september 10th was the last time and that was the only press briefing of the entire month. the press secretary says the president often speaks, so they are not as necessary as in the past. john bolton will make a statement at well. have a great afternoon. i'm wolf blitzer, it is 1:00 p.m. here in washington. thanks for joining us. take a look at this live pictures coming in from the white house briefing room. any moment now, we're told we will be seeing the press secretary sarah sanders begin taking questions from the press, john bolton's national security adviser will make a statement, answer reporters' questions. and by the way this will be the first briefing by sarah sanders in nearly a month. and it comes as criticism glow over comments president trump made at a rally last night

mocking christine blasey ford and her testimony. listen to this. >> i had one beer. right? i had one beer. well, do you think it was -- nope, it was one beer. oh, good. how did you get home? i don't remember. how did you you get there? i don't remember. where is the place? i don't remember. how many years ago was it? i don't know. i don't know. i don't know. i don't know. what neighborhood was it in? i don't know. where is the house? i don't know. upstairs, down saystairs, where it? i don't know. but i had one beer. that is the only thing i remember. and a man's life is in tatters, a man's life is shattered. >> professor ford's attorney fired right back calling it, and i'm quoting, a vicious, vile and soulless attack on dr. ford. and here is how undecided republican senator jeff flake of arizona reacted this morning.

>> there is no time and no place for remarks like that. but to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right. i wish he hadn't have done it. it is kind of appalling. >> let's bring in our white house correspondent jim acosta, he is in the briefing room getting ready for this briefing. jim, 12 staffers had been relie by the president's rather measured comments the past several days, but that changed last night. >> reporter: yes, the brief era of trump restraint is over, wolf. he practice that clear lamade t when he mocked christine blasey ford questioning her recollection of what she says was a sexual assault committed by judge brett kavanaugh. and wolf, the white house has been somewhat on the defensive on all of this earlier this morning, kellyanne conway said that she feels that christine

blasey ford has been treated as f egg, handled with kid xwlufrs. but we're getting the sense that the glovers are coming off and perhaps they know that this is going to be a very close vote. but as in so many cases with the president when he makes comments of that magnitude, it has a toxic effect. and it is turning off members of his own party. you just played some of that sound from senator jeff flake who has been successful in delaying in process, but also senator collins and senator lisa murkowski have also come out that this was wrong in the words of senator collins, lisa murkowski said that this wauns acceptable and that she was taking everything into account. that was a pretty stern warning from the senator from alaska that the president's comments may be backfiring with even members of his even party. but it is remarkable that sarah sanders is going to be having a

briefing here in a few moments, it is scheduled to start at 1:00. national security adviser john bolton is also slated to join as well. we have rarely seen the white house press secretary in the white house believing room in recent weeks as you know, as you can tell the reporters in the room had no trouble finding this location. they were able to find their way into the briefing room. but make no mistake, there is a lot of pent up nrpg andenergy a of questions that they want to ask. not just about blasey ford and the president's comments which he was being restrained until last night telling us that he thought testimony was credible, but also the bombshell report in the "new york times" about how the trump family shielded president trump from millions of dollars potentially in taxes. and that has obviously fought against the president's claims during the campaign that he was something of a self-made billionaire. so i suspect that question will

come up as well. many of these recent briefings we've seen have only been in the neighborhood of 18, 20 minutes, contrast that with press secretaries from the barack obama administration when you would have a white house briefing that would last well over an hour. that is a rarity in the trump white house. but there certainly has been a lot of time since the last briefing. so perhaps we'll get a little more time with the press secretary when she comes into the room. >> we'll see what happens. jim acosta, thank you very much. there is important news just into cnn. one of professor christine blasey ford's friends is now disputing a republican attack over a polygraph. i want to go over to josh campbell working the story. tell our viewers what you have discovered. >> reporter: the ongoing controversy surrounding brett kavanaugh, continued disputes between stories with different parties has taken a new step. the latest development that we've seen stems from a report yesterday from fox news where a former boyfriend of christine

blasey ford, this is the california professor who has accused judge kavanaugh of sexual assault, we all remember the testimony last week where she was testifying to the fact that she had taken a polygraph exam, she was asked whether or not she had intentionally helped anyone else, whether a famiiar experience with the polygraph, whether she helped anyone beat that 308ly graph. a former boyfriend submitted a letter to the senate certifying that he witnessed back in the '90s dr. ford helped coach one of her friends on how to beat the polygraph exam. this is reported yesterday by fox news. senator chuck grassley has seized on this letter and attempting to gather additional information regarding whether dr. ford was indeed truthful. and cnn spoke with the friend of dr. ford who was monica mclancl who denies the allegation that she received any coaching whatsoever from anyone regarding any polygraph exams. again, she was a friend of dr.

ford's, she remains a friend of dr. ford, but is denying these reports by the boyfriend that cnn has now learned and identified as brian merrick. it is an ongoing debate that will continue. we'll continue to gather additional information as we go back and forth. but as of right now, we're learning those details that this person in this report is speaking out vehemently denying these allegations against dr. ford. >> significant. thank you very much, josh. joining us now, the hawaii senator mazie hirono, soa democrat. thanks so much for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> so as we await the start of this white house briefing, let's get through some of the sense difference issues that have come up. you called the chechtomments by president typical.come up. you called the comments by the president typical. your republican colleagues seem to be stepping up their attacks on ford and other kavanaugh accusers trying to discredit them.

do you believe that there is a new coordinated strategy under way? >> well, the republicans are making clear that for someone like dr. ford, one, we don't want to hear from you you, but if we do hear from you, we'll rig it so that there are no other witnesses and there is no investigation. the president went to a new low yesterday even for him in mocking dr. ford because survivors of assaults do not remember peripheral thing that's occur such as how many rooms, but one thing that she was 100% clear on is that it was brett kavanaugh who attacked her. >> there is no doubt that she was very clear on that. your republican colleagues, but they are also stepping up their criticism. do you see some sort of new coordinated strategy under way? >> i think that there is very much a desire on the part of the republicans to continue to fast track this nomination and if it means that they are going to --

i hope that they are not the source of this so-called attack on dr. ford by her ex-boyfriend, but if so, this is just all part of the effort by the republicans to push this nomination through at all cost. and i just am very distressed. you know, the message to all the survivors of these assaults throughout our country is that, one, we don't want to hear from you and if you do come forward, we'll rig it and you won't be believed. that is not how we should be treating survivors of sexual assault in our country which by the way is very underreported. >> we're told that the fbi report could be completed maybe even as early as today, submitted to the white house and then to the senate judiciary committee. do you want to be made public or would you be happy if just senators, some key staffers had access to it so that they could review what the fbi has come up with? >> i have been saying that with all of the revelations, i would

like this part of the process to be as transparent as possible. i realize that there are some agreements, some limitations, et cetera, but these are not normal times. and i think that the public needs to know how extensive the fbi investigation was and whether it is the kind of investigation that they normally would have conducted. and from everything i've been hearing, that is not the case. >> the number two republican, senator john cornyn of texas, he says that you, the democrats, are employing what he describes as despicable tactics in an attempt to destroy judge brett kavanaugh. i want you to respond to that accusation. >> judge kavanaugh at his hearing said -- well, it was astounding and bizarre that he claimed that there is some kind of a vast left wing conspiracy to do him in, but he very clearly did not include dr. ford

in that so-called conspiracy. so that means that we left with dr. ford's credible report, her testimony and the continuing denial, just bold face denials by judge kavanaugh. he didn't do it. but but there athere are enough inconsistencies that i hope that the fbi investigation will disclose. but at this point, i'm not so sure. and for the republicans who have pain fast tra been fast tracking this nomination without the normal parameters of an investigation when new evidence comes through, witnesses heard from, it is rich for them to be accusing us of trying to push something through. >> it looks like sarah sanders is making an opening statement. let's listen in, senator, for a moment. >> -- for his support of the small business administration. he clearly understands the value of small businesses, there are

approximately 30 million of them in this country and i'm very happy to be their advocate. this money will be used in our veterans program. we'll establish a seven month intensive training program called merging leaders. it is an adaptation of that program for our veterans helping them transition from military life into private sector if they desire to start their own jobs and their own companies to be entrepreneurs. so once again, we thank the president very much for this and it will be put to very good use. thank you all very much. >> thank you. now i'd like to bring up national security adviser ambassador john bolton to discuss the withdrawal from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. he will take some questions after some remarks and then i'll be up to take questions of the day. thanks.

>> thank you, sarah. earlier today, secretary of state mike pompeo made a very important announcement regarding the president's decision to terminate the 195 5 treaty of amity with iran, a treaty iran madek mockery of with its support of terrorism and made line behavior throughout the middle east. today's decision was a defeat for iran. it correctly rejected nearly all of iran's requests, but we are disappointed that the icj failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order with respect to sanctions the united states imposes to protect its own essential security under the treaty. instead, the court allowed iran to use it as a forum for propaganda. the iranian regime has systemically pursued a policy of hostility toward the united states that defames the central premise of the treaty of am itsity. the regime cannot practice

animosity in its con dukduct an then ask for amity. in addition to the treaty of amity, i'm announcing that the president has decided that the united states will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. this is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of palestine challenging our move of our embassy to jerusalem. i'd like to stress the united states remains a party to the underlying vienna convention and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention. our actions today are consistent with the decisions president reagan made in the 1980s in the wake of the politicized suits against the united states by nicaragua to term nainate our acceptance of the com pullry

jurisdiction of the international court of justice and his decision to withdrawal from a lateral treaty with nicaragua. it is also consistent with the decision president bush made in 2005 to withdraw from the optional protocol to the vienna convention on relations following the interference in the domestic criminal justice system. so our action abs today deal with the treaties auny ies and lilt gags before t litigation before the international court of justice. given this history and iran's abuse of the icj, we will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the united states to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the international court of justice.united states will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us. that concludes the statement. i'd be happy to try and answer a few questions.

yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. in response to the actions that you have you just announced, iran's foreign minister has called the u.s. an outlaw regime. i wanted to get your reaction to that and also ask you if i may north korea with the announcement that the secretary of state will be traveling to pyongyang. do you trust kim jung-un? do you personally trust kim jung-un? >> well, with respect to questions outside the scope of our withdrawal from these two treaties, i'm going to pass on those because we want to emphasize the steps that the president authorized in connection with those two treaties. you know, iran is a rogue regime. it has been a threat throughout the middle east. not only for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, but it has acted for decades as the central banker for international terrorism and it is most till ahostile behavior

of international peace and security. so i don't take what they say seriously at all. sir. >> two questions for you. are there any practical effects in the united states first off, and second, are you at all concerned about the sense that the people of iran -- the avenue that could be used by the iranian government against the united states? >> our dispute is with the ayatollahs who have taken iran from a respected position in the international community to being a rogue state. our dispute has never been with the people of iran. we only on wish they had the ability to control their own government. >> and then on the -- >> no, it won't have any effect on that. >> mr. ambassador, ca canceling those two treaty, i'm trying to if i go out what are the open path for potential talks do you

still have with iran and actually the palestinians? >> this really has less do with iran and the palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the united states to reject the jurisdiction of the international court of justice which we think is politicized and ineffective. it relates obviously in part to our views on the international criminal court and to the nature of so-called purported international courts to be able to bind the united states. >> closing door in the he saien. >> closing doors that shouldn't be open to politicized abuse which is what we've seen in the icj. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. as you know, yesterday the french government denounced the iranian government for a terror plot in paris against the iranian resistance.

are you aware of that, was that a factor in any of the decisions that you have made withdrawing from these two protocols? >> no, these decisions were made before we were aware of the french decision. but i have to say, what the french have done is exactly the right thing. they arrested and other european governments arrested accredited iranian diplomats, accredited iranian diplomats, for conspiracy to conduct this attempted assault on the rally in paris. so that tells you i think everything that you need to know about how the government of iran views its responsibilities in connection with diplomatic relations and i hope that it is a wake-up call across europe to the nature of the regime and the threat that they pose. >> are these actions ramping up tensions between the united states and iran and what is our intelligence when it comes to their systems there, their

weapons, et cetera, at this moment? >> i'm going to get into what our intelligence states, but the issue is protecting the united states against the politicized use of these international institutions. as i've said, this goes back now close to over 30 years really in connection with u.s. policy of rejecting injuriejurisdiction o courts. and it is a continuation i think in the interests of the american people. >> and so is this an attempt of trying to come together working with them in closing -- >> they are bringing a lawsuit against us and the icj has nothing to do with a diplomatic effort to resolve our differences. takes politicized use of the court that exacerbated the differences. >> can you respond to the iranian foreign minister saying that the u.s. is driven by regime change? >> i'll say it again, maybe he will listen this time, our

policy is not regime change. but we do expect substantial change in their behavior, that is why the president has directed all of us in the government to come up with steps to reimpose the economic sanctions and do whatever else is necessary to ensure that we bring maximum pressure on the regime to stop its made line behavior across the board. not just in the nuclear field, but across the board. >> and given eu and others are still part a of the nuclear deal, does it make the united states efforts to try to force iran to abandon or at least 2r50i to dismantle its nuclear program any weaker? in other words, how much leverage do you have? >> i don't think iran is dismantling its nuclear program. if anything, recent reports that are public indicate that it is increasing its activity. >> you are don't have tdon't ha

partners. >> we'll apply the maximum leverage that we can. we have working with our partners, they have chosen to remain in the iran nunk cleclea. but i've said to them, it is like a book that was written several decades ago go and this company is something likes six stages of grief. first you have denial, then anger, eventually you get to acceptance and i think that is the direct the you'ion the euro are moving in. european companies in droves don't want to be caught up in the pressure campaign that we are applying. >> you addressed palestinian and said that it is a so-called state. is that language productive in achieving the -- >> it is accurate. >> but the -- >> it is not a state. >> but the president in new york city as you know recommitted his fwo goal to achieving a two state solution. >> that's right.

>> so is using that sort of language productive in his goal? >> yeah, sure. of course. it is not a state now. it does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. it didn't control defined boundaries. it doesn't fulfill the normal functions of government. there are a whole host of reasons why it is not a state. it could become a state as the president said. but that requires diplomatic negotiations with israel and others. so calling it the so-called state of palestinian defines exactly what it has been, a position that the united states government has pursued uniformly since 1988 when the palestinian authority declared itself to be the state of palestinian. we don't recognize it as the state of palestinian. we have consistently across democratic and republican administrations opposed the admission of pl to the united nations as a state because it is not a state. >> the iaea is saying it doesn't

take at face value benjamin netanyahu's claims that iran is harboring is secret atomic warehouse. do you agree that there should be an inspection and what is your reaction to those comments. >> well, i haven't seen those comments. i will say our even tell against xl intelligence community has been reviewing the material that israel extracted from iran.tell intelligence community has been reviewing the material that israel extracted from iran. it is stleextremely impressive we are support sif of t-- supportive of the iaee. and the ambassador will be taking up the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. agencies in vienna, specifically the international and i atomic energy agency, and she will be on the job shortly making our case there.

sir. >> thank you, sir. the president came out in support of the two state solution at the u.n. and prime minister netanyahu responded that he is confident that israel will retain security control of the west bank under any white house plan. is that correct or are you open to a palestinian state with no security presence from israel inside their borders? >> we have been working as you well know on a peace plan involving israel and the palestinians. we'll be rolling it out in due course when we decide it is the most appropriate time do it. and i'm sure that will answer your question then. >> one last question. >> i actually did try to recognize this gentleman. i guess i didn't point accurately enough. my apologies. >> thank you. former secretary of state john kerry said that he has not met with the iranians since the u.s. pulled out of the deal, but he has met with them before. do you think he violated the logan act and was he subverting

the policy of the united states? >> i think secretary of state mike pompeo addressed that previous live and i'll stily an his remarks. thank you very much. >> thank you, boaambassador bol. fema in coordination with the federal communication commission will conduct a nationwide integrated public alert and warning system test of the emergency alert system and the wireless emergency alerts later today. this will take place in two parts, the wea portion at 2:18 followed by the eas portion at 2:20 p.m. this is the first nationwide wea test and fourth for the eas. the overall test will assess the operational readiness of the infrastructure for distribution of a national message and determine whether technological improvements are needed. looking ahead to monday, president trump will travel to orlando, florida to address the international association of chiefs of police. as the largest gathering of

police leaders, the president will speak about the work of the administration to protect american communities by restoring law and order supporting local law enforcement and securing the border. lastly, on the night president trump nominated kavanaugh, senator shu schumer said that she would oppose it with everything that they had and before any meeting, they telegraphed a strategy to throat kitsch thichen sink at t judge. they are trying to undercut the voice of the american people when they elected donald trump. they have questioned his legitimacy and casually tossed around vicious accusations of perjury. all nau all false, but now they have sunk lower with this full scale assault on judge kavanaugh. this is a coordinated smear campaign. no evidence, no independent

corroboration, just smears. here are just a few of the examples. chuck schumer said, and i quote, there is no presumption of innocence or guilt. chris coons who sit on the committee said kavanaugh now bears the burden of disproving these allegations rather than dr. ford and miss ramirez. mazie hirono said that judge kavanaugh does not deserve the presumption of innocence because of his judicial views. one thing is clear, democrats want to block kachbd and momevad the seats open. this is about politics and power. pure and simple. and they have destroyed judge kavanaugh's reputation, undermined dr. ford's privacy and tried to up end our traditions of innocence until proven guilty in the process. it is a complete and total disgrace. we will receive and submit the fbi supplemental background investigation on his nomination to the senate. as leader mcconnell said, judge kavanaugh deserves a prompt vote and we expect him to get one. and with that, i'll take your

questions. >> the three people who are most important are senators murkowski, collins and flake. this morning two of those senators 234r5ik a s flake and extremely upset about how the president described christine blasey ford at that rolally in mississippi. knowing hugh importa how import if the fbi shows no other compelling evidence to keep judge kavanaugh from the court, that these people need to be comfortable with voting for him, why did the president say what he did last night and the way that he said it? >> the president was statings facts. and frankly facts that were included in rachel mitchell's report. he was stating facts that were given during dr. ford's testimony and the senate has to make a decision based on those facts and whether or not they see judge kavanaugh to be qualified to hold the position on the supreme court. every single word judge kavanaugh has said has been picked apart, every single word.

second by second of his testimony has been picked apart. yet if anybody says anything about the accusations that have been thrown against him, that is totally off-limits and outrageous. this entire process has been a disgrace and the only reason that it has pain thbeen that wa that senate democrats circumvented the entire system and frankly they have undermined our entire judicial branch by the way that they have acted. >> pointing out in-consistencie is one thing, but the tone clearly had an effect on two key swing votes for his nomination. is the president concerned that he may have put those votes this danger by doing what he did last night? >> i don't think so. the president is very confident in his nominee as he stated time and time again. and we expect the senate to vote and we hope they do that soon. >> two quick questions. first, is the white house

responding to the reported filings of individuals and possible the president -- [ inaudible ] >> the president has been made aware, but as we said yesterday, i would refer you to the u.s. secret service to respond to those. >> do you have any information on the president's meeting with rod rosenstein supposed to be held last week? >> again, no updates. if there is a meeting we'll let's you know, but at this point they continue to work together and both show up every day and do their jobs. [ inaudible question ] >> -- are you trying on to have the vote for doing something that wasn't in their interests? owe essentially mocked her testimony. >> we're pointing out -- again, none of this would be taking

place in democrats had done this in a normal order. and not exploited dr. ford and attacked judge kavanaugh in such a public manner. all of this could have been handled completely differently. and the senate democrats hold all of the responsibility for that process. josh. >> the president had engaged in tax fraud throughout the '90s with tax schemes annual basically getting more money from his parents than he said. you rebutted the story. can you explain what is in-rack really about that story if anything? >> i won't go every line of a boring 14,000 word story, but one thing that the article got right is that it showed that the president's father had a great deal of confidence in him. in fact the president brought his father into a lot of deals and they made a lot of money together, so much so that his father said that everything he

touched turned to gold. the president's lawyer addressed some of the specific claims and walked tlur all the allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100% false. there was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. he went on much further and i would encourage you to read every word of his statement which completely undercuts the accusations made by the "new york times." >> are the president's taxes still under audit? >> i know a number of his taxes are still under audit. >> from the '90s? >> i'd have to get back to you. >> just a couple days ago the president called blasey ford a credible witness, very compelling. but now he is basically making her out to be a liar. so which is it? >> certainly the testimony by dr. ford was compelling. but you can't make this decision based on emotion. it has to be based on fact.

they have to determine what the facts are of this case. that is one of the reasons that they asked and begged for the fbi and delayed a hearing vote so they could get more facts on this case. we expect the noofbi to turn th facts over and the senate can make a determination based on that. >> you said that he was stating the facts of that campaign rally. but this was so much more than stating the facts. this was a full scale campaign rally assault on a woman who says that she is a victim of sexual assault. what do you get out of that? is that to help kavanaugh's nomination, is this to rally the base? is this going to do help with the midterms? what is the point in doing that? >> again, i dispute that it wasn't anything other than the president stating facts. and facts that were laid out in the prosecutor's memo that she put forward to the senate. each of the things that he called out were things that were laid out in that memo. >> there is conflicting feelings on capitol hill right now over

whether the fbi investigation into judge kavanaugh should be made public or not. does the white house commit to transparency on this effort and let the american people see the full rein of the investigation rarl regardless of the findings? >> we have been transparent. the one that ordered the investigation to take place and allowed the senate to control and dictate the terms and scope of the investigation. we're continuing to do that. and allowing the fbi to actually do what they do best and that is their jobs do this investigation. >> another question for you if i may on declassification. since we haven't spoken? a while. the president has says that -- >> i miss you guys too. >> the president said that he would defer the declass figures indication figures -- declassification to the doj. will we see the documents before the mid term elections? >> i won't walk through a time line, but we are continuing to work through that process and when we have an update, we'll let you know.

alex. >> why did you say earlier this year that michael cohen was acting on his own in an ash arbitration proceeding to prevent stormy daniels from doing any television interview? >> i'm ghogt to get into a back and forth. that is an issue for the president's outside counsel. i direct you there. john. >> thank you, sarah. two brief questions. first, the impact and meaning of the president's comments in mississippi not withstanding it is a fact that senators collins, murkowski, flake and manchin are the undecided votes critical to the nomination. are there any plans for the president to call any of them between now and next week and make one final pitch perhaps explain his remarks a little bit more? >> i'm not aware of a specific scheduled call. but we've certainly been in close contact with a number of members and we'll continue to do so up until the vote.

>> and i was going to ask two of the president's early supporters in the house, collins of new york and duncan hunter of california, are running under indictme indictment. there are rules barring support for members who are under indictme indictment. does the president still support both of them for re-election? >> i can't get in to a lot 6 details one for hatch act violation, but also with an ongoing investigation, i won't be able to comment on that front. >> and as this briefing was beginning, bloomberg put out an article about the fbi background investigation and bloomberg is reporting that the fbi lants ent hasn't interviewed judge kavanaugh or dr. ford because the white house hasn't given investigators clear authority to do so. is that the case? >> as we've said several times, the president has indicate nad whoever the fbi deems knows interview, he is fine with that.

but he has also asked that the senate be the ones that determine the scope of what they need in order to make a decision on whether they vote kavanaugh up or down. i can also tell you that both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford were questioned in the most public way possible by the members of the senate who are ultimately the ones who have to make the determination on whether or not they vote for judge kavanaugh. if they had additional questions for either one of them, they had a time and opportunity certainly on to ask those. >> does the white house believe it is appropriate then to -- >> we didn't make the determination of the scope. >> so president trump talked a lot yesterday about this issue of being concerned about men being guilty before -- being thought guilty before proven innocent and the idea of due process. but in the past with the central park 5, he put out an ad

basically calling for the death penalty before they had been found convicted and even after they were exonerated, he still basically said that they may be guilty. and even as president, he has talked about presided over rallies where people say lock her up, talking about hillary clinton. so i guess is there is a disconnect between when the president is interested in due process for some but not for others? >> not at all. the president actually encouraged the senate to hear dr. ford's testimony in the same way that he encouraged them to here judge kavanaugh's. he is simply stating the fact that we are a country of law and order, we are a country of that still believes that you are innocent until approach guilty and we want to see that process go through in its entirety on a fair playing field. >> does he feel that -- >> i'd have to look back at the specific comments. >> the president has taken -- >> sorry, dave, go ahead.

>> the president has taken this moment to say that he has been affected personally by you all of these allegations. and he is picking and choosing justs that question was, he said central park 5 was guilty and that he has made bill clinton guilty. has he decided to change his line on the central park 5? >> it is interesting that you bring up bill clinton. nobody wants to hear those accusers voices. but i are certainly happy to hear the others. i don't have anything else to add. dave, go ahead. >> sarah, several times in the last week the president has tried to reassure voters that he will protect people with pre-existing conditions from losing their health insurance. is that a sign that he is worry that had republicans are losing the argument on health care in this elect? >> i think it is a sign that the president wants to protect people with pre-existing health conditions. i think it is pretty simpg. he said that he supports that and he wants to make sure that is not something that gets lost. jim.

>> it was pretty obvious that the president was mocking christine blasey ford last night. he said how did you get home, i don't recall. how did you get there, i don't remember. where is this place, i don't remember. he seemed to be to the delight of the crowd there in mississippi mocking her repeatedly. isn't there something wrong with the president of the united states mocking somebody who says that she was sexually assaultsed? >> he said that he was stating facts that dr. ford herself laid out in her testimony. once again, every single word that judge kavanaugh has said has been looked at, examined, picked apart by moth of you in this room, but 240 one is looking at whether or not the accusations what are corroborated, whether or are not there is evidence to support them. every person that she named has come out and said either they didn't recall it or didn't happen or they weren't there. every single bit of evidence and facts that we've seen in this moment have assumed judsupporte kavanaugh's cares and the

president cinchly pointsimply pe facts. >> are you saying judge kavanaugh is the victim in all this? >> i think both ford and judge kavanaugh are victims at the hands of the democrats. i think it is absolutely disgraceful what they have done and exploited this process. they exploited dwr for ed docto all the women that have come out to make any accusation. this isn't the process that should have been done and certainly be everybody deserves to be heard, but that includes judge kavanaugh and that should be part of this process. and i think you have to look at the facts and the property duties tore's meproperty -- prosecutor's memo. she makes a compelling case. i don't have any problem stating facts, no. i know that is something you probably do have a problem with. i don't. >> actually, we do state the facts and i think there have been many occasions when you don't state the facts if i may respond. >> john, go ahead. >> thank you. just five days ago on friday the

president when asked about dr. ford's testimony before the senate said that she was a very credible witness and we saw a different tone, different substance last night in those remarks to that campaign rally audience in mississippi. why the change in tone and does the president still believe what he said on friday that she was a very credible witness? >> i've addressed this a number of times. the president also said that she had a very compelling story. and nobody disagrees with that -- hold on. nobody disagrees with that. but the president simply stating the facts that she laid out in her own testimony. and that the prosecutor laid out in her memo at the end of the day the senate has to make a decision on where they stand. one more. >> does the president still believe that dr. ford's testimony was credible?

>> the president believes that junk kavanau judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. >> president trump has seemed to link the credibility of a claim with how much time has passed since the individual made it. the president has also called the sexual abuse scandal in the catholic church very sad, but many of those victims waited decades were coming forward. why does the president seem to assume men who are claiming abuse but wait to come forward are telling the truth, but not women? >> that is just completely untrue. the president has supported again throughout this entire process dr. ford's ability to come forward and tell her story. he is the one thatted one that do the further back grund chegr, to look in to the allegations that the senate deems necessary. and he has been more than happy to give a platform to the accusers that have come out

against then president bill clinton. to say that he's never sided women is ridiculous. >> he says that they are coming oits of t out of the woodwork and even -- >> he is saying that because even though judge kavanaugh has b been in the public eye for over 26 years, and now seven background investigations, this is the first time that you are hearing any of those allegations. the fact through all of those back ground checks, noog hthing come up despite the fact that one of the top prosecutors for ken starr. none of these things came up. he has been a public figure and there has been a lot of opportunity for people to raise this issue and it never has. and now at the 11th hour, the democrats have exploited this process and done so publicly and it is a shame and he is simply calling that out. thanks so much, guys. see you soon.

she is, sarah sanders answering reporters questions about 20 minutes, making a strong, strong defense of the president last night who mocked professor ford and her allegations against judge kavanaugh. she says this whole process is now a complete and total disgrace. she also strongly denying the "new york times" report on the president's finances saying all those allegations of alleged tax fraud, tax evasion, are totally false and not based on facts. let's discuss. she came out swinging right now defending the president and making it clear that they want this over with and they want it over with quickly. >> right. she called these smears, a disgrace, and that the democrats are acting against the voice of the american people when they elected donald trump who can pick supreme court justices. and what she is also trying to

do, interesting to me, was have it both ways. she said the president said that it is fine with him if kavanaugh and ford are interviewed, but in the end, it is really up to the senate to decide if those two should be re-interviewed. and obviously they have not. what was kind of stunning to me is that the notion that politics is involved in this. and that the democrats want to hold the seat open until 2020. that is probably true, but i remind you with merrick garland whom the republicans delayed for, what, 300 days and never even came to the floor. so you see the raw politics underneath all of this. and her defense of the president one more thing was that he was just stating the facts. his tone last night at -- the way he was mocking dr. ford

seems different than someone just stating the facts. >> i really was ridiculing her in front of that crowd in mississippi. >> and the crowd was clearly loving it. and i don't know of many political crowds and rallies that just enjoy recitation of facts. he was clearly mocking her and the crowd was getting in to that. one thing that i think was really important and really interesting, and perhaps a m miscalculation on the part of the white house, sarah sanders was making the argument this can't be based on emotion. it must be based on fact. that these senators have to determine what the facts are in this case and that it cannot be determined based on emotion. where does that exist in how senators decide and how to vote to confirm or not a supreme court justice? i think we saw emotional comments today from jeff glak, from susan collins, from lisa murkowski. i i think that the white house is full l fooling themselvoolin

think that their votes are simply based on the facts of this case. i would imagine the emotions will also play a role in their vote. >> and jim acosta is there in the briefing room. you had a chance do a little q&a with her yourself. what stood out to you? >> reporter: well, obviously they are on the defensive. and i think we saw why this white house rarely does press briefings. they are in a losing battle with the truth it seems on many days. so you saw the press secretary up here at the podium trying to sell the whopper that president trump was not mocking christine blasey ford last night, he was obviously mocking christine blasey ford, only the most partisan, you know, trump assumer would argue otherwise. and i think sarah sanders was trying to just essentially get through this briefing answering that question over and over again. she told me at the end of the briefing that the president was just trying to deliver facts. that is obviously not the case. and i asked the

follow-up question, do you think that she is the victim here. so the partisan talking points were certainly on display at this briefing, wolf. i'm not exactly sure the facts were on display at this briefing. but i do think it is notable, wolf, when it was asked at the very beginning of it briefing whether or not the white house is concerned, whether the president is concerned about losing some these senators, senator flake, senator collins, senator murkowski, the way senator collins answered that, i think it is a sign that perhaps they understand behind the scenes here at the white house, wolf, that some damage was done when it comes to the white house and its backing of judge kavanaugh. you saw earlier this morning kellyanne conway saying christine blasey ford had been treated like a fabrege egg.

i think they want to confirmation done by mi means necessary, facts be damned. >> the president had been relatively restrained in the days leading up to that rally in mississippi. all of a sudden he took off the gloves. >> it's a very curious question. wolf, i've been to countless of these rallies and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason. that is why we're told often the president has a teleprompter in front of him, he's on script. but as his aides will say, there is no holding him back, that he does often go off the cuff. my sense of it is that is what he did last night. but i think, wolf, my sense of it is even though the president said last week that he thought christine blasey ford was very credible in her testimony, they

understand how close this vote is going to be and if they can in any way possible chip away at her credibility, i think that they believe that that is at the end of the day going to be able to cobble together the votes that they need. but how that works when the president of the united states is mocking somebody who says she's a sexual assault victim, it's beyond me how there could be any strategy behind that other than trying to rally the base. and you see that really on display with lindsey graham as well. he was doing that as well, talking earlier this morning about judge kavanaugh, and he was booed and he said right back to the audience "bao yourseoo y" there is a circle-the-wagon mentality right now about judge kavanaugh and they are just trying to get to the finish line by any way necessary, wolf. >> kim, the fbi apparently they are completing their

supplemental investigation. they're about to hand over their report to the white house and the senate judiciary committee. it doesn't look like it's going to be made public, at least not now. that could change. should it be made public? >> i think it should be made public. there's a lot about this process that has been distorted from the white house just right now with sarah sanders. i just wanted to make a couple points from a legal standpoint. the republicans are in charge of this. the democrats don't have power in terms of this process. it's implementing the advice and consent clause of the constitution and it can be based on emotion. it can be based on anything. the other thing has to do with the presumption of innocence. that's something that applies to a criminal defendant when government is trying to take something away, life, liberty, property. does not apply to someone trying to get a job. that's a real distortion. the third has to do with the truth and facts and whether things were corroborated or not. this is why we should see who

the fbi spoke to, how this was done. on the civil and criminal side traditionally the investigation is done first and then you reach a conclusion at a hearing. you don't reach a conclusion and then do the investigation. i think knowing brett kavanaugh, having worked with brett kavanaugh, i respect him as a jurist, a lot of this could have been avoided had it been done in advance outside of the public eye. but now we're in this drama, i think, because procedurally the democrats were kind of ousted at the beginning from actually deciding how it would go. >> sarah sanders opened it up by going after the minority leader saying he and the democrats have sunk lower, it's a coordinated smear campaign against judge kavanaugh, a complete and total disgrace and at one point suggested the entire judicial system has been undermined. >> look, they are going all out now. and i think senator jones of

alabama said that the president has now doo siecided to play to base at the expense of the rest of the country. i think that's what may be going on right now. it may be going on in both parties to be honest about it. what we saw last night from the president was playing to the base, trying to keep control of the senate, the united states senate. we've seen polling, and david knows this better than i do, but i spoke to a pollster this morning who said, look, he's playing to white, non-educated college men in red states who could help him keep control of the senate who feel like he does. and that will be at the expense of moderate republican women who will vote perhaps to give the democrats control of the house. and that's really what's going on here politically. >> i think also we should just

make clear shauarah sanders' tactic, no one should get confused here. it's senator collins, murkowski and flake on the republican side. she can bemoan democrats all day long. that's not what is causing the white house heart burn. it's republican senators they have to get on board that they have not yet. >> it's whether the president's ridicule of christine blasey ford will impact those three -- >> murkowski said it would impact, flake said it wouldn't. but murkowski said yes. >> the white house coming out with a strong defense of president trump following his mocking of brett kavanaugh's accuser last night. three key undecided republican senators have now slammed those attacks of this woman by the president. ♪

ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪

all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

omar, check this out. uh, yeah, i was calling to see if you do laser hair removal. for men. notice that my hips are off the ground. [ engine revving ] and then, i'm gonna pike my hips back into downward dog.

[ rhythmic tapping ] hey, the rain stopped. -a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. -tell me about that dental procedure again! -i can still taste it in my mouth! -progressive helps keep you out there. hi there. i'm brooke bboldualdbaldwin. you're watching cnn. it can be challenging watching the trump