we'll be watching and bring it to you live. don't miss full circle our daily interactive newscast on facebook, you can pick some of the stories we cover. every weekday at facebook.com. i want to hand it over to chris for cuomo prime time. >> i'm chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time". another first in our new normal. judge kavanaugh just put out an op ed to convince americans he's not political. that he will be an independent impartial justice if confirmed to that high court. this is something we've never seen. something done this way. will it make the case to people on the eve of this big vote? republicans went through the process as they call it. they checked the box. they're going to proceed tomorrow morning to end the debate over the kavanaugh nomination.

despite the chant this process was incomplete. the fbi report was supposed to help settle the storm. but you should have never believed that was going to be the outcome, instead it ignited mass protests around washington, we now wait to hear what four critical senators will decide. will they he's these calls? and those from a former supreme court justice? urging them to vote yay? they're going to vote yay or nay. yes or no. john stevens, the former justice says, he would vote do not confirm. why? we'll tell you. alyssa milano agrees, a leading voice for the me too movement, she was at the kavanaugh hearing last week, and is here with us tonight. what do you say, it matters tonight, so let's get after it. republicans are calling the fbi investigation thorough. so they now have cover. democrats call it a sham.

for many, concerns about judge kavanaugh go beyond the allegations. his temperament is going to be a huge issue. his independence as opposed to being a political operative is going to be big for senators. at least some. and there's questions after his bombastic testimony a week ago about how he would be on the bench. today former justice john paul stevens called the way he acted disqualifying. not his pedigree, his actions in that hearing. judge kavanaugh is trying to do damage control now. he wrote this op ed, i was very emotional last thursday, more so than i've ever been. i may have been too emotional at times. i know my tone was sharp and i said a few things i should not have said. this is what he's talking about. >> this confirmation process has become a national disgrace. you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy, the behavior of the several of

the democratic members of this hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. fueled with a pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. >> now, we know this much. he didn't fly off the handle, those were prepared remarks. so whatever he said he meant to say. the question now is, will the senators buy that he can put aside his politics and be impartial on the highest bench in the land? cuomo's court is now in session. we have barrett burger and ken cuccinelli, thanks to both of you, this is a big night. let's start with the obvious assessment that needs to be made, and then we'll get into the granular level, beyond that. i'll start with you, barrett. yes or no, and why.

on kavanaugh. >> i mean, it's hard for me to say right now without having the benefit of seeing -- >> but you must. >> -- the fbi's report. if i was a senator, and the fbi had not been allowed to do a comprehensive investigation, i don't know that i would have the confidence to vote yes at this point. without seeing the fbi really pushing this to the limit without interviewing all of the witnesses that might have relevant information to this. so i think without the benefit of a truly comprehensive investigation, i wouldn't be able to vote yes. >> i see your wheels spinning, cuccinelli. i will stipulate i was making a similar argument a week ago about process. i thought the process was always going to be unsatisfying. i didn't want it to be. i didn't want it to be about controversy, i wanted it to be about conviction for the senators. i was arguing the process is

inadequate. based on where we are right now, do you think you would have no problem confirming kavanaugh? >> based on where we are right now, if i was voting tomorrow, my vote would be yes. >> because? >> you'll recall, chris, that i was somebody who expressed concerns on particular legal areas with judge kavanaugh. but when you look back over his 12-year record as a judge. and the second most important court in the country. there's every reason to think that with that sort of work. that he'll continue it on the supreme court. and do an excellent job as a judge. >> temperament? >> i think his temperament is fine. if anyone who interacted with justice scalia, who was a very sharp character, i don't mean just how smart he was, i mean his tone. and in the courtroom, judge kavanaugh has never been like that in the courtroom. >> in terms of the temperament of the supreme court justice, he will have no problem on the bench. >> all right. >> you played a clip from the hearing, and i can see how people react to that, but that's not what you get on the bench. that's not what he's delivered

for 12 years. >> he is who he is, he's never been in this circumstance before. he'll be in circumstances he's never been in before. on the high court. the supreme court. his pedigree is hard to attack. what he did with his decisions is going to be a matter of your perspective. if you're looking for a red or blue lens you're going to like it or not like it. how he was in that hearing is going to loom large. not necessarily the allegations. i don't think we flow enough at this point for someone to base a decision on their conviction about whether he did those things or not. temperament, what's your take? >> temperament is incredibly important. i think this open ed doesn't move the needle for me. i don't have a lot of patience for this. this is not about whether he raised his voice in the hearing. it's not about whether he teared up, this was scripted, planned, intentional words. he wrote these words, he rehearsed these words and he chose them incredibly deliver -- deliberately.

this was not an accidental outburst. he did this for a reason. i think that you can understand how the american public would be confused about who we're going to expect to see on the bench. we see one version in the fox news interview, we see a very different version in the hearing and now we have an op ed saying, really, i'm a third version here. we can be forgiven for being confused about what we expect to see. >> that's why 12 years -- >> let me get your take on this, and then make whatever point you want. i want you to key off this. it builds. john paul stevens, retired justice was asked about this in palm beach, he's a little older now, he's going to be a little more candid. we lose filters as we get older, we get more honest because we have less time. here's what he said. >> he's a fine federal judge and he should have been confirmed when he was nominated. but i think that his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind.

>> ken? >> assess what the justice said. >> back when justice stevens was -- >> back when justice stevens was going through these processes, it wasn't anything like what judge kavanaugh underwent. and i don't think he has a perspective that fits the times. and his view. had he dealt with what judge kavanaugh dealt with, he may have fought back similarly. i think we're holding against this person because he's a judge and he's up for a higher judicial position in the supreme court. that he doesn't get to use the tactic that so many of us use, that is, that the best defense is a good offense. and that's what he did in part of that statement. >> he's being assessed for a different position? >> if i were judging on -- >> yes, that's what i said. i think he felt cornered and he responded in the only way that he felt at that time would be effective. >> here's the thing, ken. >> this was not a normal job

interview process. >> that's the whole point, isn't it? >> you know that poise is empowerment in that position. you know that you're supposed to, in a job interview, act the part you're looking to get. have you to assume seeing how he's a genius, that he would know that, and he goes into it, and says in his op ed, you have to remember, i was testifying with five people in mind and he names his family. that's the side of yourself you decided to show on this big moment when you're trying to elevate yourself? >> and he said something else i want your take on. he said, my past has been distorted. by whom? who told him to make up what he wrote in his yearbook? nobody did that to him. he did that, he made the decision to go on with the friendly face at fox. another thing we've never seen in this process before, and paint a picture of perfection of himself. who distorted it? >> it's an amazing question. this is not a normal job interview, because this is not a normal job. this is arguably one of the biggest jobs there is.

this is not -- the questions that are being raised are not just about his emotion. of course he was coming at this as a father, as a son, as a husband, we all approach every single day of our life, we approach things from many different roles. this was not the time for him to be coming at it that way. it's not just because he was emotional. people have pointed out that there were inconsistencies in his testimony with things like his calendars, his yearbooks, what other people had said. that's what we should be focusing on here, not the tone of his voice or whether he teared up. that's irrelevant. it makes you human, i'll give him that, but we need to focus more on the substance of what he was actually saying. and the potential discrepancies in what he was testifying. >> he's banking the senators will really put all of it aside and look at him on the bench and lookal his reputation and really try to null all this out. i don't know enough, i'm going to go on what i do know.

i would be surprised if he's not confirmed. barrett, ken, you helped the audience tonight, you made smart arguments and thank you for that. if professor ford's claims can't be corroborated which is what we're herring from those who have looks at the fbi assessment, they found no basis of corroboration. what does that mean? the needle has to move toward kavanaugh and confirmation. but then you can have a secondary analysis -- how could they have corroborated? did they have the time? the direction that would enable them to do so? ford wasn't interviewed. neither was kavanaugh, was this thorough or was it a sham? the facts, next. only fidelity offers

four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, claire could only imagine enjoying chocolate cake. now she can have her cake and eat it too. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? for all-day, all-night protection. onmillionth order.r. ♪ there goes our first big order. ♪ 44, 45, 46...

how many of these did they order? ooh, that's hot. ♪ you know, we could sell these. nah. ♪ we don't bake. ♪ opportunity. what we deliver by delivering.

the fbi has finished its report we are told. they interviewed nine people, we are told. it is a sham, we're told, by democrats. it is thorough, we're told by republicans. well, here's what we know, five days, no subpoena power, no warrants, and yet unknown parameters to the who and how this was done. so this is all shrouded in mystery. the result of the dozens with direct or indirect knowledge of the various allegations, only nine were interviewed. those are the only ones who made the cut. debra ramirez, you know her, she makes the allegation about kavanaugh at yale. and sexual misconduct. leyland kaiser. this has been a name that hasn't

gotten enough attention. mark judge you know, but these people, christine ford alleges they were at the party where she was sexually assaulted. you have heard people say they both deny her account. that's not true about leyland kaiser. she doesn't recollect certain things, she's not the same type of push back that mark judge is, what's the details? we don't know. three of kavanaugh's high school friends were interviewed. and three others who remain unidentified. this was a pretty small pool based on the options. not interviewed. brett kavanaugh and christine blasey-ford. why not. they testified. there's cover in that decision. we heard from them. they didn't get ford's therapist or talk to ford's husband. he learned of the allegations back in 2012 when that therapist in therapy for couples therapy. also, a number of names that ramirez and senate democrats said they turned over to the fbi were not given any access.

now, cnn's not the only one reporting on this, you look at the washington post, the new york times, the new yorker, all of the outlets, independently reported the same characterization of the fbi process, people with information about kavanaugh's past behavior say they've struggled to connect with the fbi. please don't blame the fbi. they were set up to have their efforts be unsatisfying. republicans went right into this saying, has to be limited in scope and duration, remember that? for them this is thorough. >> i'm grateful to the fbi for their efforts in doing a thorough, very important investigation that's been exhaustively studied by the fbi as well as judiciary committee staff. there isn't anything else. >> there really isn't anything else. we know that's not true. we also know that what they want most is for this to be over. now, what's happening. they say it's a sham, it's incomplete and a cover-up.

>> it looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house. >> it was not intended to get to the bottom of this. it was not intended to find the truth. it was intended to be a cover. a cover for those who don't want to look at the truth. >> here's the problem for the democrats, you should have known that when you agreed to the deal, it was always going to come out this way. where are we now? the same place we were before. it's not about any of the people you just saw. none is undecided. collins, murkowski, high camp, flake. she's said she's going to vote no. what made her interesting? she's in a red state, north dakota, the seat could be in play, not be in play. west virginia, joe manchin, he's up in the polls in west virginia, he's in a tough spot. but he's a man whose known to act on conscience. we'll see.

if you vote for kavanaugh will a number of women be upset in your district? probably. looking at the demos in maine and alaska, these two republicans are who you have to look for. it's likely they're going to be okay. sadly, remember, we don't have enough women in office for women to go back like collins and murkowski, jeff flake is leaving. unless he wants to run in 2020, he has nothing to lose politically. i told you about manchin and highcamp. one other note about joe. yes probably plays better for him at home in west virginia. if he were to vote know, it plays better for him in the party overall. the biggest problem with all of this is that all of this other information i just gave you, who was interviewed, who's not interviewed, this should never have been kept from you. they shouldn't be telling us what's in the reports. you should be reading and deciding yourself. they could redact. this isn't about protecting sources and methods.

it's about protecting them, the senators from more scrutiny, and that is wrong. now, my next guest says the president flat out lied to the american people about allowing the fbi to follow every lead. you may recognize her, she is actress alyssa milano. she sat behind kavanaugh and ford at the hearing last week. she thinks there is a great cover-up to protect the nominee. you will hear where she's coming from and why others are joining her cause next. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for lows. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens.

don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (woman) we found our tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done!

tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package

and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life.

all right. the country is reacting, this is going to be a moment. protests are erupting across the country. in the halls of the capitol today. one person who felt compelled to share her story, a.m. list is a milano. she was present when judge kavanaugh and dr. ford were testifying. she joins us now. thank you for doing so, i appreciate it. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> how do you assess where we are in a moment right now?

what is at stake and what are the sides as you see it? >> well, i think everything is at stake right now. and i want to remind everybody that this was a candidate that was a bad choice, even before the allegations came out. kavanaugh has proven from his writings and his rulings that he was anti-women's freedom of choice, anti-immigration, anti-lgbtq community, anti-environment, the only thing he seems to be for is the second amendment amt, and that was proven by the amount of money the nra put behind him. this is the guy that said numerous times he does not feel a sitting president should have to deal with the burden of being investigated. >> true, true. but let's qualify it a little bit. before we got to christine blasey ford and ramirez and swetnick. i foe know she wasn't put into

the mix with the fbi. >> i think she should have been involved in this. >> avenatti says he has a declaration. but that's for another day. before we got to the allegation and performance. and behavior. at the testimony. he was doing okay, largely it came down to politics, if you're from a certain political dispoe disposition. you're okay with his ruling. if you're from a different one, you don't. that's politics, elections, consequences. >> yes. >> it was really these allegations and how they were handled by him, that changed the metrics, the question that's in the air is no longer about executive privilege or even about settled law and whatever that means to him about roe versus wade. it's about temperament. are you okay with that? >> i am not okay with his temperament. and i sat in the room, i could feel his rage throughout his testimony. i felt like he was acting as though he was a political operative, he was very volatile,

i've said numerous times, if a woman had acted like that during a line of questioning, she would have been considered unhinged. also, let's talk about this op ed for a second. if a woman had written that op ed apologizing for their behavior and saying, i'm so sorry, i was emotional, but i was there as a mother, as a daughter. i mean, we would -- the double standard is unbelievable, we would be laughing at this woman, saying she's weak, or she doesn't have the character. >> yeah, but the irony wasn't lost that christine ford is someone who is coming from a place of pain and was so poised. >> yes. >> and he was very pained when he should have been showing poise. because if you didn't do something, your calm is often a function of your strength in the moment. >> they questioned him over and over again if he would agree to an fbi investigation, and he said no. and the other thing that i want

to point out is if these women, all three of them, julie swetnick as well, if they were all lying, why is he not maybe threatening with a claim of defamation? which we all know is page one from the trump rule book. why is he not coming out and saying, you know what i'm going to sue these people for saying this, i'm being falsely accused. there's none of that going on. >> fair point. let me ask you a couple more things while i have you. one is about politics. >> please about. >> the micro level, you are a fan of bill clinton. and he is somebody who the right is pointing to now as, hey, just because they're ugly allegations doesn't mean a whole man's life should based on it. especially when you can't prove them. look at bill clinton, he was accused of a lot of ugly things. people were fine with him and

saying, you have to judge him by more than him at his worst. should kavanaugh get the same benefit of the doubt? >> no, and i don't think bill clinton should have gotten that benefit of the doubt in hindsight. >> really? >> i think as a nation we were in a different time, i think that women were continually being silenced. and i think we gave him the benefit of the doubt and we probably should have investigated the allegations against him as well. and i do believe that. this is not about partisan politics to me, this is about humanity, and we have to -- even though this process is so uncomfortable for everyone, we really have to look at it, look at where we want to be, who we want to be as a nation, and really examine this in a nonpolitical way, but just in a human way, i think it's vital that we get past this and get to the results, which is something that we're all looking forward for, which is a just world with equality for women. and i think that every time a woman comes forward and a man

can just write an op ed which in my view was actually an op ed directed to senator flake in particular, because he's the one on the fence. and a woman is not given that same opportunity, we're saying to this man, what you say and your words mean more than what this woman is saying. >> i hear the concern. >> and it would only -- >> i hear the concern. >> i would only add that i know that there are senators that are on the fence right now, and i totally understand it. and i think the senators that are on the fence are on the fence because they do care, because they care tremendously. and my thought to them would be, you have to show us that you care about us by your vote, not just by your uncertainty. >> alyssa milano, i want to ask you to do me a favor. >> anything. >> after this happens, the idea that being heard and respected

is the new empty phrase like thoughts and prayers. and someone brought that up to me today. >> oh. >> i'm worried about that, because of all the things we want to make sure don't slip away. as progress with the culture. let's see how this turns out. please come back on the show and figure out what the result means. >> thank you. >> would you do that? >> i would love to, thank you so much for the opportunity. >> alyssa milano, thank you so much. have a good night. >> kavanaugh admits he was emotional last thursday. more than he should be. i said things i shouldn't have said a few times. promised if confirms. he will be an independent and impartial judge. former supreme court justice john paul stevens isn't buying it. now, what does a former attorney general think? michael mukasey is here next. -computer, order pizza.

-of course, daniel. -fridge, weather. -clear skies and 75. -trash can, turn on the tv. -my pleasure. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered. -what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media. he'll be fine. -[ laughs ] -will he? -i don't know. -will he? (door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay?

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

♪ 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. ♪ emotions right now are raw. we know why. the divides are deep, and many. the political wrangling, is at a fevered pitch. east vote holds critical weight.

this all after the fbi issued its report on the claims against brett kavanaugh. some of the claims corroborated through some of the people. let's step back from the heat and get to the substance. the man who's been in the thick of this type of fight michael mukasey. >> his pedigree, disposition on the bench. his decisions. he was in decent shape on that because elections have consequences and, of course, the left doesn't like his reasoning on certain things, but they didn't win. okay. then you have the allegations of forward and the others, then you have how he handled them. it seems like that last bit in absence of certainty about the allegations looms large. what case can you make that after what people have seen in the hearings, and now read in this op ed, he has the temperament to be a supreme court justice.

>> he sat there and watched himself accused of the vilest crimes imaginable, in front of his wife and kids. now, somebody said, well, he wrote the statement out, and therefore it was all premeditated. he was working on that statement while she was testifying, this wasn't premeditated the way a prepared statement -- >> how do you know when he wrote it? >> he said so. he was asked by one of the senators, did you watch her testimony? no, i was working on my statement. >> you interpret that to mean. >> he said i wasn't watching, i planned to watch, but i didn't. i was working on my statement. >> how do you know he didn't hear what she was saying. >> he couldn't have been reacting in realtime. >> the notion that that is the same kind of prepared testimony,

those two are not analogous. number two, the notion that somehow this investigation was fixed or limited is absurd. the parameters were set by the senate. they asked for two or three allegations pursued. they wanted dr. ford, the ramirez allegations and initially swetnick before she collapsed on television like a $3 suitcase. they didn't talk to her, and they didn't talk to him. >> they testified. there are a lot of people they left on the table. my defense of the fbi is simple. there were a lot of people left on the table. >> there were not a lot of people left on the table. >> there were 29 names offered up.

they talked to nine. >> they weren't asked to investigate his disposition. >> why not? >> they were asked to investigate those incidents. that's what was at issue. >> he manner is at issue. >> how he talked about his past is his issue. >> how he talked about his past was at issue in all of the background investigations that were conducted up until the time that he served. this wasn't the first time he was submitted to a background investigation. >> no, what he said in high school was never looked at. that we're book was never looked at. they stopped at 18, they looked deeper this time. he made the decision to tell a different story about what everything meant and what his habits were. nobody forced him to do that. >> the senate said they wanted three allegations that were serious investigated. those are the allegations that were investigated. the previous program had senator

blumenthal on claiming there was a guy in connecticut who was a witness who was not approached. that guy was the fellow that said he was told by someone who was a witness to the ramirez incident. not that he saw it himself. that he was told by the fellow a a witness to the ramirez incident. that person was contacted by the investigators and said he had no idea what the guy was talking about. of course they didn't talk to the secondary witness. they talked to the primary witness. >> what i'm saying is, by definition, it was limited in time and scope. it was about showing they made some effort. >> no, it was about investigating it to the extent they thought it was necessary they had more time to investigate if they wanted to. they thought they completed it. >> no, no, no, the fbi had until friday. >> right. >> and they had things that they're not telling us, the senate won't tell us, the white

house won't tell us, because of >> an mou that's been in effect since the obama administration that says that report is held in confidence. and there's good reason for that. >> what's the good reason. >> you're not going to get people talking candidly if they think what they say is going to be spilled out in -- >> so many of those people are talking because they want their stories to come out. this is about sources and methods. >> that's not a good -- >> somebody who wants the story to come out. and wants 15 minutes of fame. that's not a good reason. >> no, no, no, no, no. you're characterizing it that way, we had a right to know -- >> i know there's an agreement in place. that's fungible. you can make it come and go as you want. >> no. >> and the senate could have waived it, it all could have been done under that agreement. had the material been investigated. handled properly from the get go. i love you on this show. because of your experience and

perspective. >> when this is over, people are going to say, i didn't trust how it was done, i want to see what's in that report. i feel that there was a lot of deception going on here, and they shouldn't be left feeling that way, and it could have been easier to do by a different process. it's not your fault. you're not defending it for what it is. that's what i'm worried about, we'll talk about it after they decide. >> it's done the same way it's always done. if all parties agree to disclose what was in the report, it will be disclosed. >> you're right about the rule, they could have changed the rule, they didn't. >> michael mukasey. today an on slaught of protesters swarmed capitol hill, many of them survivors of sexual assault. there was another dramatic elevator confrontation, this one turned out really differently than what you saw with jeff flake, next. face the world as a face to be reckoned with. only botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make moderate to severe frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines

look better. it's a quick 10 minute cosmetic treatment given by a doctor to reduce those lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. ask for it by name. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyelid and eyebrow drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. leave your mark on the world. minimize its mark on you. start saving at botoxcosmetic.com

sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life. a moment of joy. a source of inspiration. an act of kindness. an old friend. a new beginning.

some welcome relief... or a cause for celebration. ♪ what's inside? ♪ [laughter] possibilities. what we deliver by delivering. a group of women confront a republican senator as he gets into an elevator. i know you think you've heard this before. think again. i'm not talking about what happened with jeff flake, i'm talking about senator orrin hatch, things ended very differently. >> why aren't you brave enough to talk to us and exchange with us. don't you waive your hand at me. i waive my hand at you.

>> when you grow up, i'll be glad to -- >> when i grow up. >> how dare you talk to women that way. how dare you. >> he told them to grow up and he was shoeing them and then waived good-bye. don lemon is here. that is like a poster board moment for the beliefs of women who say men/white men/old white men don't get it. that was not a good day for progress. >> no, and when there are possible victims, and we know there are many women in this country who are actual victims of assault and violence on a daily basis many you don't want to cast yourself as a victim when you're really not a victim. those people whether you like it or not 37 those women are expressing their constitutional right to protest. to get into the faces, if you

will of their elected leaders. that's what the first amendment is all about, we've had this discussion, we're not talking about violence. we're not talking about putting your hands on someone, we're not talking about harassing someone. but they have every right to do that, and we seem to think now, we're going to talk about this in the show by the way, we have steve cortese and hilary rosen. >> good lineup. >> we seem to think that -- we forget about vietnam and the protests, then. and how people got into their elected officials faces, we forget about the civil rights movement, the women's move when that happens, the stonewall and the gay movement, the iraq war, the most recent iraq war when that happened. people got into the faces of their leaders, that is part of a democracy, and that's what makes us america. so i say shame on those lawmakers for speaking to those women like that, they should encourage them to dialogue and maybe if they engage them in a

conversation and listen, they wouldn't have to be -- >> they'll say there's a way to do it, and that wasn't the right way, you know what, when someone's a survivor of a violent attack, and they believe they're not -- >> chris, what's a right way to protest. people are upset because someone is doing -- colin kaepernick and other players are taking a knee. which is the most benign way, docile way of protesting. >> agreed. >> you don't like that, and now you don't like people who tell you how they feel? i mean, come on. >> look, what he did was a metaphor of how those women and the people who support them feel they're treated at every level of society, enough. grow up. let me know when you figure out what matters and doesn't. >> little lady, get on out of here. that's how that comes off. and by the way, someone who -- i'm sure a lot of people have gotten in his face, during his time as mayor, and during his times as senator, that's cory booker coming up at the top of the show. >> good for you, don.

see you soon. last week, brett kavanaugh was foaming alt the mouth at democrats. accusing them of forming a political hit job against them. he's coming to you through an op-ed in the "washington post." saying he's not political. he's be impartial and calm. he always has been. you buy it? the closing argument of what to focus on. next. oh really? thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.

the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? ♪ 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.

♪ dono.u hear that? it's quiet.

too quiet. xfinity home cameras. xfinity home gives you an extra pair of eyes to help watch over your family. plus, you have added peace of mind from 24/7 professional monitoring. xfinity home. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity customers, add xfinity home and get a great offer. plus, ask how to get free installation. call, go online, or demo in an xfinity store today. judge brett kavanaugh just wrote an op-ed arguing to you that he is a good choice for the supreme court. it's in the "wall street journal." we have never seen such an overtly political play by a nominee, let alone one who is fighting back criticism that he is too political. but here we are steeped in irony and animosity. but let's do this. let's look at his own words and

assess. the top is a reminder of devotion to family and country and his pride at being selected. he says his past has been ridiculously distorted. yeah. but by whom is the question. he chose to mislead about what he wrote in high school and college. he decided to make another political move and go to the most partisan media outlet, fox, to sit across from a friendly face and say this. >> when i was in high school and i went to an all boys catholic high school, a jesuits high school where i was focused on academics and athletics, going to kmuch every sunday at little flower, working on my service projects and friendship. friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all girls catholic schools. >> he's the one who decided to paint the perfect picture of himself. no one did that to him. he then says he was forceful and passionate during the hearing. this is what he calls forceful and passionate.

>> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. >> and this. >> 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 about black out. i don't know, have you? >> could you answer the question, judge? just -- 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. >> that's independent and impartial. that's a political.

of course trump liked his performance. kavanaugh was bombastic and beneath the dignity of the station, signature trump traits. he says he was there as a son and husband and father. and that what you saw is him testifying with his family in mind. so, ask yourself, that's how he decided to represent himself in front of them, by being petulant and combative and rude? he admits he was emotional at times and said a few things i should not have said. there is a problem with his contrition. he didn't just fly off the handle. those were prepared rarksemarks. i disagree with former a.g.mukasey. he drafted his remarks. they were thought out. he had answers about his year book and how to sanitize his past. he was measured when he answered those questions. he wasn't going off the top of his head. again, i don't care about what he did in high school except for the allegations of miss ford. i don't care about his drinking.

from what i've heard, sounds like what many if not most in college are prone to. excess. i was at the same school and the same bars. you know what? i fought a lot more than he did, but i own it. i'm flawed. i was and i am, i did stupid things. my life was never just about books and church and charity, and neither was his. all that time he was out fffff fooling around with his buddies and we know what that means, and it doesn't mean what he says it means. so, separating out the serious allegations, the problem is not the behavior. it is the denial of the same. the most telling phrase i would suggest is i have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. i have not changed. he has been known that way and also as a rabid righty, an attack dog and a hot head, and he has not changed based on that testimony. two points.

when you're innocent, poise, calm in the face of criticism reflects your power of belief. losing control suggests something incriminating. kavanaugh is who he was in that hearing for better or worse. does he have the pedigree? yes. the record of decisions? yes, if you favor conservative rulings. did he do what his accusers say? we don't know. in fairness to kavanaugh, there is no overwhelming proof outside the accusers, but that must be corroborated and we haven't seen corroboration. we also haven't seen what the fbi has and we don't know that they looked at what they could have. then there is the pressing question, does he have the temperament? he says he is independent and impartial. mya angelou gave us the best advice in these matters. when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

how will the senators interpret that wisdom here? we will see. that's it for us tonight. thank you for watching. cnn tonight with don lemon starts right now. >> okay. so, chris, so this "wall street journal" editorial that he wrote, right, he wrote what he said in front of the senate judiciary committee as well. he could have simply said this, which was in the "wall street journal" rather than saying what he said in front of the senate judiciary committee. he could have said, in each case that i have ruled on, i have followed the law. i do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. >> right. >> i am going to be objective and -- what does he say, people on the court don't sit on separate sides of the aisle. he could have said that. listen, i am not guilty of any of this. but let me tell you, if i have the honor of being confirmed for this particular seat, here is how i will conduct myself. i am open to