good evening. thanks for joining us. another person has come forward and said that judge brett kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth when he last testified about his drinking habits. the backdrop is the clock that's ticking down on whether kavanaugh will be on the supreme court for life. there's been questions to the extent of the investigation that's going on. and thn hcnn that learned that republican senators have called the white house over the past 24 hours to let it be known they expect a real investigation.

the fbi agents are not limited in their expanded background investigation. that contradicts what chris coons said. he came away with the impression that fbi agents would not interview additional people beyond the witnesses that were actually listed by the white house. he said he told mcgahn that's not credible. that they can't interview new names that come up in the course of investigation. now, the reporting today, the white house isn't limiting the investigation. presumably meaning that fbi agents can and will find out that multiple people who knew brett kavanaugh say he wasn't truthful in his testimony to the senate judigtsia senate judiciary committee. i mentioned another one has come forward. kavanaugh's former yale classmate says kavanaugh was staggering drunk and belligerent and aggressive. he made a statement a short time ago. here is part of what he said. >> i do not believe in heavy drinking or even loudish behavior of an 18 or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. i would be a hypocrite to think

so. however, i have director repeated knowledge about brett's drinking, his disposition while drunk. and i believe brett's actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. if he lied about his past actions on national television and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the united states senate, i believe those lies should have consequences. >> that former classmate says he thought it was his civic duty to come forward and he's been in contact with the fbi. it isn't just him. another classmate, liz swisher, has said that brett kavanaugh was a sloppy drunk. his freshman year roommate said he was a heavy drinker even by the standards of the time. he made the statement last monday before the kavanaugh hearing but after deborah ramirez allegations. the most serious allegation comes from dr. christine blasey ford. the question isn't so much did brett kavanaugh drink a lot in high school and college but did he lie about it in front of the

senate judiciary committee. today cnn's katelyn collins asked the president about that. >> there are now 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? >> well, i watched him. i was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact he likes beer, and he's had a little bit of difficulty. i mean he talked about things that happened when he drank. i mean, this is not a man that said that alcohol was -- that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. no, i thought he was actually going back so many years -- i thought he was excellent. >> keeping them honest, that's actually a mischaracterization of brett kavanaugh's testimony about drinking. he never said he had no difficulty with alcohol. the president did get one thing right. kavanaugh was indeed very vocal

about how much he liked beer. but he tried over and over again to down-play it that it was something teenagers do, not a problem and certainly not black outs. >> i drank beer with my friends. almost everyone did. sometimes i had too many beers, i liked beer. i still like beer. but i did not drink beer to the point of blacking out. we drank beer, my friends and i, boys and girls. yes, we drank beer. we liked beer. still like beer. >> headline, he likes beer. no mention of having as the president said, coat, a little bit of difficulty with alcohol. also we should point out, no mention of whether or not he drank any other kind of alcohol. after the president was asked about whether lying would disqualify a nominee, he went onto talk about senator blumenthal's about his m mischaracterization of vietnam, did a lengthy criticism of senator feinstein. what he didn't do was answer the

question, so our katelyn collins tried again. >> you didn't answer my question, mr. president. so if he did lie about his drinking -- >> i don't think he did. >> still didn't answer the question. now many people who knew brett kavanaugh publicly indicating he did just that. it is after all a possibility if you're blackout drunk you can't remember all or part of what you did, that's the significance of it. senator amy globe char tried to get at that at last week's hearing. >> you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened? >> you're asking, yes, about blackout. i don't know. have you? >> could you answer the question, judge? so to you that's not happened, is that your answer? >> yeah, and i'm curious if you have. >> i have no drinking problem, judge. >> nor do i. >> the defensiveness and the disrespect, and not the issue,

although kavanaugh came back after a break and apologized for that, the issue of course is potential lying. if he lied under oath before the senate judiciary committee, should he be on the supreme court? now, the president doesn't seem to think he lied, period. but it won't be up to him to decide. when it comes down to it it's down to three republican senators. >> if judge kavanaugh is shown to have lied to the committee, nomination's over? >> oh, yes. >> joining me now cnn white house correspondent katelyn collins, you saw a moment ago. so i understand two people have come forward now to counterclaims about kavanaugh's alleged heavy drinking. >> reporter: that's right, anderson. two people who were also classmates of kavanaugh's at yale. that was that other man who said he did see judge kavanaugh drink so much he would experience memory loss. one of these two who has come forward issued a statement said

he lived with brett kavanaugh and he was his suite mate at yale, and he never saw brett kavanaugh, even though he was the one who came home with him at the end of the night, that he never saw him come home so drunk that he wouldn't be able to misremember something. they're saying we know him better, and we actually know that this is not the way he drank. this isn't how we would characterize it. although they did say he did drink, they're saying they didn't drink as much as being characterized now. of course you saw the president today saying brett kavanaugh described a drinking problem, having difficulty with it when he testified. that's not likely what brett kavanaugh take away from his testimony when he tried to down-play it, and essentially saying he was doing what everyone else in college was doing as well. >> do we know what the white house sees these questions about kavanaugh drinking or the lies

about it as a real potential to the nomination? >> it does seem they're seeing it as a problem, and a lot of it starts with president trump who made clear today he himself doesn't drink. he turned a question from me about whether or not he thinks it would be a problem if brett kavanaugh has a problem with drinking, into an answer about his own sobriety. but that wasn't a question or answer about whether or not they would pull his nomination if he did lie. no one is saying if he did drink, if he did sexually assault christine blase ford, but they're saying maybe he had memory loss about it. it's something he's expressed displeasure with before in the past, and you saw the president therefore before, anderson, at first refusing to take questions on brett kavanaugh making clear he's starting to get frustrated with this entire process. not just the senate democrats raising questions but also senate majority leader mitch

mcconnell and republicans because this is being so drawn out. so anderson, he did leave some room today to potentially withdraw this nomination if it came down to it or to distance himself from it if it comes to the point where people like susan collins, lisa murkowski, and jeff flake show they're not going to vote for brett kavanaugh. tonight there's yet another news story out there from kavanaugh's yale days about an altercation in a bar that was investigated by the police. ben potus joins me now on the phone. ben, can you walk us through your reporting, what you can tell us about this alleged bar fight in 1985 involving judge kavanaugh. >> basically he was hanging out in the bar and the police were called after a man they got into an argument with had to go to the hospital because he was bleeding from the right ear. it appears mr. kavanaugh didn't cause that incident himself, but he apparently at one point did

throw ice on that man. reportedly in a larger kind of scrum that they were in. and there was an eyewitness who identified the other people who were involved in the incident and they all simply parted, mr. kavanaugh's group of friends from yale. >> so my understanding is kavanaugh and his friends were staring at this man at a bar thinking he might be one of the performers from u-b 40, a band at the time. and the person got annoyed he was being stared at, and that's how this began? >> that's what we know from what chad has said. he was on the basketball team and was an eyewitness to this. the police report doesn't make clear the back story, the first i instigation was mr. kavanaugh throwing ice on this person and

this led to -- >> hitting the man at the bar not brett kavanaugh. >> correct. mr. kavanaugh was not a victim in the fight, correct. >> so someone in kavanaugh's group allegedly hit this person with a glass? >> that's correct. threw a glass and the glass hit him in the right ear and the person started bleeding. the police were called and the victim went to the hospital, correct. >> is there any indication about alcohol being involved in this? >> well, it was a bar and it was the -- >> this was at demries in new haven. >> correct. demries in new haven. and the report reflects the detective was called around 1:20 a.m., so it was after this concert. so, you know, it's unclear definitively how much drinking was involved. but it involved mr. ludington's telling of it there was alcohol involved and the police report makes reference to memories and sorts of the night of the drinking. >> it's sort of hard to imagine

you're hanging out at demries past midnight and you're not drinking. >> right. and, you know, the glass that was thrown described in the police report was a tall collins glass, and then mr. ludington described mr. kavanaugh actually throwing beer, not ice. there's a little bit of confusion there whether beer or ice was thrown. but definitely alcohol was involved in some way. >> has kavanaugh made any comment about this? >> we contacted the white house a few hours ago and so far all we can get from them is that he was not arrested, and we're seeking additional comment. we're waiting to hear back from them. but so far we don't have anything further. >> vaben, i appreciate your reporting. thanks so much. jeff, first of all, what do you make about this latest "the new york times" reporting about this bar altercation he was

questioned about at the time? >> it's certainly not proof either of itself that either kavanaugh did anything wrong at the time or he was drunk. but it certainly fits with the pattern of what several witnesses are saying is that he was someone around alcohol a lot when he was an under graduate. that doesn't mean he lied in his testimony before the judiciary committee. but it also suggests that a thorough investigation of whether he lied would take some time. and there are going to be people you are going to want to identify and interview if you really care about whether he told the truth. >> carry, as a support of the judge, i'm wondering does this bar incident worry you at all and other former classmates who said he was a sloppy drunk and seen him staggering and the like? >> look, i think leader mcconnell put it really well today. said if you listen carefully you can almost see the goal posts moving. first they said we need a heavy hearing, they got a hearing and

they said, no, no, no, we need the fbi to investigation. and now they're investigate. and now they're trying to figure out can they do something else. we're talking about a friend of his hit someone in a bar 30 years ago and questioning now whether we should launch a whole new investigation into his testimony? i mean, his testimony was pretty clear. he was like i drank beer. he says he drank too much beer sometimes. he just said i didn't blackout -- >> do you believe a college kid only drinks beer? that that's the only think they drink? >> you know, i have no idea. i didn't drink a lot in college. but he didn't say he only drank beer either. it's getting ridiculous. guys, how would this be really v relevant? there are these allegation, they've looked into these allegations and they are not corroborated. so people are trying to drum up

all sorts of other angles they can go here. that is simply not relevant. it's not contradicting his testimony. the only way it would be relevant if he had perjured himself, which he clearly did not do. so this is just another desperation taemt. i think we need to stop the attempt at delays. let's move forward with his nomination. if you disagree with his judicial fphilosophy, by all means vote against him. >> i don't think it's difficult at all. you have a witness -- the judge who says he did not commit sexual assault and he didn't drink all that much. now, the question is did he commit -- >> he didn't say that. he said he drank too much at times. >> that's right. and i don't think what mr. ludington said today proves that -- that judge kavanaugh lied under oath. i really don't. i don't think they are entirely contradictory. however, if you look at all the

statements that are out there, it certainly suggests that more investigation is appropriate about whether sexual assaults took place and whether he lied about his drinking. none of which is proven. but this -- you know, the fbi investigation has now been going on for about 48 hours. he is going to serve perhaps for 48 years. why is it necessary to shutdown the investigation right now? this idea that this is some horrendous delay and the supreme court can't function, i mean you of all people, carrie, who was wildly supportive of keeping the merit garland seat open for a year i think could understand maybe it's appropriate to spend somewhat more than a week on this investigation. >> well, it was not my idea to spend a week. it was senator tunes who said can we just get a week delay. you had democrats saying why are you pretending this is going to

take such a long time. it's not going to take so long. and immediately after he says, okay, you've got your week, senator tunes, you've got your week, oh, wait a week is not nearly enough. guys, you can't keep moving the goal posts like this. let's look into the allegations that are out there. this is not supposed to be a government funded fishing expedition but analyzing the information out there. you can't keep moving the target -- >> that's right. he has three women who accuse him of sexual assault, a very serious crime. perhaps it takes -- >> and they're looking into those. >> let me finish. perhaps it takes more than a week to investigate whether that's true. >> let me ask you carrie, they interview the principle people they setout to interview and then in this case ms. ramirez

has apparently given them a list of people who she says were there, who heard about it, who she told about it. should the fbi as part of this investigation, background investigation only talk to ms. ramirez or only talk to the people, names she's given them? >> i'm sure they're talking to all of them. that would be the logical steps. i'm sure they're doing that. but even pointing out what the fbi does, one of the specific things they do look for is they asked the people from every range in life, including college, including law school, the same periods we're talking about saying is this someone who's had a substance abuse problems, have you seen them drink too heavily? i've answered these questions for people. six different times he passed. higher than top secret level. if he had some crazy history of alcoholism back there, by goodness sake, the fbi would have found out. >> but to our knowledge the fbi

didn't find out that a police report with his name on it was at the new haven police department. >> well, now they do. and i think it didn't shed too much light on it. his friend hit his friend with a cup -- >> a glass. >> that doesn't actually shed a lot of light on -- they aren't doing fbi background investigations of all of his friends. >> and professor ford had not come forward at that point for her own reasons. o that fact that is investigated -- >> i'm not talking about ford but the allegations now he is somehow a raging alcoholic, i think this is silly season here. >> good discussion. much more ahead tonight. we're going to get the latest on what we know about how the fbi investigation is actually being carried out because there have been conflicting reports how many people they're actually talking to. a story that seems to be changing by the minute. also the prosecutor hired to ask questions at the hearing.

when he she'll started to ask judge kavanaugh questions, she has given a memo saying she would not bring a criminal case given the prosecutorial committee. back pain can't win. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. touch shows how we really feel.

but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz.

[ horn honking ] [ engine revving ] what's that, girl? [ engine revving ] flo needs help?! [ engine revving ] take me to her! ♪ coming, flo! why aren't we taking roads?! flo. [ horn honking ] -oh. you made it. do you have change for a dollar? -this was the emergency? [ engine revving ] yes, i was busy! -24-hour roadside assistance. from america's number-one motorcycle insurer. -you know, i think you're my best friend. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. that's okay. you don't have to say i'm your best friend. plaque psoriasis tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients

were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options. so, howell...going? we had a vacation early in our marriage that kinda put us in a hole. go someplace exotic? yeah, bermuda. a hospital in bermuda. a hospital in bermuda. what? what happened? i got a little over-confident on a moped. even with insurance, we had to dip into our 401(k) so it set us back a little bit.

sometimes you don't have a choice. but it doesn't mean you can't get back on track. great. yeah, great. i'd like to go back to bermuda. i hear it's nice. yeah, i'd like to see it. no judgment. just guidance. td ameritrade. as we've reported the brett kavanaugh nomination depends upon an fbi investigation ordered by the white house and just what three senators thinks about what that investigation finds and what has already been said by christine blasey ford. what is the latest you're hearing from those key swing senators or about them? >> anderson, it's let the fbi do its job. you've heard that from senator jeff flake, senator lisa murkowski and senator susan collins. as the story has been shifting, i've actually been told multiple senators have reached out to the

white house bhch susan collins was in consultations with the white house making sure there weren't limits on what the fbi can do. when discussions were had on friday about the scope of the investigation, the focus was really on the first two ow accusers, not really on the third. and noek s has been there today. they should lee they should be allowed to pursue them. and at this moment even though senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says he plans to vote this week, senate republicans don't have the votes. the threshold what those three senators deem an adequate investigation and what they take from that investigation will determine what whether they confirm him to supreme court. >> will the entire senate be given the findings? because obviously the nomination has already been voted out of

conference, out of the judiciary committee? >> this is an important point. this is background investigation. this isn't a criminal investigation. and there's a process here. as you noted the white house has to order it and then the fbi does its interview and then sends the information back to the white house. the white house then sends it back to the senate. all 100 senators will have access to that information. but they'll have to read it in a private room. that information cannot be released publicly. only a very limited of staffers will have access to that information, so that raises a key question. and i've been talking to a lot of senators and top aides about. how is the public or how are the senators going to be able to talk about what they find or what the fbi sends back? there's currently no answer to that question. but senator john cornyn made clear to the committee today somehow, someway that information it going to be have be made public in some form. that would be out of the norm,

and anderson, that is still a question they don't have the answer to. somehow some people are going to have to find out what the fbi has done. how that's done, still haven't answered that. >> bawe'll talk about that as wl as kavanaugh's friend who says he wasn't telling the truth when he testified about t"the new yok times" report. is alleged glass throwing is something the fbi would look into for a supreme court nominee? >> well, if it's relevant to his, you know, pattern of behavior, it could be. i think it really depends on what they see over the course of several interviews, whether there are some recurring themes, and then they might want to go back and look at particular incidents. if it's an isolated think that isn't representative of the particular pattern of behavior, maybe not. >> does kirsten, does this times

report concern you at all or the other people who have come forward? >> look, this is my view is what he did ipcollen college if it w these kind of antics and what would be considered bad behavior, and if any teenagers are watching, don't do this, i don't think it would preclude him from being on the supreme court. i don't think it tells us anything about who he is today necessarily. the only way this information could be relevant is if you're looking at whether or not he perjured himself, whether or not he misrepresented who he was in terms of the drinking, which he walked kind of a fine line but he said i occasionally had a few beers. and you have people coming forward saying it was a little more than that. it was actually somebody who got out of control. and i want to say a lot of people are talking about i never saw him blackout. you don't see somebody blackout. they know if they're blacked out. the only way you would know is

if they told you. so they would be saying i guessthy never told them he didn't remember something the night before. that's a pretty remarkable memory. i mean, i can't tell you that about my friends in college or high school definitively considering how much drinking was going on. >> michael, you heard from judge kavanaugh's friend today saying it's not so much college life should be ruined for drinking. i don't think anybody would want that be a blanket rule. but if you're up for a supreme court seat and up for an lifetime oath, that's a problem. do you think there's a problem with his testimony and what you've heard so far? >> i believe that judge kavanaugh and the former roommate didn't get along all that well, and there may be a bit of a reason behind him stating this. i'm also struck by how this is probably going to be a full employment program for matt

damon because now we're talking about a bar fight. i can see him reprising goodwill hunting, but we really have reached the silly season here. with we're talking about college bar fights and freshman drinking bouts with a former roommate moo never really got along with him. i think we should really focus on his record, the 300 decisions he's issue. i know we're not going to do that, but a week is enough. i think we should move on after that. i want to take a quick break. i want to continue this discussion. more on the new fbi investigation. also where it might look and a look back into brett kavanaugh's history. this is an insurance commercial.

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.

as we've heard the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is saying the up or down senate vote on kavanaugh will come some time thissing week. the backdrop to this is the new information from kavanaugh's friends about drinking. and a report about an altercation he was involved in at yale. back now with kirsten powers, ashra gappa and michael kaputo. do they have to adjust to meet that deadline or is fbi director christopher wray, the one they look to for guidance? i mean it's technically run by the fbi, but who's running it?

>> i can assure you they're thought paying attention to mitch mcconnell. they are going to take their direction from christopher wray likely in this case given the level this is happening on. and they've been given a deadline. the question, anderson, is when they come back on friday with the number of interviews they've done, if they cut them off at that point, those interviews on recorded on 302s. these are testimonial documents. they'll put down what these interviews say. and if there are loose ends, that it is going to be clear to anyone who reads them. it's going to be clear there are additional leads, additional witnesses that were not pursued. so i think then it just becomes a political question on, you know, how the senate wants to move forward if it's very clear that the investigation is not complete. >> kirsten, and michael made the point before the break about, i mean, look, we're talking about throwing ice at somebody at a bar 30 plus years ago. they should be focused on his

record, his history, you know, as a judge. there's other republicans who say this is clearly now people are trying to move the goal posts, that what started out as one thing, they were opposed to the nomination, and then they were sexual assault allegations and now focuses on drinking and whether or not he mischaracterized his drinking 30 plus years ago. >> now, he has multiple sexual assault allegations against him. that's the most important thing is to get to the bottom of that, to find out whether or not that happened. and i think that's the most important thing for justice and also i brett kavanaugh is to have a real investigation to try to figure out what happened here. as definitively as you can figure out what happened 35 years ago. as i was saying before the drinking comes into it for a couple of reasons. one is because the allegation in both -- at least in the first two -- was i guess in all three was he was drinking excessively.

and if he says i didn't drink excessively, that kind of means -- if you have enough people saying i didn't drink excessively, maybe that's not the guy. it's not people think you can't be on the supreme court because you threw ice at somebody or drank a lot in college. i really don't know anybody who thinks that. >> michael, do you think that should be what it boils down to? >> well, i'm not sure i agree that this is all so important. what is important is i think the interviews with dr. ford and the witnesses or the people that she said witnessedch i think rachel mitchell's report to the republican senators in the judiciary committee might be helpful to the fbi as they -- as they, you know, do this investigation. you know, i mean it's interesting how we were talking about drinking and the impact it has, you know, on justices and

judges. you know, the drinking i saw in washington when i worked down there at the monocle and at the tune in, going on between congressman and senators and the bar fights i saw in washington between staffers, if this was a disqualifier in washington, the united states capitol would be empty -- >> i just got done saying it wasn't a disqualifier, though. so i don't know what you're responding to. >> he's missing the point. >> nobody even says drinking even now is disqualifier. nobody says drinking in college or even drinking excessively in college is a disqualifier. >> i think what i'm saying here is that focusing on this is kind of a waste of time. focusing on this would really put a lot of people in washington, i think we should look at what's going on with the

witnesses, what kavanaugh is saying about that, what deborah ramirez allegations are. whether someone threw ice at somebody decades later, i'm not really concerned about that. >> thanks very much. michael mentioned the report from rachel mitchell, the prosecutor hired by senate republicans to question dr. ford. we'll have more on what her memo said and what two veteran prosecutors think about it 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. ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there.

the sex crimes prosecutor hired by senate judiciary committee republicans says no reasonable prosecutors, in her

words, would seek to bring a case against judge brett kavanaugh given the evidence last week. as you'll recall rachel mitchell spent hours asking christine blasey ford about the night in question. she only asked a few questions for of judge calkavanaugh befor republican committee members took over. just before air i spoke with two former sex crimes prosecutors in new york city who know about victims and the process. linda and roger who for years conducted prosecutor training with rachel mitchell. he said, she said cases incredibly difficult to prove, but this case even weaker than that. do you agree? >> first of all, i always train insistence there's no such thing as a he said, she said. it's your job as a prosecutor, as an investigator to find a

solution that supports one or the other. there's so much more information that everybody has especially dr. ford than was listed in this very choppy five mipt, five minute hearing. and i i think you need to sit down with her. maybe her lawyers have. certainly ms. mitchell was not a prosecutor in her role last week. but to find out how long she knew brett kavanaugh. so when she says i have 100% certainty about recognizing him, it's because she was with him on one, two, three, four, five other times. how about mark judge?3 how about the other guys in the room? so much more to take this than the other bits we saw the other day. >> and roger, you said the bits in the memo are not from a reasonable proscurecutor. >> let me clear, when she says a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case as a criminal matter, i think she's right. i don't think the case can be

proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and i don't think the interest of justice would demand bringing it forward in that form. but i do not agree, i agree very much with linda, i don't believe it's a he said, she said case. i don't believe that term belongs anywhere in prosecution. and let me say first, i know rachel miller. i trained with her for years and she's a decent and honorable public servant, but i'm distressed by this report. and first of all it seems gratuitous to me. rachel states there is no clear standard as to what the senate committee would need to use in terms of evaluating these allegations. if that's the case, then why comment on it further? but then when she goes onto say here's why i don't think these allegations are strong, frankly the report ends up reading like a conclusion in search of a list of evidentiary points to support

than leading up to a conclusion. that's the point i feel. >> what's also interesting is she disappeared from the testimony very quickly once kavanaugh was actually testifying. so that she's reached a conclusion without the opportunity to actually even question brett kavanaugh, which she was supposed to be able to do but then the male senators decided they would take over for her because they weren't happy with the way she was doing or the way the judge was coming out of it. does it surprise you that she would write this memo? >> it's very surprising. but in the first four lines ms. mitchell says three times this is my independent report. the word independent is just ludicrous in light of the role she was brought in to play. she was a hired gun. she was not there as a prosecutor and she was certainly not independent. you look to her questions. one of the things i thought was fascinating and i also agree with everything roger said about the need to be creative in these investigations and dig deeper and talk to everyone she put in that room about things outside

of the night of that party. but rachel got as far as asking him something about how much he drank, how much beer he drank, and he said look at the blood alcohol chart. and he kind of half laughed. and nobody went back to that. and as roger knows, as you may know from dwi cases, you can look at blood alcohol concentration charts, and they will tell you how with each bit of beer or alcohol as you get more intoxicated different things happen including getting more aggressive and including alcoholic black outs, which i think are big part of this. >> maybe i missed it, but i don't think anybody asked him, is he said it was beer. i find it hard to believe there wasn't actually other forms of alcohol involved. >> i thought the same thing. >> nobody asked him. >> nobody asked that at all. people just went with, oh, did you drink too much beer and did

beer make you pass out? there was a lot of options at that time. >> and the difference of passing out, that goes to passing out. but i'm sure roger knows there's a medical-term, a medical association description of an alcoholic blackout. and that means you keep walking, talking, drinking. you can have sex, you can drive a car. you just don't remember it. the camera function in the brain just stops recording. >> and the testified --

>> it's completely natural for human beings to express a description of events slightly differently from one time to the next and even significantly differently. the fact is the attack ford described describes both physical abuse and a sexual it doesn't make any sense to me. in 20 years of doing this, prosecuting cases i've never witnessed a victim who sounded more compelling than she did. >> thank you so much for being here. appreciate both of you. well, this evening, democrats on the judiciary responded to the mitchell report. mitchell's claim that dr. ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened and was, quote, not rooted in fact, senator feinstein disputed the claim. that ford struggled to identify him as false. what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. >> mitchell isn't the only former prosecutor to say that

professor ford's case would be tough to bring. not just because of the time. there's no statute in maryland for that type of crime. she's no unique in that respect. but tonight we'll take a look at this question that's now vexing the nation. when does credibility account. as you remember, anderson, i've been hot on this since the beginning of this. i've felt that the allegations would always be unsatisfying in that setting. that's why the process was something that deserves scrutiny. and not what was said about kavanaugh, but what he said about himself was always going to be the biggest test, and now he's been tripped up by that, it would seem. we have players. chad luddington, the latest friend. he gave a press conference today. he has his first tv interview here tonight. >> great. >> we had two other women on last week who knew kavanaugh. they didn't hate kavanaugh. they knew kavanaugh in college. but they had a very different reckoning of his habits that he offered up to all of us in the senate. when does it matter, when does it not?

and how come, quickly, sorry, we haven't heard whether the third allegation from miss swetnick is being heard from the fbi? is she hurt from a credibility standpoint? is she unbelievable? her lawyer, michael avenatti, is here to be tested. >> look forward to that in about nine minutes. up next on "360," why a group of people living nearly 4,000 miles from washington in a remote village in alaska could be a key role in whether brett kavanaugh is actually confirmed to the u.s. supreme court. we'll explain, with ahead.

♪ when i first came to ocean bay, what i saw was despair. i knew something had to be done. hurricane sandy really woke people up, to showing that we need to invest in this community. i knew having the right partner we could turn this place around. it was only one bank that could finance a project this difficult and this large, and that was citi. preserving affordable housing preserves communities. so we are doing their kitchens and their flooring and their lobbies and the grounds. and the beautification of their homes, giving them pride in where they live, will make this a thriving community once again. ♪

well, the fate of brett kavanaugh's nominations to the supreme court could come down to just a handful of senators, obviously, who are currently undecided. among them, as we've pointed out, is republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska. she shown her independent spirit before, voting against the republican plan to repeal obamacare last year. the gop not only wants her support this time, they certainly need it, but murkowski is facing pressure back home. the details now from our gary tuchman who traveled to a remote area in alaska to hear some people's concerns. >> reporter: katherine martin is an indigenous alaska, a member of the ma taska traditional council. and while she and about 100 other nates in this village may be far out in the alaskan wilderness, they are all in on the debate happening in washington. how many of you want to see judge brett kavanaugh be confirmed and end up on the supreme court?

who doesn't? all of you. >> yes. >> yes. >> reporter: there are tens of thousands of indigenous people who live in alaska and past senate elections they have voted overwhelmingly for lisa murkowski, whose vote is key in determining if brett kavanaugh ammunition it to the supreme court. everyone we talked to in this village strongly supports murkowski, because, they say, she understands their way of life and challenges. >> we're experiencing rates of sexual abuse and domestic violence at higher rates than anywhere else in the country. and our senator, lisa murkowski, she knows that. >> reporter: so there is great sympathy for christine blasey ford among many in the native community and among everyone we talked to in this remote village. >> as a survivor of sexual abuse, i think it takes years for people to come out with this. you know, some victims, as some victims come out with it immediately, but i think that some victims, it takes them a while before they're able to talk about it. and i think this is what happened with this lady.

>> i think he is against women's rights and including native rights. >> reporter: and that's the other huge issue working against kavanaugh, and likely weighing on senator murkowski's mind, native rights. in a case that went to the u.s. supreme court, kavanaugh questioned whether the constitutional protections given to native american tribes should also be given to native hawaiians. people here think that bodes poorly for them. >> how concerned are you that native alaskans' rights could be taken away if brett kavanaugh ends up on the supreme court? >> very concerned. it's our way of life. >> reporter: alaskan natives considering themselves a modest people. but many of them are not particularly modest about the political influence they believe they hold, which they think senator lisa murkowski needs to keep in mind. just last week, indigenous alaskans were arrested, while protesting outside the washington, d.c. office of alaska's other u.s. senator, dan sullivan. nobody expects sullivan to vote

against kavanaugh, but the message for alaska's other senator is loud and clear. >> so if lisa murkowski votes ultimately to confirm kavanaugh to the supreme court, what will your thoughts be about lisa murkowski? >> she won't have my support in the future. >> reporter: how do you feel about that? >> she won't have my full support, either. >> what about you? >> i wouldn't -- i would not write her name or put a check marc by her name. >> reporter: would any of you still vote for lisa murkowski? >> no. >> no. >> reporter: no. so you're counting on her to vote "no." >> yes. >> reporter: on kavanaugh. >> yes. >> reporter: and would you be surprised if she did vote "yes"? >> very. >> and gary joins me now. is there a sense if murkowski has given her constituents to any indication of how she might vote? >> reporter: the people we talked to in that village have faith that she will vote their way, but certainly don't know for sure. today on capitol hill, the senator talked to some reporters and they said, quote, the fbi needs to be free to do its job as the investigating body.

but that doesn't tell us very much, nearly as much as something she said last week and something that could be very notable. it was a local reporter with alaska public media who was talking to the senator in washington about the me too movement and she asked the senator, have you ever had a me too moment? and the senator said "yes," but did not elaborate. and that could prove to be significant. >> all right. gary, thanks very much. 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?