a reminder, don't miss "full circle," our daily interactive newscast on facebook. you get to pick some of the stories we cover. you can see it weeknights 6:25 p.m. eastern on facebook/andersoncooperfull circle. let's head it over to chris. he has a lot ahead. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to prime-time. tonight, we have the players for you. the yale classmate who came forward just today. he's here for his first tv interview. we have had the first tv interviews with several who say they can attest to kavanaugh's behavior in school. why? because i think his habits are disqualifying. of course not. because from the beginning, check it, i have thought the ford testimony would prove unsatisfying as a matter of establishing facts in that segt. and that the bigger test would be how kavanaugh portrayed himself. and now the media is fixated on that. and we have two people at the center of that fixation. chad luddington, who has new information about a police

report that is out just tonight. he says it has kavanaugh's name on it. that much is true. you're going to hear from luddington directly, right here in just a moment. also here, michael avenatti. he represents the third woman to step forward with misconduct allegations against the judge. has the fbi reached out to julie swetnick yet? will they? now, she's come forward with more details tonight. is she credible? only four days left for the fbi to complete the kavanaugh probe. will this little look prove hurtful or helpful to the judge? my answer may surprise you, but that comes at the end of the show. let's start with facts first. let's get after it. all right. i just mentioned the name julie swetnick. you've probably heard it before. that's the judge kavanaugh third accuser. now, she's talking to the press again about her recollections of kavanaugh when under the influence of alcohol years ago. but she is backing away, i would

suggest, from some of her claims. let's bring in michael avenatti, her attorney. counselor, thank you for jumping in the chair. >> how are you? >> it's good to have you. so let's just get right to the meat of the matter. because i know you're here to make the case and you're open to being tested and i appreciate that, because many are not. the thought is, if still true, the fbi has not reached out to her yet, accurate? >> correct. >> okay. the argument for that, among the gop, is, she's in-credible. look at her background. she got jammed up in litigation regarding her employer. yes, it went away, but it showed that she can't be trusted. her boyfriend says she can't be trusted. that it's a credibility thing. swetnick can't be trusted. i said it three times. are any of them impressive to you? >> no, chris, it's ludicrous, first of all. one lawsuit was filed, it was almost immediately dismissed. the claims by her ex-boyfriend -- i mean, who doesn't have an ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend that might say bad things about them. this case was also immediately

thrown out, dismissed. there was no adjudication or determination relating to the validity of any of these claims. but let me back up, okay? last time i checked, it's the fbi's job, it's law enforcement's job to determine whether an allegation is credible. it's not another gatekeeper's job to tell the fbi who is credible or who is telling the truth. but that's what donald trump and the gop, the republican senators on the senate judiciary committee are attempting to pull off here. they want to tell the fbi who should be believed and who should not be believed. that's not how the fbi works. >> yes, you're right, in general. this is a little bit of a tricky situation, because it's not a criminal investigation, where they have subpoena power and all these other things, where what you're saying is 100%. with these judicial nominees, they have a tailored background set of criteria that they go through. and they do take direction from the white house on this. they could still look at whatever they're allowed to.

i don't know whether or not the white house has said, don't look at swetnick, look at other, but the white house has said they're open to anything. >> but chris, shouldn't we know that? shouldn't we be privy -- shouldn't the american people be privy to the communications from the white house -- >> yes. >> -- and the senate judiciary committee to the fbi. >> 100%. >> and if they have interfered in the process, that should tell us something. but we're not talking about that many people that the fbi has to go out and interview. i mean, the fbi has vast resources. you know that and i know that. >> they could interview a thousand people, but they don't believe swetnick. >> well, i don't know that. >> no, not the fbi. i'm saying that the white house believes that she is in-credible. >> or maybe the white house thinks that she is credible. maybe the white house and the republicans on the senate judiciary committee are really concerned about her allegations and they don't want the truth to come out. that is equally likely. i mean, we dent know. >> to be fair, michael, and i would say the same thing if i could interview miss swetnick. the dings on her with the

litigation and with the boyfriend, those are usual impeachable constructs. >> you know what, i disagree. none of that, and chris, you know this, none of that would ever come into evidence in any trial relating to these allegations. >> why not? >> because they would be found to be irrelevant. >> even to impeacher eer her credibility? >> absolutely not. it's a mere allegation. it's not an adjudication that goes to the voracity or truthfulness to her statements under oath. if i tried to bring any of that into evidence before a judge, the judge would say, mr. avenatti, approach the bench, do you have your bar card, because i'm going to take it from you because it's so ludicrous your attempt to bring that into evidence. none of that would come into evidence. >> i'm saying that ordinarily, if you can say, hey, you're saying now in a legal setting, this happened. if a legal setting here, your employer says you weren't being truthful. in a legal setting here, your boyfriend says you're not being tru truthful. >> no, because it was never

adjudicated. never judge ever passed on the validity of these allegations. they were mere allegations. anybody with $600 or 700 or $800 can file a lawsuit and claim any number of things. those cases were dismissed in their fantasy. none of that would ever even come into evidence. it would never be put before a jury or a fact finder, because there was no adjudication or determination as the to whether it was valid or not. >> all right, so that is what they're going to look at in terms of the background. but now present-sense testimony of her testimony, but people just heard of her on msnbc talking about things. what she knows about kavanaugh and what she actually saw him do, it gets a little different. let's play what she said. >> did you see brett kavanaugh, you know, spiking the punch, putting alcohol in the punch? >> well, i saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame and there was green punch at those parties. and i would not take one of those glasses from mark

kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh, excuse me. i saw him around the punch -- i won't say bowls, or the punch containers. i don't know what he did, but i saw him by them, yes. >> now the sworn statement, let's put up, just so that we remind people, obviously, you know. "i became aware of efforts by mark judge, brett kavanaugh and others to spike the punch at house parties that i attended," we'll leave it there. >> can i explain that? >> but i argue that they're different. >> well, what her testimony stated and the declaration, i understand, you are used different, one of her friends informed her of what she just put in the declaration or what was attested to in the declaration. and last night at 10:40 p.m., i had a telephone conversation with a woman who will go unnamed, who lives in florida, who told me directly that mark judge and brett kavanaugh would spike the punch with grain alcohol and quaaludes. >> and she knows it because

she's seen it or she's heard it? >> she knows it because she saw it. and it's about the fifth conversation i've had with her in the last two weeks -- >> will she come forward to the fbi? >> 100%. >> so she's nameless for us, but she would give her name -- >> yes, because she doesn't want to be outed publicly. she is prepared to speak to the fbi. chris, this is what i keep coming back to, okay? we're not talking about a lot of resources to interview my client, the woman in florida, and other witnesses that i'm aware of. we've got to make sure that we get this right as a nation. there's a lot at stake here. it doesn't take a lot for fbis to interview my client and others to get to the truth. if we're interested in a search for the truth. now, if we're interested in some sham investigation, some farce of an investigation, just so we can whitewash it and rtry to tel the american people that we actually did an investigation, that's a different thing, and i think that's where we're at right now. >> let's not set them up. we've got to be careful here.

because it's not fair to the fbi. this is a one-week investigation. that's not a real investigation. >> i'm not critical of the fbi. >> it can't be satisfying to people if that's the parameter, they should talk to everybody, they should chase down every lead. that's what they would normally do in a criminal investigation. but that's not what they're doing here. >> but, chris, i'm critical of the puppet masters. i'm critical of the puppet masters. and the puppet masters are donald trump, mitch mcconnell, and the republican leadership on the senate judiciary committee. they're pulling the strings. they're telling the fbi what to do. >> the senate has a lot of sway here, because technically, they are in charge of this, right? this is this muddled system that we have here, now, because of the timing in part, where the white house is going back to the fbi to check things, but really, it's the senate judiciary that's supposed to do the digging. if grassley makes the determination, we've looked at these, we've looked at swetnick, i don't find her credible, the former litigation, she changes her story, she never says kavanaugh did anything to her,

she heard him do other things, and she said after the fact, i realized that the lines of boys, that's what it was about, she says she contacted the police, but no police report. >> well, we don't know if there's a police report yet. >> they say that it will take a month to find out. >> she said she reported it to the police around the time it happened. >> a policeman that she knew or something like that? >> no, she went down to the precinct and reported it. >> how could a police report like this be filed and they didn't do anything about it? >> you know, i don't know. i have no idea. i have the same question. but look -- >> seems unlikely. and the cop zis dead now that se supposedly talked to. >> you know, 35 years ago, things were handled slightly different. >> but the policeman she has the name of, she says he's deceased. she said she told her mom, her mom is deceased. in the court of public opinion, people will say, is it convenient that everyone she says she talked to is deceased. >> it's not convenient, but many, many years ago she

confided in other witnesses that this had happened. and we have these witnesses and we're prepared to present them to the fbi so that the fbi can go out and interview these witnesses. but i want to go back to something you said. >> please. >> okay. days ago, a week ago the republican leadership on the senate judiciary committee came out immediately after these allegations surfaced and said my client was a liar. immediately. without any investigation. without any fact determination. without hearing from my client. without asking her to testify. without any of this. how would they know, chris? if this was -- if this was about a search for the truth, they wouldn't be so quick to criticize my client and call her a liar. >> it was your attachment that bricked their purpose. >> how do they know? >> several of the senators named you. >> when we made the allegations, guess what? i had done significance due diligence in connection with this before we made the allegations. what had they done before they

called her a liar? you know why? because it's all about politics. >> did you know about the lawsuits? >> i was aware of the lawsuits. >> and you weren't -- i'm not at all worried about it. look, a lot of people get sued for a lot of different things. it doesn't mean, all because somebody files a lawsuit, it doesn't mean there's any credibility to it, at all. anybody can file a lawsuit. it's about the adjudication. if a jury had found that she had lied, if a judge had found that she had lied, that would be a different scenario. both of those lawsuits were dismissed. >> why is she relevant in a discussion of what brett kavanaugh did? he did not, from her own reckoning, touch her in any way that was wrong. she never saw him touch anyone. >> no, that's wrong. that's wrong.paragraphs, i think it's 7 and 8 of the declaration, she talks about how aggressive brett kavanaugh and mark judge were at numerous parties. pushing up against women, grinding against women. i believe she testified in the interview about pushing women against walls, being overly aggressive, especially under the influence of alcohol. and let me say this, chris --

>> i don't give her full credit, by the way, just so you know, because of what i heard tonight on tv, it seemed to be more of a characterization of a group dynamic than really pointing the finger at brett kavanaugh directly, as we saw with the red solo cup versus knowledge of spiking the punch. >> so i disagree, because she has a firm recollection of specific conduct by brett kavanaugh and mark judge. and let me also say this. brett kavanaugh, in my opinion, with has zero credibility. this man is an absolute liar. he's lied about big things and he's lied about small things. if you saw that fox news interview -- >> what big things? >> if you look at the fox news interview of a week ago, where he talks about his high school experiences, did you believe that interview? i didn't believe the interview. >> t is >> is it material? if he lied about his partying, is it material? >> i think it is. because the man is supposedly under oath at points in time, testifying with his right hand raised to the senate judiciary committee -- >> right. >> why is he lying about these things? i mean, why does -- >> because he doesn't want to be

framed for conduct that he knows is untrue. and he feels if he says i drank a lot, people will say, well, then, maybe you were drunk and that's why you're denying this? >> chris, if you asked me and someone asked me, did you drink too much in high school? yeah, i drank, i was a high school student. did you pass out. did you do that? >> absolutely. and then i say, michael, that's why you don't know whether or not ford is correct. because you drank so much, just at parties like this, you passed out so often that it can be true, judge kavanaugh, that ford is write and you don't remember. >> right. >> and he didn't want to give them that. >> i agree with you, but this guy has lied repeatedly throughout the process. fox news, the senate judiciary committee. he is not a genuine person, he is lying repeatedly about drinking too much. i mean, let me get this straight. all of these women are liars. his friends from yale law school, they're liars. the only person that's telling

truth, only person that's telling the truth is brett kavanaugh. >> i think the only thing we have to separate is lying about what -- and i know we all say, we all teach our kids, all lies are bad. but they're not all equal. and it has to be a material misrepresentation. and it's for the senators to decide. but i'll tell you what. conversations like this, access to your client, and what she's going to be table to offer, very helpful. >> she has offered to take a polygraph exam. she's offered to meet with the fbi. she's offered to be cross-examined by brett kavanaugh's attorney, as long as he will be cross-examined by me. >> not going to happen. >> never going to happen. >> but she's offered all of these things. women that are lying, that are making things up, they don't agree to sit down with fbi agents. >> i hear you and i am very slow to go at somebody making an accusation, but we have to test them. that's the job. she is welcome to the chair you are in wherever she wants it. >> appreciate it. >> michael avenatti, appreciate it. so truth. that has become a national obsession here, not just politically, but now as practical matter. who is telling the truth and how

much does it matter? vexing questions for the senators and for you in judging their votes. we have more on judge kavanaugh's credibility ahead with a man who says he knows the truth about brett kavanaugh and, in fact, he is central to a new report that just came out from "the new york times" about a police report, both next. (door bell rings) it's open! hey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there,

i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible. so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall.

or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com but let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance. which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.

so you'll remember it. the more you know ththe commute is worth it., you and that john deere tractor, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive, but just like a john deere, it's worth it. onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46... how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering. a new report from "the new

york times" says nah brett kavanaugh, in fact, did drink to excess and was belligerent when he did so. the proof, a police report that outlines both aspects of ingredients in a nasty bar fight back in college in a place that i knew all too well. but a report like that needs context, right? anybody there decades later, how are we going to prove that? guess what? chad luddington, he was there in the bar, part of the incident. and i just spoke to him minutes ago. he happens to be the same chad luddington that came forward before this report came out about the police action to say brett kavanaugh was not the man he explained to the senators, under oath. chad luddington, thank you for joi joining us on prime-time. let's start with news. there is a report out there that brett kavanaugh is named in a police report about an incident that stemmed from drinking and being angry out one night.

do you know anything about this report? >> yes, i do. in fact, i know a great deal about this report. >> tell me. >> well, it all began -- that evening began -- in fact, i know the date now, i've found it in "the heaartford currant," a program guide for september, 1985, and chris dudley and brett kavanaugh and i went to a ub-40 concert. they were a popular reggae band in the 1980s. in any event, at something called the palace theater. it was a wednesday night, so it was sort of an odd night to be going out, but the concert was a good one. so after the concert, we went to a bar called demory's. and we were drinking and -- i assume beer, but, um -- and at

some point, we looked over at this fellow who looked very similar to the lead singer of ub-40 wit ub-40, a guy named ali campbell. we were giving him the eye, looking hat this guy, is that really him? could he be here? if so, we'll introduce ourselves and say great show and maybe share a beer him or whatever. is a and, well, he saw us looking at him and didn't like the fact that we were looking at him. so he said something like, you know, what the hell are you looking at? and i said, oh, we just thought you were the lead singer of ub-40. and he said something fairly aggressive, frankly, you know, i'm not and screw off or something to that degree. and at that point, brett took

umbrage at this and threw his beer at the guy. i actually now found out from the report that it wasn't beer, that i had mis-remembered, that it was ice cubes in whatever the drink was that he was drinking. i guess we weren't drinking water, so it must have been some sort of mixed drink. and, well, the fellow -- well, brett said, up, pub you, or something to that effect, and threw the ice at the guy, and the guy, even though he had been aggressive in his response, thought that was a step too far. so he took a step at brett and then they were two guys fighting and that was all pretty quick. and sat one point, chris dudley, who had his drink in his hand proceeded to smash it up against the guy's head.

well, the melee went on very briefly. i don't know what brett was doing, exactly, but i was pulling -- i was pulling -- um -- sorry. i was pulling chris back and someone else was pulling the other guy back and next thing you know, there's some shouting and, um, i don't know how many minutes it was. it wasn't very many at all, frankly, the police show up. and they look around and ask questions about, you know, who did what and clearly the big mistake had been, the smashing of the glass against the guy's head. so chris was put in a squad car and taken down to jail. but brett was questioned and i was questioned and i forget

exactly how the sequence turned out, or the sequence from there, but i then called the coach and the coach went down to the station and picked up chris, b yub, you know, an hour or two later and that was that. >> do you believe brett kavanaugh lied to congress in a material way? >> yes. i believe that he lied and distorted and dissembled to the senate judiciary committee. >> how? >> he obviously said that he -- he obviously acknowledged drinking beer and beer and beer, but he also -- so he did say on occasion that i had too much and others had too much, but for me, he never acknowledged that that he -- that he got to the point that he might not actually

remember something. and i find that very hard to believe, frankly. imp i find that impossible to believe, matter. >> should it matter? >> you know, that's not entirely up to me to decide, but i don't think that getting drunk in your college years should matter, no. i wouldn't be sitting here with a coat and tie on, probably, if that was going to restrict, you know, what happens to us the rest of our lives. but i do believe that it's fundamentally wrong, indeed, illegal to lie in front of the senate judiciary committee. >> did the fbi reach out to you? >> yes. at the end of today, about 5:00, a form showed up in my inbox, that said that, you know, requested that i fill out the

form with my testimony. and so my understanding from here is that i fill it out later tonight, telling the stories that i just told you and, well, they either call me in or they don't, but i'm happy to give that on oath. and as i said, i'm not certain of all the different words that were said and, you know, between people to start that fight, but the general tenor, i know, absolutely -- >> let's talk about that for a second. you say this is the one specific example, which is obviously bolstered by the fact that it's in the news right now with an alleged report from the police, recounting the same event as you remember it. can you think of any other occasions where brett kavanaugh was drunk to the point where he probably couldn't have remembered was going on or was

belligerent or was tough on women? >> well, remember, chris, i was probably drinking, too, much of that time and it was a long time ago, but -- and i've all said, it's not something i'm judging, but given that we're -- the whole claim is that that was never the case, i would say i have some sort of picture images of brett in a bar called rudy's that was, oh, i forget the name of the street, but it was a popular late-night watering hole for, um, for many men, hard-drinking yale men. and women, too. what i have is many memories of, of brett -- and again, many of them jovial and laugh iing, but also many aggressive, too. so it's not as if it was all,

you know, anger and, you know, and fisticuffs. it was -- you know, there was the good and the bad. but there was definitely some aggression, some aggression that did come out, quite often when brett was drunk. >> you don't remember him ever doing anything that was wrong with women, do you? >> no. i have no recollection of anything like that. i can't comment to any of that. and in my statement, that i put out yesterday, and in what i've -- the draft i have for the fbi has nothing to do with women. >> before the lying about his drinking and his habits in school, did you believe that brett kavanaugh was a good choice for the supreme court? >> well, there, too, you know, i can't deny that many of his political views are not the ones

that i hold. but i'm also the kind of person who believes that elections have consequences. and donald trump won the election, republicans won. and despite the fact they completely disagree with what happened with merrick garland, that's certainly not brett's fault. >> all right, chad. this is very helpful, especially right now. we'll see what the week brings, but it's very important to paint an accurate picture of the nominee for the supreme court. thank you for helping us. >> well, my pleasure. my pleasure. >> chad luddington. we led him tell the whole story. you know why? details count. when somebody says they were there, you want to hear everything that they remember. again, an isolated event decades ago, but this all matters right now and there are a lot of people kind of telling parts of the truth. but go online and google the

police report that the "new york times" has and take a look at how squarely it lines up with what lud iigton just told you. so there's this central occupation right now of trying to determine, discern how much and how much it matters, whether or not kavanaugh told the truth about his habits. well, he was under oath. well, does that make it perjury? maybe. should it matter? maybe. both are debatable. and we will have that great debate about both, next.

when i was shopping fothe choice was easy. i switched to geico and saved hundreds. excuse me... winner! that's a win. but it's not the only reason i switched. hi! geico has licensed agents who i can reach 24/7. great savings and round the clock service? now that's a win-win. winner. winner. yay me! oh, hi! good luck. switch to geico®. it's a win-win.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

if judge kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nomination's over? >> oh, yes. >> i'm going to give you the eyebrows facedown? really? interesting to hear the senators do that. why? because are all lies equal? i know we tell our kids they are. but in this setting, a material misrepresentation of fact. does this qualify? now, if it turns out that kavanaugh did lie under oath, the trouble for senators who you be, now, do i trust anything that he said? well, that's not a legal standard. yes, it is. so, it's certainly up for debate. and we're going to do that right now. jennifer granholm and rick santorum. let's start with this vexing question for senators. if they are going to obsess on credibility, because you have jurispruden jurisprudence, you have judicial

philosophy, you have a lot of things you can base your decision on. but if it's abiliout credibilit jennifer, is lying about his habits in high school and college a material misrepresentation of fact? >> it's a really great question, chris. you talk about the legal standard, and there is that jury instruction, which everybody has been told about by now, false in uno, false in omnibus, if you lie in one thing, you can discount the credibility in other things. lie in something small, you can lie in something big. so if it's found out that his acquaintances in high school didn't say that devil's triangle is a drinking game within a triangle, you know, is that big enough? you know, probably not, right? if it's that, you know, ralphing doesn't mean an upset stomach because of spicy food, but something else, is it a problem if he says he doesn't know or he doesn't -- he didn't say, he asserted that he was old enough to drink and he wasn't.

you know, now you start to see a sort of pile-on of different kind of mischaracterizations and lies. and then you throw in how he characterized himself in the drinking and then he says, well, i never went to a party like the one that dr. ford described. and there on his calendar is the very kind of party that she described. so how many of these sort of steam roll into something. >> well, is it how many or is it about the nature? is it the number or the nature? rick, let me bounce this to you, jen, so i can get everybody in here. the idea of if he's lying about anything in this context, short of his actions toward the women who were making the accusations, do you think that that is not disqualifying, rick? >> well, look, first off, i don't know how you're going to prove that he's, quote, lying about something. this is -- he said that he drank. he said that he drank to excess at times. that he was drunk at times. he admitted to that. the only thing he did not admit

to was blacking out and not recalling things. and you know, he has his college roommate basically, you know, saying, you know, i've lived with this guy for three years and i never saw him in this position with the next day he couldn't tell what was going on. >> that's true and chris dudley also said he never saw him blackout. i don't know that the blackout standard is the sole criterion. >> he admitted that he got drunk, but he didn't really admit it anymore than he needed to. i think it's fair criticism to say that he was not talking about himself the way his classmates talk about him. the question is, does it matter? >> well, again, i don't think -- i don't see where -- does he have to go out and say, oh, yeah, i got hammered all the time? >> well, the fox interview who calls out when it happened, as a mistake, and not because it was with fox folk. it's because he sat across from a friendly face and painted a perfect picture of himself. church and social projects for

me. i was 18, i could have a beer here and there. we drank beer, but maybe have one too many, he was not talking about himself the way other people talk about him. but jennifer, so what. >> that's a characterization, that's not a lie. >> why are all of these people coming forward who went to school with him and saying they're lying about who he was. people who call him a friend. >> and many, many more are coming and saying that the brett kavanaugh they know is exactly consistent with what he's saying. >> no, not many, many more. >> yeah, yeah. 65 women signed a document saying this was all a bunch of -- that that's not brett kavanaugh. >> but just because they weren't there doesn't mean it didn't happen. >> it's not they weren't there -- these are tight nigt communi ing -- tight-knit communities. they came forward to vouch about his character. you're parsing and i get why. >> i'm not parsing. >> you are parsing. you're saying all of these people came out to say what the other person is untrue, but none of them said that.

and on the issue of his credibility about his drinking, he is sober 100% of the time and he only drink a little bit too much once in a while, that's not true. they don't offset. jennifer, what's your point? >> i was just going to say, when i was governor, i appointed scores of judges. and if there ever was three sworn allegations of sexual assault or harassment, plus or separate from that, any allegations of drinking and belligerence, et cetera, or allegations of intemperance, i think -- i know those would have been disqualifiers. i would not have appointed somebody -- >> so jennifer, you would disqualify someone from three n uncorroborates allegations -- >> you say they're unkoesht uncorroborated. they are specifically corroborated. >> do we have to go over this again? dr. ford to go a polygraph. so in court, when you're a prosecutor, you use polygraphs

to assess the credibility -- >> we don't. >> this is not a court, but i'm telling you, polygraphs are used all the time to assess the credibility -- >> and the validity of them is very suspect, as you know. >> well, the fbi and law enforcement use them all the time. i'm just saying that there are a lot of additional ancillary corroborating pieces of evidence. and rick, let me just say this, too. >> where?! >> we have a woman that gets up there and takes an oath and who comes across to most people as incredibly credible. i'm not sure that's the right thing to say, but amazingly krebl. a -- credible. and when you look at how women view this, it's a dangerous thing. >> let me finish, finish -- >> let me finish. >> i will give -- >> i'm running out of time. jennifer, you finish your point and rick, you get the last word. calm down. >> it's equally dangerous for

every woman -- >> rick, hold on. we're going to do this right. jennifer, finish your point, rick, you get the last word. >> there was a quinnipiac poll that was out today that tested the credibility among especially this group of people. white college-educated women. women believed her and did not want him to be confirmed. >> all right. >> they didn't want him to be confirmed by 24 points and they believed her by 30 points! this is a dangerous thing for politics, in addition to the judiciary and the credibility of the court. >> i would just say, first off, it's equally -- in fact, it's more dangerous to have a situation where someone who makes an accusation that's uncorroborated is believed -- >> but it is -- >> because we have a system that he protects the accused, so one innocent person doesn't go to jail. we have lots of things in place to make sure innocent people -- >> sexual assault is never done usually with another person in the room. >> as far as your poll is concerned, i suspect if you ran that poll and you looked at whether those women were favorable or unfavorable of

trump, you would have equal numbers. so i think a lot of this has to do with the politics that's being played here. >> this is a huge majority of people. i didn't look -- >> talking about college-educated women, 30%, i guarantee you the same number opposes trump. >> i've got to leave it there because of time. rick, i don't mind to come you have a s a scold of you, you're always welcome to give your opinions, but i want to keep it apples to apples. thank you both, jennifer granholm, rick santorum. so who wants to delay the process? democrats want to delay the process, fair criticism. but they're not the only ones. we have a top republican who says it is in the best interest of the country to do so. why? you just heard that debate, rig right? we're not exactly in a good place on this. governor john kasich is here to talk about where he thinks this is headed and what we need to do better, next.

♪ not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here.

a second conservative supreme court justice. that is music to conservatives' ears, republicans' ears. it was a huge selling point in the midterms. it was a huge selling point in the presidential race. in fact, many might argue it is exactly why real conservatives who share very, very, very little with president trump excuse so much that he says and does. why? judges. but even before we know what the fbi finds, the kavanaugh confirmation process is not sitting well with voters. let's dive into where this leaves the gop with ohio governor john kasich. governor, it's good to have you. you understand the matchination. you understand this. what is your take where on the end of this week, we will have a moment of clarity where the senators can say, oh, now i know. now i can do this. >> chris, i guess it was a day

before the hearing, i asked for a full and complete investigation. i think it was important, very concerned about the testimony of a woman. that had need to be listened to. there was without any question about it. and i thought it made sense to slow down. and it turns out, that's where the senate went when they were in that hearing. when i look at things now as to what you believe or what i believe or what somebody else out here believes, we're not getting very far on this. and i don't know what's going to happen when the fbi comes in, but here's my observations and the lessons we're learning. chris, we are in a zero-sum game. it's like the flip of a coin. i flip the coin, heads i win, tails, you lose. or you flip the coin and you got heads, you win and i lose. you can't run politics, you can't run life in a zero-gain environment. and so it's like when you're in that environment, all the

tactics are permitted. you can say anything about anybody, because it's all about me winning and you losing. we can't live our lives that way. and then we get to our tongues, you know, our tongues, which one person wrote, i think it was even in the skcripture, that th tongue is more powerful than a rudder on a ship. and we use this tongue as a weapon and we use social media now as a weapon, almost a virtual tongue to say things that we end up turning around, we apologize to our spouses, we apologize to our friends, we apologize to our business partners and guess what? sometimes we can't heal it. and we have got to all wake up, that i don't have to win and you have to lose. you know, we can all have some victories. >> how does that work in the confirmation process? kavanaugh is going to be a win for some and a lose for others. >> well, we have to think about what we're learning from this. now, we had, gorsuch was confirmed, but we have to learn, why did that work? why is this not working? and why can't we have a process?

was i was in the congress for 18 years when we did so many things, including the fights to balance a budget after a government shutdown. we got to the point where we could figure out, yeah, i might have a lot, but you're going to get something. i ran a budget committee. you know, it was a very partisan committee, but i would tell the people in my country, you've got to give them something. we can't win everything. that doesn't work. i learned about pressure cookers when i was a kid. i said to my mother, when you make those potatoes, why does that thing whistle. she said, johnny, if it doesn't whistle and blow off steam, it will all explode. we're about to see the explosion and what we are seeing in some sense the explosion of american politics. i hope people will listen to me and think about, it doesn't have to be win and loss. there are ways in which we can get these things fixed. i think the investigation might have been a little bit of that, right? let's -- ebody said, okay, - >> political we, it was. flake did a brave thing. he can say now on "60 minutes," well, i'm going to be out of office.

if i was staying in, i could have never done that. he and chris coons worked together. there was no reason for grassley to be accommodative unless flake says, i won't give you my vote in committee. it was something done to spite a vantage. >> think of the tactics. right now because of i win and you lose, i can do and then if i don't say it to your face, i can say it on social media. who's winning on this? >> nobody. >> we're not teaching our kids this. we teach our kids, you win at all costs. the ryder cup was on over the weekend. you know what everybody liked? each team giving each other a hug. >> right. >> you know, you play as hard as you can and you show respect for somebody because when you've backed them into a corner, whether it's a human being or whether it's an animal, you learn you back somebody into a corner, and they'll strike at you. and this is not the way we want to live in america, and this is just -- this is like the top of the hill from everything we've been seeing in that town for a very, very long time. and we see it in a lot of parts of life too. >> what i don't like about it,

i'll tell you what. i'm running out of time here, but this is what i don't like. no matter how this comes out, everybody's hurt. >> everybody loses in this. >> the allegation is going to go unsatisfied. some people will believe professor ford or maybe ms. ramirez, whichever allegation they decide. and what if they're not true? and what if there wasn't a proper vetting done that would have cleared judge kavanaugh or at least in a way that let people know it can't be corroborated. and he's not going to get that clarity either. there will be a stain on him and that's the concern. >> the question is will somebody on that committee from both the democratic side and the republican side -- will they have the guts to say, i think we can just move forward here? you know, it's not everything i wanted, but can we move forward? and we'll see if we have any heroes in that regard. >> well, we'll see. >> it could be a start of healing, but then again, where we are with this, i got to win and you got to lose, it makes it very difficult. >> well, that's the hope that we saw with flake and coons.

we'll see what we get here at the end of the week. let's not forget there's a big cheerleader banging the pom poms together for exactly this type of divisiveness, and it's the president of the united states. governor, thank you for being with us. we got to talk nafta. it matters. you're welcome back to do exactly that once we get through -- >> i know. all of this. >> this vexing situation. all right. let's go back to this key question we've been asking tonight. if the judge lied to senators on thursday as some of his classmates allege, did he commit perjury? would he be held accountable if we were in a court of law? should it matter? that's the closing argument, next. how can we say when you book direct at choicehotels.com you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl?

lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com janice, mom told me you bought a house. okay. [ buttons clicking ] [ camera shutter clicks ] so, now that you have a house, you can use homequote explorer. quiet. i'm blasting my quads. janice, look. i'm in a meeting. -janice, look. -[ chuckles ] -look, look. -i'm looking. it's easy. you just answer some simple questions online, and you get coverage options to choose from. you're ruining my workout. cycling is my passion.

you're ruining my workout. this is frank. sup! this is frank's favorite record. this is frank's dog. and this is frank's record shop. frank knowns northern soul, but how to set up a limited liability company... what's that mean? not so much. so he turned to his friends at legalzoom. yup! they hooked me up. we helped with his llc, contracts, and some other stuff that's part of running a business.

so frank can focus on the beat. you hear that? this is frank's record shop. and this is where life meets legal. the more you know ththe commute is worth it., you and that john deere tractor, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive, but just like a john deere, it's worth it. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. meet the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our fall mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. ♪ with venus, you're in charge of how your skin feels.

so, when the world expects you to follow the rules, write your own. ♪ because no one gets an opinion on how you live your life, why you shave, or how you show your skin. my skin. my way. ♪ does it matter? that's the question facing judge kavanaugh on all these credibility issues. now, look, i'm open to being wrong, and it would be really nice if the fbi could provide clarity in a situation that is certainly cloudy. but assuming arguendo that the senators can't judge if the ford and ramirez or any other allegations are credible and well corroborated, how do they judge kavanaugh when it comes to credibility? now, first, i don't believe that this is about how much brett

kavanaugh drank in high school or college. i don't see that as a relevant, moral play here. in fact, i think it's silly. i went to the same university by the way, and the stories about kavanaugh are as unimpressive as they are familiar. so let's put that to the side. the problem for the judge is whether he -- let me put it the right way. it's whether or not he compromised confidence in him to administer and hold people to the same oath that maybe he abandoned and did so out of convenience. swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a weighty matter of discernment by the same robed folk that kavanaugh seems to think he should join. there was plenty in his pedigree and judicial record to parse. there were answers about his writings and his opinions to scrutinize, but that was all par for the course in this confounding confirmation process that's all about hiding from scrutiny. but that's not kavanaugh's fault. that's the process that he's in.

those are the rules that are allowed. so let's move past that meaty stuff that they should be basing this on and now go to what has become new with kavanaugh that we didn't see with gorsuch. the extent to which a senator is going to judge kavanaugh on the basis of credibility. central, did he lie, and does it matter? well, did he lie? i'm going to leave that to you and the senators. let me go a step further about a consideration for you on that matter. why would he lie? okay. the answer, to look better. to deny his critics a reasonable basis for questioning his denial of the ford allegation. how so? by suggesting that he may not remember because of being drunk off his ass once again. now, i told you early last week that the test for kavanaugh would not be what others say about him, but what he says about himself. that was clear because the allegations are not. i knew that that's an unsatisfying setting. i knew they weren't going to do

the real investigation. we all did. so how would the allegation be corroborated in that setting when you're only setting it up for a he shade/she said. it was set up to be unsatisfying. that's why brett kavanaugh took the unprecedented step of going on fox and painting a perfect picture of himself before a friendly face. and by doing so, he painted himself into a corner that he has spent every moment since then trying to get out of. the proof? many who have known him and may have thought he was a fine choice for the supreme court heard him say things in that interview and then under oath that bothered them because they know differently. now, in a court of law, would he be found guilty of perjury? a 1001 violation for lying to a federal officer. the senators count as that. i don't know. is it a material misrepresentation of fact? what about if it were a big race, an election? look at the president. look at the standard. look at the disaffection. lying is taken as forgiven.

it's granted. it's assumed. all right. but we are not in a court of law. this is not a political contest. this is a job interview to become a member of the paragon of integrity in our society. so where does that leave the senators? does any lie matter? do repeated lies matter? how about lies shouted with blij rens and disrespect to senators? how about lies cloaked in spurious political rationales like the clintons did it to cover for what he was covering? those could be relevant considerations, and those are for the senators. let's hope that their decision is made more easy by what the fbi finds out, but we will track it every night. cnn tonight with don lemon starts right now. what do you think? >> you know what i think? i think if you -- and i've said this to you before. if you lie about the small things, imagine what you're going to do about the big things. >>