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 what they wa

want. also, how did today's votes hit those women who put themselves in senator' faces. remember the critical confrontation with flake and be senator shoo-shoo, orrin hatch. survivors of assault demanding they be seen and heard. have they once again been silenced? and how will the laws of the land change with brett kavanaugh on the high court as is expected? he can say he'll be impartial and independent but like his testimony, some of his key rulings tell a different story. remember his threat -- what goes around comes around. will he deliver? what do you say? it's friday night, let's get after it. so it would seem that brett kavanaugh's seat on the high court is all but certain after one of the biggest political battles in modern history. it was a tough day for the women who went all out confronting

lawmakers in person. do you remember this moment? >> you have children in your family. think about them. i have two children. i cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the supreme court who has been accused of violating a young girl. what are you doing, sir? >> it's hard to believe that was just last friday and it did seem to push senator flake to ask for the fbi's supplemental background check. that was the ray of sunshine. but then came the shade. >> don't you wave your hand at me. i wave my hand at you. >> when you grow up i'll talk to you. >> when we grow up? how dare you talk to women that way? how dare you? how dare you? [ bleep ]. >> these are survivors of crimes. shoo-shoo. the president harping on the

moment with a fresh conspiracy theory also known as bs tweeting, very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals funded by billionaire george soros and others to make senators look bad. this from the man who had paid supporters there the night he announced his intention to run for the office. both the women he alleges are paid professionals are here with us now kathy by anet, and anna maria aquila. i'm sorry i'm with you under these circumstances because i know what today meant to both of you but thank you for taking the opportunity. >> thank you, chris. >> anna, when you look back at what happened a week ago, did you think that there was hope for a different outcome or did you expect we would wind up here? >> i always thought there was

hope. that's why i was fighting. i was fighting for my children and i continue to do that everyday because if we don't believe that people have a role in shaping the most important debate in our country, then we will not have the country that we deserve. so everyday i show up thinking there is hope for us to build a country where all of us are respected. when i spoke with senator flake, i didn't think he was going to change his vote but -- in the judiciary committee at this moment but i did think he heard the rage and the pain and the frustration of women and that it was going to -- that he had heard it and that other people were hearing it, too so i'm profoundly disappointed. i think flake and collins and manchin and all the republicans failed to step to the challenge that women are presenting them

by saying listen to our stories and use them as a mirror for our country, allow yourself to imagine that we can be different and be the one that helps repair this. >> if message is real and resonant and we're negotiating it right now. outside a court and a trial. so susan collins struggled with this, she says and came up with what she saw as a standard. i want your take on what she explained today. >> this is not a criminal trial and i do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable do t doubt. the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. >> more likely than not is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt or even people

would argue preponderance of the evidence that we use in civil trials. what you make of that, kathy, the idea that we're going to do these in these settings, non-legal settings. more likely than not. do you agree with that standard and do you think it was met here? >> as i understand this, it was a job interview and not a legal proceeding. >> right. >> i believe that christine blasey ford was credible because she was willing to do the fbi process and the lie detector test and i would have thought he would have welcomed that for himself so i don't agree with mrs. collins. >> ana, how do you feel about that more likely than not. some could articulate that as no pun intended as a 51/49 proposition. i know those are the numbers of the membership in the senate but

that if you get over that threshold, that's all collins was looking for and that wasn't met here. what do you think? >> i think senator collins is missing the point. this was a tremendous opportunity for her and for other people in power to say this is a moment that requires a different kind of leadership. the experience of sexual assault is both -- it's very personal but it's a collect i have ive experience. that's why all of us were saying look at us, look at me. and by looking at me see all of us as the country and do something which you have within your power today to signal to the country that you will help change the culture that doesn't believe us, that forces us to provide all the evidence, that starts out by assuming that our stories are not real and that

fundamentally fails to understand the nature of sexual violence and the nature of trauma that lasts for decades. >> the problem was, we had what is a generational issue was balanced against a generation of jurisprudence. essentially four got in the way of what the gop wanted and that's not the right setting to assess what is complex and sensitive and what we're struggling to understand and deal with. who was paid, just to get this out of the way. they a either of you. >> nobody was paid. >> ana? >> no, of course not. >> did anybody have their signs made for them, made in a professional way? >> yes, we made signs listen, i am an organizer, i've spent the last 17 years building community organizations where people who are regular people find community, find power. we mass our resources together,

we make signs together, we want to make sure our government listens to us. that doesn't mean we are paid or pawns. that means that we are ready to fight for our lives and by fighting for our lives, we're fighting for our country. that's what it is. >> ana, kathy, thank you very much. this is a moment that demands action. we have to deal with what we want to be our cultural reality and we are not there yet. thank you for taking this opportunity. i look forward to talking to both of you. we have a long way to go. >> thank you. >> and, look, they were asked, they say we're not professional, nobody made their signs for us so mr. president, put up your proof. what else did we see here? the politics of this confirmation process was all ugly. so what will kavanaugh's rulings look like if he is indeed confirmed as we expect? we have a reminder of what struck fear in all but staunch conservatives about judge kavanaugh, not the man, the jurist, next. if you have psoriasis, ...

little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. mauntil i held her.diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c.

once daily tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. 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. i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. ask your health care provider about tresiba®.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl?

lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com 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. a generation of conservative jurisprudence. that's what kavanaugh may well mean on the court. it is a great deliverable for trump. but what could this mean for you? now, i keep telling you, you have to keep your eye on the robust number of appointments done by this administration.

consistently young conservative male judges. and they have strikingly similar points of view on the bench. so as a result right now cases are percolating in the lower courts on everything from abortion to lgbt rights, from obamacare to the future of dreamers. and if kavanaugh joins the bench, he's going to move the ideological needle to the right, right? that raises the question if anyone on the bench will qualify as a swing, something current justice elena kagan laid bare. >> starting with justice o'connor and continuing with justice kennedy there has been a person who people -- who found the center or people couldn't predict in that sort of way. it's not so clear that, you know, i think going forward that sort of middle position -- you

know, it's not so clear whether we'll have it. >> and then sotomayor, who is sitting next to her, another justice said, you know, the thing about tony kennedy was he was always able to see the good in his other colleagues and find a personal connection that led him to go one way or the other. you have to wonder if she was keying on the bombastic nature of what we saw with kavanaugh and whether she sees that trait will be gone. let's start with the big-ticket items. reproductive right, roe v. wade. will it be overturned? kavanaugh called it settled law. that means nothing at the scotus level or next to nothing because that's what they do on the high court, they assess and overturn precedent when they see fit. that's why they're the highest court in the land. now, one of the things that helped with senator collins and her mind set and getting to a yes is that the judge did go as far to say that roe has been tested and affirmed more than once and that bolsters its

legitimacy but it's too simple to see overturning roe as just a risk. erosion is more in his wheel house. he has written he would allow stricter government regulation of things like terminating pregnancies and putting curtailments on potential access. that could mean the same thing. another key issue, executive power. judge kavanaugh believes a sitting president cannot be indicted. why? well, in this 2009 law review article he writes we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or prosecutions or processes like those. he goes on to say if the president does something dastardly -- that's his word -- the impeachment process is always available. so why does this matter. the russia investigation. now, the caveat here is it's not as simple as saying trump is going to come before him and you should get a pass. he said congress should pass

laws exempting the president from such processes, meaning maybe he would see it as a matter for congress to decide, not the bench. we will see. and on other potential controversies, you have to keep your eye on these -- gun control, government surveillance, net neutrality. kavanaugh has fought in favor of limiting handgun restrictions, allowing the government to collect what's called metadata, where you get the times and numbers of calls but not the content of the same communication. and he has s apparently okay with getting rid of net neutrality, meaning he would allow your internet provider to decide what content gets a preference. now, there is no arguing that the president scored a huge victory. in fact, he's had quite a week a month out from the midterms. can he keep the momentum going and keep his party in control of congress? have the odds now gotten better or worse? great starting point farce gr i great debate. that's next.

chloe fall in love with iphone xs on t-mobile, and right now, save $300 dollars. 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. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i

literally say ahh. meet the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our fall mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed.

all right. to be fair, great day for president trump. all but delivering -- we'll see what happens tomorrow -- on a key promise with his second

conservative justice. now, all, if it all goes the way we think it will be, it will also be a great day for staunch conservatives who can now justify aligning themselves with a man who flouts so many of their coveted moral standings. some whipped cream and a cherry on the top of this success, nafta replaced with the usmca that provides marginal improvementers in u.s., good job numbers, another dip in unemployment putting it at the lowest level since 1969. this is the premise for a great debate. we have angela rye and michael caputo. the premise is this. is donald trump making america great again? >> so i take issue with the question, frankly, chris, because for me, for my community, this country, frankly, has struggled to be great for some time so when you say "again" it's an emotional trigger for many of us because i'm trying to harken back to

when that again was, right? during the election, donald trump's supporters were asked when america was at its greatest and his supporters more often than not replied with some time around the 1950s. the problem with that era for me and people who look like me is that that was before integration existed in this country. that was the era of jim crow laws and segregation that resulted in economic depression that to this day we struggle to climb out of. and so i would just ask when that again is. that doesn't mean at all that i don't believe in the promise of the american dream, but i don't see it happening right now for us and i didn't see it happen before. >> so on a social justice standpoint, you don't like the qualification of "again" because you believe it means less progress not more. however, on the parameters that i just gave you, that he got two justices for his side, right? elections have consequences. that he redid nafta and there does seem to be incremental improvements, that job numbers

were good once again. that the unemployment rate is at the lowest level since 1969. aren't those things that you have to give the president credit for? >> i give credit to him for succeeding on appointing justices that his side will approve of. i, however, would on from upon what they stand for. i don't believe that that's taking america towards greatness. i actually believe it's setting us back. if you look at the lawyers committee on civil rights report that they put out about judge kavanaugh's record, it's clear they would be setting us back. if you look at the unemployment numbers, sure, on paper these same numbers he claims were fake when he ran for office, if you look at them i would say that we have an issue with the number of people who are reporting unemployment. there are a number of people who have given up and i think overall we have to look at the substantial economic depression that exists in black and brown communities, the fact that they are getting rid of people who are undocumented in this country in astronomical numbers and

separating families from their children. i think we have to look at this not just in the context of what conservatives would like to see but in the whole of america, what is right and what makes us great as a whole and i would say we're substantially missing that mark. >> so this will be a matter of perspective. when you talk to people on the right, brother caputo, i don't need to juice you on this, people are happy not just with kavanaugh, not just with gorsuch but across the board until you get to the tweets and a lot of stuff that comes out of the president's mouth. in terms of the deliverables, they're looking at this week as a dream come true. >> we are. i think we have a lot of surprising heroes in the united states senate. i didn't expect to see mitch mcconnell and lindsey graham and susan collins and chuck grassley is the real hero here. i think in a lot of ways they see president trump standing strong. he didn't waive on his nominee like past republican presidents

might have. and i think strength of this president, whether you like his tweets or his rally comments or not inspired the united states to stand up for brett kavanaugh. and i think there's ironies in what's happening right now. chief among them is that the democrats are trying to bork cavanaugh in order to perhaps juice up their enthusiasm, maybe increase their numbers but right now the enthusiasm gap has evaporated if you believe the npr poll and the generic ballot has gone to almost the neck in neck so we're going to have a good midterms as well. >> well, that's an interesting point. >> the other irony is, you know, this was kennedy's seat but if you look back at it, this was robert bork's seat. and he's now a verb, he got borked? >> well, they took care of that

problem. they took care of that problem, michael, because nobody has to answer a real question anymore. and on another day we'll talk about how what we all saw here was -- >> that's not the irony i was talking about, chris. >> that they got borked? >> if they had gotten bork, he passed away god rest his soul in 2012 and this would have been an obama appointment but it's not. they messed up when they borked bourque and they messed up again when they tried to do it -- >> they didn't mess up and i'll tell you why. you should have to talk about how you feel about jurisprudence as a nominee. you should have to go there. you should have to talk about how decisions are argued and what it means to you. that will not compromise you on the next case. that's not going to make you not independent or not impartial. it's a farce and it's allowed on both sides because of the fear you getting borked, as you put it. so they showed thus process is an abject failure even if it produces the result you like. and that becomes the question for you, angela.

susan collins said today -- >> but real quick, chris, i think we're going to end up making kavanaugh a verb and it's one against the democrats, i think. >> well, i think kavanaugh created his own problems also. nobody told him to lie about his yearbook. >> but the democrats got kavanaughed. >> they didn't have the numbers. they came into it 51-49. as long as you held ranks you were going to be fine, right? >> we're always going to be 51-49 from here forward. >> chris, i'd love to hear the question you have for me. >> that's because you use the nuclear option. i know it started with harry reid but then it was upped as an ante in we see as this toxic it the f-- tit for tat. do you think there will be move to make improvement? >> i think the real challenge we have this particular process, right, is that sexual assault and sexual harassment should not be a partisan issue. >> right.

>> but somehow it became one. you can look back on susan collins comments about -- i almost said senator frank, the senator from minnesota. >> franken. >> franken. i was thinking about barney frank. sorry congressman frank, former congressman frank, but i couldn't get him out of my mind. what's interesting now is she had one set of standards she played by for senator franken and a whole different set she played by for kavanaugh and i think my real question is we're talking about her today. we have a tweet from susan rice saying she would offer to run against her in 2020. >> she backed off that. susan rice backed off. >> i would like her to reconsider. >> she said she's not making announcements. >> well, i would love for her to reconsider. appreciate the tweet because it spurred up the base and this is the main thing that i want to say. that susan collins is no hero of ours and she can not be considered an ally, but we also should not forget the women in

the senate like capito, ernst, fisher, hyde smith who has a special election coming up. hopefully people will do the right thing and vote for mike espy because we should no longer count on women on their gender to understand this issue. thank god for lisa murkowski's compassion. unfortunately, because of her own experience. but this is a situation that says to me if we're really going to be looking for leaders in jurisprudence, as you put it, to really ensure that they are protecting what case law says, that they are going forward and making sure that we are great again, we need to ensure that this process is one that puts partisanship aside and they're getting the best possible person on the bench. he had issues before this me too situation. he was lying before senators before then. that's the problem. >> the process is a sham that happened long before kavanaugh, he's only playing by the rules that are allowed in this farce. you had problems with the left and the right on this one and

you had murkowski and collins who came to opposite determinations but with the same basic understanding of the process which is that it stinks. so the question is going to be who is going to change it because if nothing else comes out of this, we know it can not happen this way again. this was completely unacceptable. but what was acceptable by the arguments made by caputo and rye. thank you for keeping it decent even within disagreement. thank you. my next guest testified at kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. he warned senators not to confirm him. why? because john dean was worried about weakening the judiciary's check on powers. the former nixon aide and counselor extraordinary next.

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

with humira, control is possible. the more you know ththe commute is worth it., you and that john deere tractor, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive, but just like a john deere, it's worth it.

so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com

now i have to qualify it because you never know what can happen, especially in other current political reality, but it looks right now like the votes are there.

bra brett kavanaugh will be confirmed. it looks like it will be a vote of 50-48. senator murkowski plans to vote present, not for or against so republican steve daines from montana can stay at his daughter's wedding. so the 50-50 dream of mike pence, the vice president, because then he would get to come in and be the deciding vote that would hand the conservative this is generation of jurisprudence, that is unlikely, sorry, veep. so let's turn where we go from here. here to help with us that is a man who knows a thing or two about political divisiveness, richard nixon's former counselor john dean. counselor dean, good to have you, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> i am not surprised we have arrived at this occasion. i'm not surprised this would have been 50-48 but we always seemed headed here. what is your concern of the reality going forward now that the process is behind us? >> well, as i testified before

the committee, one of my concerns is a process issue and that is the fact that the committee is not being very effective in vetting and that's not a new phenomena, where people have slipped through the process and the examples i used were bill rehnquist who was caught dissembling twice, once to be an associate and once to be the chief and clarence thomas and i was warning the committee don't let that happen again because it tarnishes not only the justice but the court and hurts the american people. >> one of the points that came out of today was that senators collins and murkowski came to opposite conclusions on kavanaugh but they had the same reality about the process which is that it can't be like this anymore. but here's my question about that, john. they made it this way. not collins and murkowski per se, but the senators made it this way. harry reid blowing up the filibuster when it came to some appointments, mcconnell then

upping the ante with the nuclear option and making it a simple majority for scotus, i think that was huge in terms of decay within the process. and then you had the bork factor which is where now it is recognized by both sides that you get your side a pass. that there are now these farces about impartiality and independence that they can't talk about anything, they can't tell you where they are until they get on the bench and then they have these freakishly consistent penchants such that if you are a move away from your certain direction, one every nine decisions you're called a swing, how do they fix it? >> well, i think you have to start with the whole process in the selection. in this instance, we, of course, watch the white house farm it out to the federalist society. mr. trump not being a lawyer was not particularly interested in the substance and this is true of other presidents who aren't lawyers. the presidents who are lawyers get much deeper into the weeds of their selections in this instance but i think what has to

happen, i understand why harry reid blew up the old rule. none of the obama appointees were getting on the court. there was just a total stalemate because they had to get -- couldn't get around the cloture vote so that's why that happened and mitch mcconnell, of course, did it because he faced the same problem with supreme court nominees. >> but now that they don't have to be at 60, there is no incentive to accommodate. it is just zero-sum game. they will do whatever they can to keep the other side, because that's all they have, they're usually down on the numbers, the out party. >> it would be nice if they could agree to go back to the original cloture number which was 67 back in the day. >> two-thirds vote. forget it now. >> right. that's when you really knew you had some bipartisan support for the people who are going on the court to get over that cloture vote so that would be an ideal, but it's not -- it's going to take a long time to get back

there. >> who do you think the swing vote is on the court now? or is it no one. >> i think roberts, he's somebody who is worried about the reputation of his court. he's somebody who could very easily become a swing vote on some key issues, too. so i haven't given up yet that they can do justice there. >> i lean on you very heavily for obvious reasons of intellectual advantage and experience that you have. i don't see the aspiration of roberts to be a swing. i don't see the doubt. i don't see the determinations and discerning in different directions but he also hasn't been in that position and he is the chief so maybe he will be incentivized to have some semblance of balance within his courts so it's not so putative. one of the main issues you wanted to testify to was where kavanaugh is on executive power and privilege. here's the check on your concern. he was arguing, at least in the

law review article, that congress should free the president of these types of processes. now why doesn't that give you faith that he sees it as a legislative matter not to be decided by the bench and if he were a judge he could say yeah, congress could pass these laws but they haven't so the president is exposed to process. >> at the time when he wrote to piece it wasn't a constitutional level issue, that it would take the congress to get the president with this kind of immunity and that's consistent with other immunities that exist in the federal system where the president is immune, for example, in certain civil lawsuits. that came out of court discussion but was codified by the congress and i think the same will have to happen here and i -- you know, my worry about kavanaugh is that he is joining a lot of other justices who've had a lot of executive and pro-presidential feelings

over a long period of time. and when that happens, we have a very pro president court. and this will be the most pro president court we've ever had. >> and we've never had anybody enter the court with a threat that what comes around goes around and i'll remember what you did to me and that's how kavanaugh is getting in. john dean, thank you so much for your perspective. you're always a welcome addition on cuomo prime time. >> thanks, chris. look, the news is not all kavanaugh. there is another big story that you have to hear about. a verdict that is finally reached in the laquan mcdonald case. you have heard what happened in chicago, right? the case with the shocking video that proved politicians, even lefties, better get these investigations right? if you haven't, you'll want to hear what this was about and how it ended next. ready to juvéderm it?

correct age-related volume loss in cheeks with juvéderm voluma xc, add fullness to lips with juvéderm ultra xc and smooth moderate to severe lines around the nose and mouth with juvéderm xc. tell your doctor if you have a history of scarring or are taking medicines that decrease the body's immune response or that can prolong bleeding. common side effects include injection-site redness, swelling, pain, tenderness, firmness, lumps, bumps, bruising, discoloration or itching. as with all fillers, there is a rare risk of unintentional injection into a blood vessel, which can cause vision abnormalities, blindness, stroke, temporary scabs or scarring. ( ♪ ) juvéderm it. talk to your doctor about the juvéderm collection of fillers.

- grandpa, look what i'm reading! have you read about astronaut abby? - no, sweetheart, i'd love to, but the print is just too small. - [spokeswoman] nls is a free library service from the library of congress for people who have difficulty reading print. - (laughs) now i can listen to astronaut abby's adventures, too! - [spokeswoman] all nls patrons receive a free talking book player upon enrollment. call 800-885-1111 today. shock waves through the streets of chicago after police officer jason van dyke was found guilty of second degree murder in the 2014 shooting of 17-year-old laquan mcdonald. i want to give you some context about why this conviction looms large. a bowling green state university found that between 2005 and

april, 2017, so 12 years, 80 on-duty officers were arrested for murder or manslaughter charges. that was 12-year span. 35% were convicted, 39% were not convicted, 26% were left pending. and yet the issue remains -- i can't really give you any good data on this subject. because we don't really study it. it's like we're afraid of what might be the reality. i can't tell you how many questionable shootings are there in a year. i can tell you there was a study that said on-duty officers shoot about a thousand people a year fatally. but that doesn't mean they're wrongful shootings, god forbid. so what's the breakdown? we don't know because we don't study it. so ultimately you have to remember what the case and life of laquan mcdonald represents, us speci especially to the african-american community. while there is a process in place to determine whether an officer is guilty or not, we have to remember there could be more to a story.

now, more in this case was a video. and this is why we push for video and body cameras if you want truth to be a commodity. authorities initially claimed mcdonald lunged at officers with a knife but the footage that you're watching showed mcdonald walking away from police. now this tape was hard to get into this discussion and in this investigation. there's been a ton of fallout because of that. protests, a department of justice civil rights investigation, condemnation of the city's democrat mayor and the ouster of the police superintendent. no matter what side you fall on this case, this tape, this life that was unjustly cut short should be one more reason why officers should want cameras to exonerate them, to show them and everyone else the truth of a situation.

that is true transparency. let's bring in don lemon. this was a big case. i don't know what it will mean, but it certainly meant something to this family and to people who are watching for a sense of justice. >> and it was suspense. suspenseful all of it. it was coming down the same time susan collins was about to give her speech on the senate floor. but this is the reason, chris, that folks are out on the streets pushing for criminal justice reform. this is the reason that colin kaepernick is kneeling during the national anthem or did kneel during the national anthem and other professional athletes followed suit. it's because of situations like this. to bring light to situations like this. remember, chicago is a big city. there's lots of crime there every year. lots of police-involved shootings. this is the first one to be convicted, i just want to make sure i get this right. the first officer to be charged with first degree murder since 1980. so when you think about all the

stats and how big the city is and how longing that is, i'm sure there are some -- listen, most officers are good officers but i'm sure there's some officers in the interim who have made some mistakes but never been charged before. that's >> for all this talk about blue pride and all that, officers, when you talk to cops, they want transparency. >> yes. >> they want people to know that they're doing their job the right way. >> some of them. >> and they want people who are not doing their job the right way. >> not all of them. >> to be exposed. >> but most of the ones i deal with, they'll say, i want a camera. i want everything recorded, though. i want everything recorded, not just once i'm in a confrontation. i want to show what started that confrontation because then the truth will set you free. you'll see exactly what the instigation was, why there was a use of force, and at least we have transparency. right now it's too often too hard to make a case either way. >> well, i spoke to some folks today who said -- and they were talking about this, and they were also weighing in on what

happened today in washington. they said, well, this in a way gives us hope there is some change. i don't know what consolation it is to the mcdaniel family, but at least now someone is facing justice for what was -- how the family was wronged by losing their loved one. >> look, it will never be enough for them, but at least it's something that shows the system respected the loss. >> when do you vote your conscience? how tough or how easy should that be? that's the subject that we're tack ling tonight on the show. >> a good subject. me? every time. all right. back to the supreme showdown. there are lots of hard lessons to be learned from this decidedly ugly process. our elected leaders, they have a challenge coming their way. a closing argument for you, next.

nothing says fall like a homecoming football game, so let's promote our fall travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com 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. i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. meet the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our fall mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed.

all right. so if you are looking for validation that you were right to be pro or con-kavanaugh, there are other shows that will provide that echo of your own thoughts. as you saw tonight, i'm not having heads and boxes fight over which side is worse. i really believe it's worth the time, just a few minutes, to focus on a much more important point that no one seems to have the answer to. how do we make sure that what we all just witnessed never happens again? this confirmation process, not the outcome or the assumed outcome of tomorrow -- all of

it, soup to nuts, right and left, it was all an insult to democracy. proof positive of all that is negative. the once fraternal senate has fallen. so regardless of how you feel, two republican senators, one a yes on kavanaugh, one a no -- they both came to the same conclusion on the process. senator collins summed it up like this. >> our supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. one can only hope that the kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. >> i hope so because that means that we can't go any lower. but the question is how did we get here? she says 30 years ago. she's referring to bork. i think you have to look at the nuclear option. mcconnell making this a simple majority. no more 60 votes.

that was a nuclear device. it radiated negative energy through everything so that the structure seemed the same, but everything that was alive within it died. now, fair point, mcconnell was just one-upping the democrats, who did the gop dirty on votes on lower court judges. but look at what the toxic tit for tat has gotten us. you may like that kavanaugh got through, but you can't like how. it's all about avarice and revenge. the low point of the process actually came outside of the actual process, from a president who has become like the mr. hyde of this period in history. things still get done, but when they're not done the way he wants, he goes ugly early, like he did even on christine ford. >> how did you get home? i don't remember. how did 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 [ cheers and applause ] i don't know!

i don't know! what neighborhood was it in? i don't know. where's the house? i don't know. upstairs, downstairs, where was it? i don't know, but i had one beer. that's the only thing i remember. >> all of those people there should know they were having fun with a complete fiction. the president seems to see me too as a suggestion that everyone should get a chance to mock a victim. unhelpful, too far. please stop. that's the most his gop brothers and sisters could muster in response. ford was ravaged because she got in the way of what matters most to them, political ambition. kavanaugh in one hand or careful consideration of ford's allegation in the other one. it was never a contest. we are so starved of civility that that little moment of left and right coming together just to make a gesture towards fairness, just one week for the fbi to review, a process that would never be satisfying on the

merits. at least that flake and coons gave us hope that common ground existed, even if it's only a desert island in an ocean of avarice and playing to advantage. madam and mr. senator, you have made a mess of an essential operation, and congratulations. you made it look easy. but you don't get to merely complain about something you are the cause of. your challenge, your oath, is to fix it. return to 60 votes for scotus. get real review of nominees instead of this dance of nondisclosure. how can you people show us that you honor your oath to serve our interests? ladies and gentlemen, this is a call to duty, and it has never been more serious. do your job. that's all for us tonight. thank you for watching. "cnn tonight with don lemon" starts right now. >> yeah. big divide of country out there that we live in, chris.

and today i think it got even more divided. >> well, i'm hoping that we should be unified in disgust with the process. they don't get to have disgust with the process. my one pushback on murkowski and collins on the others, who was saying this was bad, you made it bad. you allowed it to stay bad. you participated in something that was bad. fix it. that's your challenge. we judge whether it's good or bad. you're supposed to make it better. they have to do that because we can't survive another one of these procedurally. the outcome is what it is, man. the outcome is what it is. >> you and i both predicted the outcome before all of this happened. i didn't think it would change anything especially given the time line for the investigation, and then they finished the investigation two or three days earlier. i mean we saw it coming before it came down the pike. but, listen, the process is flawed. but, again, it is what it is. and there is no corroborating evidence. you can understand that side. but then women are also feeling on