i am looking at some of the comments, the statements being made. against me, against my good friend from maine. the hateful, the aggressive, the truly, truly awful manner which with so many are acting now. it has to end. this is not who we are. this is not who we should be. this is not who we raise our children to be. so i -- as we move forward again through a very difficult time, i

think, for this body, and for this country, i want to urge us to a place where we are able to engage in that civil discourse, which is what the senate is supposed to be all about. that we're able to show respect for one another's views and differences. and when a hard vote is taken, that there is a level of respect for the decision that each of us makes. and there is another thing that i do hope and again, i'll refer to my friend from maine. and i will note, if there has been a silver lining in these bitter, bitter weeks, which

quite honestly remains to be seen, i do think what we have seen is a recognition by both sides, a recognition by both sides that we must do more to protect and prevent sexual assault and to help the victims of these assaults. there has been a national discussion. there has been an outpouring of discussion, conversation, fears, tears, frustration, rage. there is an emotion that really has been unleashed in these recent weeks.

and these are discussions that we need to have as a country. we need to have these as a country. we need to bring, we need to bring these, these survivors to a place where they feel that they can heal. but until you come out of the shadow and do so without shame, it is pretty hard to heal. i have met with so many survivors and i know that every single one of us has. and i heard from colleagues as they have shared with me that they have been truly surprised, many stunned by what they are learning is the prevalence of

this, unfortunately, in our society today. in alaska, the presiding officers in your state, the levels of sexual assault that we see within our native-american and alaska native communities, the rates are incredibly devastating. it is not something that we say we'll get to tomorrow. we've heard those voices. we've heard those voices and i hope we have all learned something, that we owe it to the victims of sexual assault to do more and to do better and to do it now with them.

mr. president, i am going to close and thank you, but i truly hope that we can be at that place where we can move forward in a manner that shows greater respect, we owe it to the people of america to return to a less rancorous confirmation process. in the spirit of that, and again, while i voted no on cloture today, and i will be a no tomorrow, i will in the final tally be asked to be recorded as present. and i do this because a friend, a colleague of ours, is in

montana this evening, and tomorrow, at just about the same hour that we'll be voting, he will be walking his daughter down the aisle and he won't be present to vote. and so i have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. it will not change the outcome of the vote. but i do hope that it reminds us that we can take very small, very small steps to be gracious with one another, and maybe those small, gracious steps can lead to more. but i know that is hard as these matters are that we deal with. we are humans.

we have family that we love. we don't spend near enough time with them. and making sure that we can do one small thing to make that family a little bit better. been away for too long with. that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and thank you. good evening. that was republican lisa murkowski giving her explanation on why she has reached the decision she has on the supreme court confirmation. she spoke at length about the divisiveness of the process. she spoke about what survivors of sexual abuse go through and she talked about court precedent and cases important to her own constituents. she talked about healing. here's the moment why she voted no today. >> so it is high. and even in the face of the

worst thing that could happen, a sexual assault allegation, even in the face of an overly and overt overtly political process, even when one side of this chamber is absolutely did he do set on defeating his nomination, from the very get-go, before he was even named. even in these situations, the standard is that a judge must act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid the impropriety

and the appearance of impropriety. and after the hearing that we all watched last week, last thursday, it became clear to me, or was becoming clearer, that that appearance of impropriety has become unavoidable. and i've been deliberating, agonizing about what is fair? is this too unfair a burden, to place on somebody that is dealing with the worst, the most horrific allegations that go to your integrity, they go to everything that you are.

i think we all struggle with how we would respond. but i am reminded, there are only, there are only nine seats on the bench of the highest court in the land. >> that was republican lisa murkowski. joining me now, the cnn political editor, and the author of the soon to be out book, the corrosion of conservatism. why i left the right. i am interested to hear how senator murkowski got to know. >> well, the thing that she seemed to focus on the most was the judicial temperament issue and this is a very rarified position in our community. even the most qualified, most brilliant, most, the beam the most wonderful temperaments in the world typically don't get on

the supreme court. so there is a very, very high bar and that's the high bar that she was holding him to. she says even if she understands that he would be very upset, that this is an attack he felt was on his integrity, that in the end, you can't behave in that manner and be on the supreme court. >> i wonder what you make of that argument. that is certainly something in the op ed last night. >> that's true. he realized he made a serious mistake in his tone which was very partisan, not very judicious. he tried to walk it back. when a judge says i am not a partisan, that's like president saying i am not a crook. the fact that he's saying the defeats the message that he's trying to convey. i thought what senator murkowski said was very thoughtful and made a lot of sense to me.

i was somebody like her that was prepared to support his nomination because i thought he was superbly qualified. i understand he got angry because he felt he was unjustifiably accused. it really made me realize, wait, this is not somebody we should have on the supreme court. that's what senator murkowski was trying to get across but i have to say, it was a close call. he is well qualified and the charges were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. and i think susan collins reached a different judgment. i love senator murkowski's tone. very rational and it is something she clearly agonized over and that's the right way to behave and unfortunately, not enough senators behaved that way. >> were you surprised? >> no. i thought it was a tremendous

performance by her this afternoon. there's been so much emotion and people running around, personally confronting senators. the pure expression of emotion, it should be enough to move someone to your position. and with murkowski and collins this afternoon, these are statements meant to persuade and explain their positions. and that's the appropriate way to go. and i thought collins was especially strong. the corral gags here against brett kavanaugh, it was not that he got angry when he was accused, it was that he was guilty of a sexual assault. and she very persuasively explained how there is no independent corroboration of that and to the extent there is evidence, it cuts the wrong way. and even outside the legal setting, fairness and the presumption of innocence and when you have that, you should vote to confirm him. and i don't think murkowski

makes any sense to say he's good man but i'll protest against him. the process was too rancorous but she's rewarding the rancor. i am very glad that brett kavanaugh will likely be on the supreme court. >> is this just the new normal? will this be the way it is, moving forward? >> well, i don't even know what that means. unless another person comes up w in the supreme court, i think there are two very credible allegations against him. i think we've had quite a few men come to the supreme court without this happening. i don't know why this would be the new normal. i take real issue with a lot of things susan collins that. i don't think she laid out a persuasive case that none of this happened. she brought up that christine blasey ford can't remember who drove her home and any trauma expert will tell you there's

nothing remarkable about that. there's tunnel vision. you remember the traumatic event but you often don't remember where you were or who drove you home. this didn't strike me as a super thoughtful perspective. if we look at the actual hearing, the actual questions that happen, there was nothing about it that was a circus like atmosphere. the questions were difficult. it was hard. judge kavanaugh got angry. but nothing like a circus. when people say circus, they're talking about protesters. people are expressing dissatisfaction with the way it is being handled is a krirg us like atmosphere and we don't like that and i don't think that's a good message to be sending people. >> chasing senators in the hallway is a circus like atmosphere. >> i'm sorry, why did senators not be confront in the hallway? >> i'll express my opinion and then you can express yours.

personally confronting people and chasing them is circus like. having a senator ask what booth means in a supreme court hearing is absurd. what collins pointed out. not only does she not remember how she got home. no one has come forward to say she drove her home and the only solid thing is to say the two witnesses that she named. one of whom is a good friend of hers. and both of those said they have no memory of this event. a friend of hers said she doesn't even know brett kavanaugh. >> and she believes her. she believes her. >> she can't confirm her account. >> the talking points are so old. you this is what you keep doing. you leave out the part that she says she believes her. i wrote a come bum something that happened to me when i was 15 years old. i don't remember who drove me home or where i was. was i lying?

just answer my question. was i lying? >> no. i believe you. i believe you very well. >> why was i not lying but christine blasey ford was? >> do you want me to reply? >> what we have is a 36-year-old memory with no independent confirmation. if you're interested in the topic of memory, i urge you to google elizabeth loftus and others who have done a lot of research in this. when you're interrogating your memory over time. it doesn't get better. it gets less reliable. that's why contemporaneous notes, any evidence would tell on her side. to the extent we can look at anything independent, it goes the other way. >> rich, let's be real. even though republicans admitted that dr. ford was a very credible witness and they said that even though she remembers what she remembers, it may not be brett kavanaugh even though she was 100% certain. i found her to be a more

credible witness than brett kavanaugh. i agree with you to the extent that her allegations are not proven. i think they're credible but not proven. >> it's not that they're not proven -- >> let me finish. the reason why i ultimately could not support brett kavanaugh, even though i think he is well qualified by professional experience and intellectually, is because of his over the top rancorous partisanship which i think will further degrade the supreme court and cause it to fall into even further partisan gridlock and disrepute. how on earth could he be fair that involve liberal causes on one side after he's thrown in his lot with the trumpian right? >> he was seriously accused being a party to sexual --

>> can you -- >> he admitted that he went over the top. >> quickly respond. >> the reason why he was so angry and passionate is he was legitimately accused and people took this seriously. when people push back, they're accused of victim blaming. that was taken seriously and -- >> that was the focus of the hearing? gang rape? that's all you keep talking about was gang rape. rather than talking about what the actual hearing was about. christine blasey ford, all you want to talk about is gang rape. that's not -- that's not what the hearing was about and you keep latching on -- >> democrats -- >> rather than talking about what actually happened which was christine blasey ford testifying. >> do you believe julie swetnick? really quickly. >> i don't know. i believe christine blasey ford and i find her much more credible. >> so do you think julie swetnick was credible?

>> i don't know. i believe there were some questions raised. >> you said she's not credible. >> i answered you. i just -- >> i actually. -- >> a teenage boy -- >> stop interrupting me. >> respond. >> i said i had questions about it. why are you saying that i said -- >> because people took it seriously when it was as far assical on the face of it. >> thank you very much. coming up next, more on where it could take the country politically. and later what the foerns for christine blasey ford tell us their client has to say about the latest developments and whether or not brett kavanaugh should be impeached.

yes, we are twins. when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people. being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade?. exactly. alright, call td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut-check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ so the final vote is set for tomorrow. if all goes as expected, brett

kavanaugh will be confirmed. it has been neither been simple or easy. in a moment, more on the legal ramifications but first, how we got here and what happens tomorrow. what are the next steps? where do things go from here? >> at least on the technical side of things, the senate is in the middle of 30 hours of debate. they will have the final vote and it is clear they have the votes. the broader question of where the senate goes from here, where the institutions go from here, where the supreme court goes from here, where the conversation goes from here. i was asking this question to a senior gop aide who that it is only going to get worse. that's the feeling. this wasn't rock bottom like what you heard susan collins say she hoped. perhaps they take a step back and say perhaps there's a better way to go. this will likely only escalate in the weeks and months ahead.

we're in the middle of the mid-term year, we're a month away from the election so expect the fights to continue. expect nobody to cool off. expect things to heat up. >> it was reported that senator collins was undecided through the whole process. do we know the details of how she got to it? >> i was hearing from people who were in discussions with senator collins who kept saying, she is solid on brett kavanaugh. she likes him very much. she is very confident and assuaged. what senator collins the on the floor today is lay out in detail as it related to his judicial record, on health care, pre-existing conditions, that changed or stopped when the sexual assault allegations came out. but the threshold based on what she thought about his record, it was so high that she laid out that she needed to see a lot to

convince her otherwise. over the scenes in the last 24 hours. she read through it, debated with staff. in the end she was not only comfortable with the record, but she was comfortable with the man she talked with personally one on one. >> and senator joe manchin was a democrat going to vote in favor of kavanaugh. >> everybody looks at the politics and it is obvious. president trump won by a lot. and joe manchin has been eyeing that in pretty much the whole term of congress. he has the constituents and he was hearing from them to a regular basis. he was hearing from sexual assault survivors, from protesters, and those are the moments often have an impact on senators. just look at senator jeff flake. in the end, particularly given that he wouldn't be the deciding

vote, and given that he has opened up a lead, this might lock up his re-election, it was a decision he decided to go with. >> susan collins seemed to suggest when it dime issues like abortion, nothing much will change. >> to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee is the first to express the view that precedent is not mere lay practice and tradition but rooted in article 3 of our constitution itself. he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy. it is dictated to pay attention and pay lead to rules of precedent. in other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration.

it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. >> senator collins explained why she believes judge kavanaugh would not revisit roe v. wade. joining me now, policy director of the net work which supports judge kavanaugh. when you hear him saying, he believes this is rooted in article 3 of the constitution and therefore, roe v. wade is set. >> she's in dreamland. first, lots have said that it is rooted in the constitution. even if that's true, they still overturn precedents. just this year they overturned a precedent almost as old as roe v. wade involving labor law.

they overturn precedents, president trump. he was going to appoint justices who would overturn roe v. wade. what i think he meant when he said that, i think he's going to overturn justice that's are going to overturn roe v. wade. that's what he's done with gorsuch, that's what he's done with kavanaugh, and i don't understand why conservatives can't take yes as an answer. >> is he right? do you expect it will be undone under whether it is under states rights and not by a landmark case overturning precedent? >> i think he is right about one thing. all supreme court justices overturn justices. no justice thinks every precedent is there for eternity. however, i think it is impossible to know what judge kavanaugh would do. he was in the lower court before. you don't have his practice of precedent. and the key vote to look at, for this coming team and going forward, is chief justice

roberts and his news on precedent, it does show that he is not someone who wants to go around willy nilly. so i think he is the person to look at. >> wasn't he part of the majority that overturned labor law? >> sure. wouldn't you love to see them overturn citizens united? everyone overturns precedent at one point or another. it is trying to figure out where are the balances struck in different cases? >> the reason why the federal society compiled this list from whom the president chose is because they want, they have an agenda. she mentioned citizens united. it will be expanded. citizens united and related cases are the reason why your organization can spend millions and millions of dollars to support judge kavanaugh and you never talk about where your money came from. isn't that right? >> we have the same policy that

groups like the aclu, planned parenthood, the naacp have. for the same reason we protect our donor rights. if you think the federal society has a monolithic view on that and any other issue, you have clearly not attended any of their meetings. it is a very broad based group. >> oh, yeah. >> i would challenge to you come to their debates. >> it is about affirmative action. bits gay rights, whether gay people can buy wedding cakes, can go to restaurants, can go to hotels. this is a whole agenda that is now hated out before with five conservatives in the majority. isn't that right? you've won. why runlt celebrating? >> what we are looking for is a judge who will be faithful to the constitution, not specific policy goals. i know that's how people like to look at the court. but judges aren't there to be a fairy godmother to give you the wishes you want.

if it is signed by democratic president, judge kavanaugh, i would be supporting him 100%, will apply that law as it is written. not try to mess with it. not try to massage it. that puts it back where it should be. >> do you think the president has been duped with regard to roe v. wade? >> i don't know if the president even knows that. he said he specifically didn't ask him about that. we know it takes five votes to do anything with the supreme court. i think chief justice roberts is the swing vote on this. we're going back to the same scare mongering we saw with justice suter, justice o'conner. if suter is concerned, women will die. he voted to uphold roe versus wade. >> it's amazing to me -- i'm sorry.

>> i don't think i know any more than you do. >> it is a total mystery. all these people like carey who have devoted their lives to overturning roe v. wade are mystified whether their candidate will do what they've devoted their lives to trying to accomplish. be realistic. this is why you and many other conservatives have been in the conservative movement, because you want to end legal works in manager among other priorities. and now you've got the five justices you want. why can't you just acknowledge that? >> i have no idea what will happen. a lot of people went into the obamacare case thinking they knew how it would turn out. i don't think you can predict it. >> so do all that -- >> we're not devoting millions of dollars with the goal of overturning roe versus wade. we're devoting the time and effort to nominees who will support the constitution and the

rule of law. it is about being people faithful to the constitution. that doesn't always line up with my policy goals. a lot of cases where this law should be -- >> works rights and the, abortion rights are clear. but when you say, you look for judges who uphold the constitution, you believe the right to abortion is not in privacy rights or it is not in the constitution. >> that's frankly something that i think lawrence tried -- >> you can say yes or no. >> the idea that the legal grounding of roe versus wade isn't well constitutionally grounded is shared by people including very liberal legal scholars. so that's not unique to me. >> that would be a yes. do you believe that. >> i think it is important not to focus on these abstractions like she's talking about.

rule of law. let's talk about issues that will be before the court. let's talk about abortion, campaign finance, gay rights, all of those will go in a very different direction because anthony kennedy is gone and brett kavanaugh will be there. that's why you got involved in politics. you're winning. i don't see why you shouldn't straight out acknowledge it. >> i am very happy to have kavanaugh on the court. i will acknowledge that all day long. i think he will be faithful to the constitution. a look at what may be president trump's most successful week in office. with unemployment at a many years all time low. we'll look at what this week means for the mid-term elections next month. this place isn't for me.

that last place was pretty nice. i don't like this whole thing. i think we can do better. change is hard. try to keep an open mind. come on, dad. this is for me, son? principal. we can help you plan for that.

s at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay

higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. and humana has a large network of doctors and hospitals. so call or go online today. find out if your doctor is part of the humana network and get your free decision guide. discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free. . today was a big win for president trump. this will mean his second conservative nominee selected for the court. on top of that, the unemployment

numbers mean even more good news for the country. unemployment levels at a 49-year low. with the mid-terms the about a month, we wanted to look at what the political landscape looks like ahead. here with us is dana bash, former senior adviser to president obama, obviously a good day, you can argue a very good week for republicans. do you think it will remain a flash point as the senate house races heat up? >> well, first of all, there is no doubt that he's mounted up a series of wins and that has to be good from their standpoint right now. the question is the durability of this. in the short run you talk to republicans and i've talked to democrats as well who believe the kavanaugh fight has stoked up interest. in particular, these red states where they're trying to unseat democratic senators and they're heartened by that. it may have the reverse effect

in the suburban districts where they're hoping to save republicans and they're much less to be supportive of kavanaugh. where will we be in four and a half weeks? you know doing a nightly show that four and a half weeks in the world of donald trump is an eternity. there could be a lot of, that the winners are satisfied and the losers on the other side are more aroused to come out to the polls. so i think in the short run, a big week for the president. in the long run, four and a half weeks is an eternity. >> it does seem like each side thinks their base will be energized by the kavanaugh battle. >> and they're both right. the difference is that for the

democrats, they're crazy energized. this will take them up to an 11 but they were pretty close already. as for the republicans, they've been complacent. that has been a worry in every conversation that i've had with republican strategists and even candidates going into the november elections. and, although this is a win, a republican win, there is still real anger that is being stoked by the president. by the republican leadership at the process. and specific language targeting the same voters who came out for donald trump in 2016. men should be scared. they should be fearful. specifically aimed at getting republicans out the door and to the polls. >> do you see this as as a winning issue for democrats?

most lean republican. democrats have to be careful about how much they campaign on the supreme court issue? >> i'm not sure that these democratic senators will be campaigning on the supreme court issue in these red states. i think they were feeling pretty good about the way things were trending before this kavanaugh fight. they were stressing issues like health care which resonated. i think they would like to go back to that and they would like this issue to recede and go back to the winning issues that had them in a relatively good position before all this started. >> dana, control the house, it is obviously different. they are up for re-election. do some of them want to make this part of their campaigns? >> yes, you're right. the house has nothing to do with the confirmation process. but because the balance of power

in the house is going to be won or lost in swing districts, in districts that aren't ruby red or super liberal, but swing districts, the women in particular are going to be swayed by this kavanaugh situation. and what democrats are hoping is that those will be swayed in kavanaugh's favor. it is not that clear cut. if you look at the ledger, it more likely than not to help the democrats in those key districts. >> all right. thank you. stay with us.

metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain,

and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my metastatic breast cancer with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. this is actually under your budget. it's great. mm-hmm. yeah, and when you move in, geico could help you save on renters' insurance! man 1: (behind wall) yep, geico helped me with renters insurance, too! um... the walls seem a bit thin... man 2: (behind wall) they are! and craig practices the accordion every night! says the guy who sings karaoke by himself. i'm a very shy singer. you're tone deaf! ehh... should we move on to the next one? it's a great building! you'll love it here!

we have mixers every thursday. geico®. it's easy to switch and save on homeowners and renters insurance.

we began the hour with senator lisa murkowski explaining why she is alone among republicans in opposing brett kavanaugh's nomination. now what christine blasey ford is thinking. what have you learned about how professor ford thinks now? >> she's not happy, as you can imagine. but she is already, it appears to be, trying to get back some

semblance of normalcy to her life. and i talked to her lawyers about that. and several other things pertaining to kavanaugh. >> have you heard any regrets from her about coming out the way she did? >> i don't think she has any regrets. i think she feels she did the right thing and this was what she wanted to do. provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. and i think she still feels that was the right thing to do. i don't think she has any regrets. >> president trump, i'm sure you saw, mocked your client at a rally tuesday night. the crowd who are obviously big trump supporters applauded. did you speak to professor ford? did she see that and what was her reaction? >> she did. she was upset by it. it was very hurtful. as it would be to any woman, any survivor, who had the courage to come forward, only to be mocked and belittled by anyone, really.

but certainly by the president of the united states. it was very upsetting and very hurtful. >> so one of the things that has gotten republicans really enraged is that during her testimony, professor ford said she was not clear that there was an offer to you, her legal team, from the committee to have the committee fly out to california and have a private conversation with her, interview with her, as opposed to flying her for a public hearing. is that true? >> no. as her counsel informed her of all options made available to us by the committee. we showed her all the correspondence. and what they were offering was to send staffers to california to interview her. dr. ford wanted to speak to the committee members themselves. and i think what you saw in the hearing was that dr. ford got a little confused and thought that

senator grassley was suggesting that he himself would have come to california, which was not what he had offered at all. >> the allegations they're making very blatant, is that she has lawyers, you two, who are democrats, who wanted to have a public spectacle. >> dana, that is such a ludicrous accusation. we have not wanted to respond because it is such a distraction. our client was advised of every option given to her by the committee. she saw every communication. she is a smart woman. she wanted to testify before the senate judiciary committee. not speak to members of his staff. >> if judge kavanaugh becomes justice kavanaugh, would professor ford like impeachment proceedings to begin? >> she has not asked for anything of the sort.

what she did was to come forward and agreed to cooperate with the fbi. >> she said no. she's not going on impeachment. >> no. >> she does not want him to be impeached. >> no. >> it is interesting. you had to pin her down on it. but that ford said she would not want kavanaugh to be impeached. >> so what they're trying to get across is that she didn't come at this from the point of view of a democrat or frankly, of somebody who was out to get brett kavanaugh. that's what they were trying to explain by answering that it bluntly and saying she wouldn't want him to be impeached. she wanted to do her civic duty which is what they repeated again today and make sure that the senators knew that she explained she experienced this

with brett kavanaugh and have that be a factor with the decision to have him be on the supreme court. >> did you get any idea that she wanted to engage with him or his supporters or just go back to her former life? >> the latter. the definite impression that i got is that she wants to get her life back. in fact, her lawyer said to me separately, that she is hoping at some point to go back to her home which they believe is not yet safe to do that. go back to teaching. she is a professor. go back to her regular life with her kids and not engage on a political level. she could very easily be a political icon if she could lead a charge and that very much does not seem like what she wants to do. she appears to maybe take, at least in the short term after the clarence thomas situation, the road of anita hill and lay low. >> okay. thank you.

we want to check in with >> i want to check in with chris and see what he's working on for cuomo prime time. >> it's important to get perspective on what we assume will happen tomorrow. the women in those big elevator moments, you're having them on. we'll have on one of the women from the flake one and one from the hatch one. they meant such different things. they confirmed such different things. they will be on here. we have john dean on of nixon fame obviously. he testified about kavanaugh, what he thought were concerns. how does he feel about those concerns now? we're going to debate the way forward and we're going to make the case tonight, anderson, that we've seen one thing for sure -- this is the bottom. murkowski and collins agree on that. the question is what makes a change for the better. >> that's a good question. eight and a half minutes from now. when it came down to it, two senators went against their own parties today on the kavanaugh

vote. joe manchin against the democrats, murkowski against the republicans. the question is will they pay a price at the polls? we'll talk with a republican politician who knows a great deal about going against the tide. chevy also won a j.d. power dependability award for its light-duty truck the chevy silverado. oh, and since the chevy equinox and traverse also won chevy is the only brand to earn the j.d. power dependability award across cars, trucks and suvs-three years in a row. phew. third time's the charm...

pe"what is your nationality?"ent countries that we traveled- and i would always answer, "hispanic." so, when i got my ancestrydna results it was a shocker! i'm everything, i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder, what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked "other". discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com

two senators have bucked their party on the kavanaugh vote, murkowski, a republican, and joe manchin a democrat. in a raucous hallway interview against kavanaugh shouting their disapproval, manchin offered this about his votes and whether politics played a part. >> reporter: you're up for reelection. are you concerned the base will revolt. >>? >> i didn't look at this from a political standpoint. >> one person who knows a lot about bucking his political party is republican congressman charlie dent. thanks for being with us. when you're a lawmaker, do you vote along the lines of what your constituents want or what your conscience tells you to do?

because presumably there are plenty of times when they here in conflict. >> you tend to do both. it depends on the issue, you might follow your conscience, you might follow your constituents and there cob conflicts. be new the case of joe manchin, i think from a political perspective he did the right thing and i don't think he'll suffer a big consequence as a result of this. his primary is behind him but even, say, in six years from now if he seeks reelection, would they primary him over this issue? who knows. even if they did he could change parties and run as a republican and probably win. and murkowski, it should be remembered, in 2010 was challenged by joe miller from the right tea party and joe miller defeateder in the primary and she turned around and won a write in in the fall and beat joe miller. so i don't think lisa murkowski is going to face a heavy penalty from republican voters in alaska. >> with manchin who is obviously

a democratic conservative state, would there have been any political deal with him for that vote or was that mostly based on him wanting to lock up reelection in west virginia? obviously in some votes people reach out to you, deals are made. >> well, i think it's tricky to make a deal in this case. i can't imagine that joe manchin wanted to be the one democrat voting for brett kavanaugh. i don't think he liked being in that position at all. but i suspect with joe manchin's political calculation, he needs to win voters who voted for trump but also for him. there are a lot of trump/manchin voters in west virginia. i suspect that is a bigger political calculation, the biger piece than perhaps antagonizing elements of his pace. are they going to support the republican morrissey? so they have nowhere to go. they can stay home but i suspect

that would be self-defeating. at least with joe manchin they get somebody who supports democratic values more often than republican ones. >> were you surprised by the way things fell into place today? >> not particularly. i thought that -- well, i think susan collins is one of the finest senators, a great mentor to me and a very thoughtful member of the u.s. senate but i was not surprised by where susan collins came down or joe manchin. i was a little surprised by lisa murkowski's reasoning for not voting for kavanaugh. i thought she had concerns about kavanaugh's support for native americans and federal land issues but she made it more about his temperament so that maybe surprised me a little bit but i was not surprised by flake, manchin or collins. >> were you surprised by how nasty this was and what does it mean moving forward. ? one can say it's not everyday

somebody is accused of sexual assault and not a supreme court justice in modern times so it's not a template but do you see this as kind of a new normal. >> i'm old-fashioned. when i served in the u.s. house i saw five supreme court justices be confirmed, rockets, alito, kagan, sotomayor and gorsuch and when i was asked, most people didn't care what i had to think because i was not in the senate. but i said it each time that i thought each of them was qualified and deserved to be on the court even if i might not have agreed with them philosophically and i think we've gotten away from this. this has become so partisan and ideological that a democrat can't acknowledge that maybe a republican nominee is fit to serve as a judge based on his or her abilities and republicans

are saying the same thing about democratic nominees. >> congressman, thank you very much, appreciate it. don't miss "full circle." our interactive newscast on facebook. you get to pick stories we cover. we'll see it weeknights. you can find it at facebook.com/andersoncooperfull circle. now let's hand it over to chris cuomo for "prime time." judge kavanaugh has the votes. he'll likely will be confirmed this weekend. how did it come to this? we know that. the real question is how do we make sure this process never happens this way again? president trump's delivered on his pledge to reshape the court. moving it to the right maybe for a generation. but will he lose for winning? will his base stay home satisfied they got