fbi and the public from people saying kavanaugh was not truthful in saying under oath that he did not blackout or did not drink excessively to the point that it could have put him in a position to do things he is alleged to have done. >> the president was asked, is this a relevant question. here's his answer. >> there are concerns he may have lied or mischaracterized his drinking while testifying. if they find he did, do you think that bars him from being

your supreme court nominee. >> i watched him and i was surprised about how vocal he was that he likes beer and he had a little bit of difficulty. he talked about things that happened when he drank. this is not a man who said that alcohol was -- that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. >> that's not a fair -- the president is supporting his nominee, that's not fair about judge kavanaugh. >> i'm sure kavanaugh's allies are not going to be happy that he characterized his drinking that way. the other note what the president said today, the other person he did not attack was the fbi. he praised their investigation and said they are working hard to get to the bottom of this. >> the stakes for the president, you can see it in his criticism of the democrats. blumenthal, booker and feinstein. this is reckless innuendo said

he knew compromising things about the senators. he was asked to lay it out and he said i'm going to save it for a book like everyone else. >> on the one hand, he's willing to get down in the dirt and fight with the democrats to push through the nominee that is before him, but he said i'm open minded and certainly suggested that if more information came out in the course of the next week, he department sidn't say want to answer it, but did say he didn't have a plan b. >> we know he undermined the fbi, but what about his plan. don began and the out going counsel, not so great. >> we should just remember it was a laugh line that the president said he never had a drink before. that is such a part of his dna, the fact that his brother died he thinks in part from drinking.

he hears more about brett kavanaugh and the accusations he did. i wonder how that will affect it. >> a remarkable day and a consequential week. wolf picks up the special coverage right now. have a good day. hello, i'm wolf blitzer and it's 1:00 here in washington. we start with breaking news here in washington. the president, president trump talking about the fbi investigation into allegations against this u.s. supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh and fighting back against claim that is the fbi is setting the scope. the white house is controlling the investigation and deciding who gets questioned and about what, but just a few moments ago at the wide ranging white house rose garden news consequence, the president spoke about what he specks from the fbi.