thanks for watching. our coverage continues. good evening. we begin with perhaps the final dramatic moment in brett kavanaugh's saga which has seen plenty of drama already. republican lisa murkowski gavivg a speech on the supreme court floor. she spoke about what survivors of sexual abuse go through, precedent, cases important to her own constituents and the country. she talked about healing. here's the moment why she voted no today. >> so it is high, and even in the face -- even in the face of the worst thing that could happen, a sexual assault allegation. even in the face of an overly and overtly political process,

and even when one side of this chamber is absolutely dead set on defeating his nomination from the very get go before he was even named. even -- even in these situations, the standard is that a judge must act at all-times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid improprietary 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.

i truly hope that we can be at that place where we can move forward in a manner that shows greater respect, greater comity. we owe it to the people of america to return to a less rancorous confirmation process. in spirit of that comity, 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. >> that's republican lisa murkowski. joining us now is cnn analyst kirsten powers, max boot, author of the soon to be out new book, the corrosion of conservatism,

why i left the right. i'm interested to how senator murkowski got to no. >> the thing she seemed to be focused on was the temperament issue, and this was a rarefied position in society. even the most qualified, most brilliant, people with the most wonderful temperaments in the world typically don't get on the supreme court. so there's a very, very high bar. and that's the high bar that she was holding him to, and she says even if she understands that he would be very upset, and this was an attack he felt was an integrity and an unfair attack on his integrity that in the end you can't behave in that manner and be on the supreme court. >> max, i'm wondering what you make of that argument because that's certainly something judge kavanaugh tried to reframe in the op-ed that he wrote to "the wall street journal" last night. >> that's true. i think he realize he made a serious mistake in his tone in the confirmation hearing, which

was very partisan, very aggressive, not very judicious. and he tried to walk it back a little bit. but when a judge is saying i am not a partisan, that's like a president saying i am not a crook. the fact he's saying kind of defeats the message he's trying to convey. and i thought what senator murkowski said was very thoughtful and made a lot of sense to me. because i was somebody like her who was prepared to support his confirmation. but then seeing the way he acted and and i understand he got angry because he felt he was unjustifiably accused, but nevertheless his over the top partisanship and casting his impartiality as judge, really made pea me realize this is not someone we should have. he was well qualified, the charges against him were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and i think senator murkowski was also right to defend senator collins who i

think in good faith reached a different judgment. i love senator murkowski's tone which was very calm, very civil, very rational and she agonized over, and that's the right way to behave. and unfortunately, not enough senators behaved that way. >> rich, were you surprised senator collins ended up voting yes? >> yeah, i saw it was a really a tremendous performance by her this afternoon. there's been so much emotion in this process, seeming to believe just the sheer expression of emotion should pea enough to move someone to your position. with lisa murkowski tonight and susan collins this afternoon, these were carefully thought out statements meant to persuade and explain their positions, and that's the appropriate way to go. and thought collins was especially strong, and the core allegation here against brett kavanaugh, it's not that he got angry in the hearing when he was being accused of all sorts of crimes, it's that he was guilty of a sexual assault.

and she very wpersuasively explained there's no independent corroboration of that and the evidence cuts the wrong way. and she said even outside a legal setting, a very important norm in this country, of fairness of frunpresumption of innocence, and i think murkowski really makes sense to say he's a good man bought i'm going to vote against him, but she's rewarding the rancor. i was proud of collins this afternoon and very glad that brett kavanaugh will in all likelihood be on the supreme court. >> kirsten, is this the new normal? do you think this is going to be the way it is moving forward? >> it's interesting. i don't even know mutt that means. unless another person comes up to the supreme court where there's a woman or i think there are two very credible allegations against him who come

torwar forward, i think we've had quite a few men get on the supreme court without this happening to them. so i don't know why this would be the new normal. also, i take issue with a lot of things susan collins said. i don't think she laid out a persuasive case none of this happened. any trauma expert will tell you there's nothing remarkable about that, that usually you have tunnel vision, you remember the traumatic event that happened to you but you don't remember where your were or who drove you home. also to talk about how this was a circus, if we look at the actual hearing and the actual questions that happened, there was nothing about it that was a circus-like atmosphere. the questions were difficult. it was hard. judge kavanaugh got very angry, but there's nothing about it that's a circus. when people say circus they're talking about protesters. so they're basically saying

protesting, coming and expressing your dissatisfaction with the way the process is being handled is a circus-like atmosphere, and we don't want that. i don't think that's a good message to say to people. >> chasing people in the hallway is a circus. >> i'm sorry, why shouldn't they be confronted in the hallway? >> i'll express my opinion and then you can express yours. chasing people and confronting them is circus-like. asking a senator what boof means in a supreme court hearing is absurd. and what collins pointed out is not only does she not remember how she got home, no one has come forward they drove her home. and the two witnesses she named, one of whom is a good friend of hers, and both of those witnesses said they have no memory of this event. in fact, a friend of hers says she does not even know brett qu kavanaugh.

>> and that she believes her. >> and thee can't confirm her account. >> i mean, the talking points are so old. and then leave out the part that she says she actually believes her. i wrote a column about something that happened to me when i was 15 years old. i don't remember who drove me home, i don't remember where i was. was i lying, rich? >> do you want to me to reply? >> yeah, what's the difference. >> what we have with christine blasey ford is a 36-year-old memory with no independent confirmation. and if you actually -- 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 area. and when you're interrogating a memory over time, your memory doesn't get better. it gets less reliable. that's why contemporaneous notes, any sort of evidence would tell on her side.

but to the extent we can look at anything independent, it goes the other way. >> rich, come on, let's be real here because even the republicans admitted dr. ford was a credible witness, but even though she remembers what he remembers it may not zwrb brett kavanaugh, even though she was 100% certain. i found her to be a credible witness and a more credible witness than brett kavanaugh who was fairly deceptive and evasive in his answers. with that said, i agree with you to the extent her allegations are certainly not proven. i think they're credible, not proven. and the reason -- let me finish. the reason why i ultimately could not support brett kavanaugh even though i do think he's well qualified by professional experience and intellectually for the supreme court is because 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 can brett kavanaugh pusably go on the court and be fair in his rulings on cases that involve liberal causes on one side or the other after he's thrown in his lot with the hard right, the trumpian lot in his confirmation. >> he was seriously accused of being a party to rape -- >> he admitted he went over it top in his wall street journal op-ed. >> quickly. >> the reason why he was so angry and passionate is because he was legitimately accused. they were accused of victim blaming. that was taken seriously, and this was a guy -- >> really, that was the gwhat te hearing was -- all you want to talk about is gang rape, and that's not what -- >> and it was taken seriously.

>> what the hearing was about and you keep latching onto something rather than talking about what actually happened which was christine blasey ford testifying. >> do you believe julia swetnick, really quick lly. >> i don't know. i believe christine blasey ford. >> so you think julia swetnick is credible. >> i don't know much about it. i think there were some questions raised about it. >> you watched the nbc video about it. >> no one actually said -- stop interrupting me. >> kirsten responds and let's go. >> i just said i had questions about it. >> because people took it seriously when it was farcical on the face of it. >> appreciate the discussion. kirsten, thank you. coming up next where the confirmation of brett kavanaugh could take the country politically. all the angles still ahead on

that. and later what the attorneys for christine blasey ford tell us their client has to say tonight about the latest developments and whether justice kavanaugh should be impeached. the answer might surprise you ahead. we stole everything we could. from everything we've ever mastered. and put it here. the all-new lexus es. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.

we cover commercial vehicles, too. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? or wearing a full-body wetsuit at this spa retreat? or sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse kevin? because hotels.com lets me do me, right? sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. you're wearing a hat. that's funny.

so the final vote is set for tomorrow. if all goes as expected, brett kavanaugh will be confirmed. it has been neither been simple nor easy. and the after effects may be unfolding in the polls in just a few weeks or perhaps for years to come. in a moment, more on the legal ramifications but first, how we got here and what happens tomorrow. phil mattingly here for that. 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's obviously very clear they have the votes. the broader question where the senate goes from here, where the institutions goes from here, where the conversation goes from

here, it's a very interesting question. a gop aide said, quote, it's only going to get worse from here. this wasn't a moment where you heard from senator lisa murkowski perhaps take a step back and say perhaps there's a better way to go from here. this will only escalate in the weeks and months ahead. we're just a month away from the election, so expect the fights to continue, nobody to cool off. in fact, expect things to heat up is my understanding at this point. >> it it's been reported senator collins was undecided through this entire process. do we know the details of how she got to yes? >> it's really interesting, anderson. in the last couple of weeks before the sexual assault allegations came out, i was hearing from people in discussions with senator collins who kept telling she likes brett kavanaugh. what senator collins did on the floor today is lay out exactly why in detail as it related to

his judicial record on roe v. wade, health care, pre-existing conditions almost in detail that changed or at least stopped when these sexual assault allegations came out. but the threshold based on how she felt about his record was so high she basically laid out she needed to see a lot to change that threshold. she went through a supplementary background check, the entire thing, read through it, talked to people, the entire staff i'm told. but in the end she was not only comfortable with the record, but the man who she talked with personally one-on-one several times. >> and manchin, what are you learning about his process? >> everybody looks at the politics. president trump won west virginia in 2016 by a significant margin. and senator manchin has been looking at the entire time.

and also joe manchin has constituents that are vore supportive of brett kavanaugh, and he was hearing from them on a regular basis. i will note when he was on capitol hill he was hearing from sexual assault survivors, from protesters. and those are the kind of moments that have an impact on senators. in the end particularly given that he wasn't going to end up being the deciding vote and given he has opened up a lead in this race and this might lock up his re-election, a decide he decided to go with yes. >> and where justice kavanaugh might take the courts, when the comes to issues like abortion rights nothing much will change. >> to my knowledge, judge kavanaugh is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in article iii of our constitution itself.

he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. in other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration. it is a constitutional tenant that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. >> senator collins explained why she believes why justice kavanaugh would not revisit roe v. wade, the court's landmark ruling on abortion. joining us now is jeffrey toobin. jeff, when you hear susan collins saying he doesn't just believe this precedent, me believes this is rooted in article iii of the constitution and therefore roe v. wade is essentially safe, what do you

think. >> she's in absolute dreamland. traul, lots of supreme court justices have said the precedent is rooted in constitution as well as in tradition. but even if that's true they still overturn precedents. just this year they overturned a precedent almost exactly as old as roe v. wade involving labor law. they overturn precedents -- you know, president trump said he was going to appoint justices who would overturn roe v. wade. that's what he's done with gorsuch, that's what he's done with kavanaugh. and i don't know understand why conservatives can't take yes for an answer. >> do ayou expect roe v. wade will be undone? >> all supreme court justices overturn precedents at one time

or another. no justice thinks every precedent is there for eternity. however, i think it's impossible to know at this point what judge kavanaugh would do. he was in a lower court before. you don't have his practice of precedent. and really i think the key fifth vote to look at here and is going to be for this coming term and going forward is chief justice roberts and his views on precedent, i think do clearly show he's not someone who wants to go around willy-nilly overturning things. so i think he's the person you need to be looking at even closer. >> wasn't roberts part of the majority that overturn that labeled law case this year in. >> sure. and it's easy to say, well -- that's what i was saying everyone overturns precedent at one time or another. it's trying to figure out where are those balances struck in different cases? so the liberal justices are sometimes overturned why. >> the reason why this society compile this list is pause they

want -- they have an agenda. carrie mentioned citizens united. citizens united are going to be expanded. oats 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, and for the same reason we protect our donor rights. if you think the donor society has a monolithic view on that or abortion, you clearly have not attended any of their meetings. it is a very broad-based group. i would challenge you to come to some of their debates. >> it's about affirmative action, gay rights, whether they can buy wedding cakes, can go to restaurants, can go to hotels. this is whole agenda that is now laid out before with five conservatives in the majority.

isn't that right, carrie? come on. you've won. why aren't you celebrating? >> look, what we are looking for is a judge that's going to be faithful to the constitution to the text of the law, not specific policy goals. i know that's how a lot of people like to look at the court particularly from the left, but judges aren't there to be a fairy godmother to give you the wishes you want. if there's a law passed by a democratic congress and signed by a democratic president, judge kavanaugh and i'd be supporting him 100%, would be applying that law as its written, not trying to massage it to make it how it wants. >> do you think president trump has been duped into getting judge kavanaugh with the belief that he's going to overturn roe v. wade? >> i don't know if the president even thinks he knows that because he said he specifically didn't ask him about that. what we know is it takes five votes to do anything in the supreme court. and as i said before i think chief justice roberts is the

swing vote on this. with justice kennedy, justice o'connor, they had a pin saying if sudor is confirmed women will die. he voted to up hold roe v. wade. so the ability to predict how someone will do -- >> it's amazing to me -- >> i don't feel like i know anymore than you do. you seem much more confident. >> it's a total mystery to you. all these people like carrie who have devoted their lives to overturning roe v. wade are suddenly shocked and mystified about whether their candidate will do what they've devoted their lives in 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 abortion in america 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. you know, look, a lot of people went into the obamacare case thinking they knew how that was

going to come out. i don't think you can predict these things. >> so why devoted millions of dollars to get this person on if you don't know how -- >> look, we're not donating millions of dollars with the goal of overturning roe v. wade. it's not about a laundry list. it's about trying to get people who were going to be faithful to the constitution. so that doesn't always line up with my policy goals. there's a lot of cases where the law is like, i feel like the law should be a different way but at the same time i can hope that i can have a judge -- >> but abortion rights and the constitution are clear, and you believe this judge. but when you say you're looking for judges to up hold the constitution, you believe the right to abortion is not in the privacy rights or it's not in the constitution? >> well, that's frankly something that i think lawrence tried -- >> you can just say yes or no to

that. >> the idea that the legal grounding of roe v. wade isn't constitutionally grounded by people even by very liberal scholars. that is not unique to me. >> so that would be a yes, you do believe that. >> i think it's important not to focus on these extractions like carrie's talking about like rule of law and -- let's talk about issues that are going to be before the court. let's talk about abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, gay rights, all of those are going to go in a very different direction because anthony kennedy's gone and brett kavanaugh will be there. that's why you got involved in politics, carrie. you're winning. i don't see why you shouldn't straight out acknowledge it. >> i'm very happy to have kavanaugh on the court. i'll acknowledge that all day long. up next, a lot more just ahead including a look what may be president trump's most successful week in office with record low unemployment numbers today, a five-year low.

appointing supreme court nominees on the president to get a second supreme court nominee confirmed in his first two years. we'll look at what this week means for the mid-term elections next month. i'll talk to dana bash. the hitch? like you, your cells get hungry. feed them... with centrum micronutrients. restoring your awesome, daily. centrum. feed your cells. i've done all sorts of research, read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies

and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ ((horn beeps)) come on. ♪ feeling unsure? what if you had some help? introducing the new 2019 ford edge with the confidence of ford co-pilot360™ technology. the most available driver assist technology in its class. the new 2019 ford edge. 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.

today was a big win for president trump. tomorrow's likely successful vote on judge kavanaugh will

mean his second nominee elevated to supreme 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, david axelrod. obviously, a good day. you can argue a good week for president trump and republicans. do you think it will remain a flash point as the senate house races heat up over these final weeks, the supreme court battle? >> first of all, there's no doubt that he's mounted up a series of wins here, and that has to be -- that has to be good from their standpoint right now. the question is what's the durability of this. in the short run you talk to republicans, and i've talked to democrats as well who believe that the kavanaugh fight has actually stoked up interest particularly in these red states where they're trying to unseat

democratic senators, and they're heartened by that. it may have the reverse affect in some of these suburban districts where they're hoping to save republican congressman and they're less inclined to be supportive of kavanaugh. the question is where are we going to be in four and a half weeks. you know that four and a half weeks of donald trump is an eternity. and it could be after winning this fight over kavanaugh that the winners are satisfied and the losers who are on the other side of this issue are more aroused to come out to the polls. so i think in the short run big week for the president. in the long run, four and a half weeks is an eternity. >> to dana's point, it does seem like each side does think their base is going to be energized by the kavanaugh battle.

>> and they're both right. the difference is for the democrats they were already crazy energized. so this will take them up to an 11, but they were pretty close to an 11 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 frankly even candidates going into the november elections. and although this is win, a republican win, there is still real anger that is being stoked by the president, by the republican leadership at the process, at, you know -- and specific language targeting the same voters who came out for donald trump in 2016, and men should be scared, they should be fearful. the those kind of things specifically aimed at getting republicans out the door and to the polls because of concern that they weren't going to do that. >> david, do you see this as a

winning issue for democrats, particularly senators in the weeks ahead. retaking the senate, most of the seats up like a lean republican. do democrats have to be careful 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 actually feeling pretty good about the way things were trending before this kavanaugh fight because they were stressing issues like health care, which was really resonant with voters. i think they'd love to be able to go back to that and they would like this issue to recede and go back to those winning issues that had them in a relatively good position before all of this started. d >> dana, i mean control of the house is cnbc different. the house had nothing to do with the confirmation process. 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 technically. 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, you know, super liberal but swing districts where the independents and particularly in suburban districts the women in particular, are going to be swayed by this kavanaugh situation. and what democrats are hoping is that those voters are going to be swayed in democrat's favor because they're going to be angry at what happened. it's not that clear-cut, but if you look at the ledger it's probably more likely than not to help the democrats in those key districts. >> all right, dana bash, david ashalred, thanks. dana's going to stay with us because she's been talking with christine blasey ford's attorneys about their thoughts today.

next. y! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. if you have moderate to thsevere rheumatoid arthritis,

month after month, the clock is ticking on irreversible joint damage. ongoing pain and stiffness are signs of joint erosion. humira can help stop the clock. prescribed for 15 years, humira targets and blocks a source of inflammation that contributes to joint pain and irreversible damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. 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. help stop the clock on further irreversible joint damage. talk to your rheumatologist. right here. right now. humira.

traffic and roads... a mess, honestlyrents going up,le. friends and family moving out of state, millions of californians live near or below the poverty line. politicians like gavin newsom talk about change, but they've done nothing. sky-high gas and food prices. homelessness. gavin newsom, it happened on your watch. so, yeah. it is time for a change. time for someone new. so we began the hour with senator lisa murkowski live explaining why she is alone among republicans in opposing brett kavanaugh's confirmation. now what christine blasey ford is thinking. what have you learned about how professor ford is feeling about

this now concerning confirmation? >> she's not happy, but she now appears to be trying to get back to some normalcy in 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 he did the right thing, 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, so i don't think she has any regrets. >> if you were to do it all over again knowing what you know now, could this have been done in a different way with regard to senator feinstein, the fact she didn't tell anybody, she says it was because she was abiding by the wishes of professor ford, congresswoman eshoo, and so

forth. in retrospect knowing what you know now could it and should it have been differently? >> i can't speak to the process. i can speak to when victims of sexual assaults go to their senators and they ask for their information to be kept confidential, i think that's a request that needs to be respected. victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public. now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. there are many process issues that need to be addressed, but i think senator feinstein respected the wishes of her constituent, and that was the right thing to do. >> and does professor ford feel that way as well? >> absolutely. >> president trump i'm sure you saw mocked your client's testimony at a rally in mississippi on tuesday night. the crowd were obviously big trump supporters applauded. did you speak to professor ford? did she 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, reel, 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 the fact during her testimony professor ford told the committee she wasn't 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. we as her counsel informed her of all options made available to us by the committee. 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 grassly was suggesting that he himself would have which to california, which was not what he had offered at all. >> the allegation that they're making very blatantly 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've been listening to it, and we have not wanted to respond to it because it's such a distraction, deflection. our client was advised of every single option given to her by the committee. she saw every single communication. she's 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 or even if he

stays on the federal bench he's on now, would professor ford like impeachment proceedings to begin? >> professor ford has not asked for anything of the sort. what she did was to come forward and testify before the senate judiciary committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the fbi. and that's what she sought to do here. >> so, no, she's not going if there on impeachment? >> no. >> she does not want him to be impeached? >> no. >> you had to pin her down on it, but ford said she did not want her to be impeached. >> what they're trying to get across she didn't come at this from a the point of view of a democrat or frankly somebody out to get brett kavanaugh. that is what i think they were trying to explain and answering it that bluntly saying she wouldn't want him to be

impeached. she just wanted to do her sieving duty, and make sure that senators knew that this is something she said she experienced with brett kavanaugh and have that be a factor into their decision on whether he should be on the supreme court. >> also the fact she was mocked by president trump just days ago, do you get any impression she wants to engage with him or his supporters, or does she just want to go back to her former life? >> the latter. the definite impression that i got is that she wants to try to get her life back. in fact, her lawyers said to me separately that she is hoping at some point to be able to go back to her home, which they believe is not yet safe to do that, go back to teaching. she of course is a professor, go back to her regular life with her kids and not engage at a political level. she could easily be a political icon and she could lead a charge, and that very much does not seem like what she wants to

do. she appears to maybe want to take at least in the short-term after the clarence thomas situation, the road of anita hill and just kind of lay low. >> dana bash, thank you very much. check in with chris and see what he's working on for "cuomo primetime." >> it's really important to get all sides of perspective on what happened today and what we assume will happen tomorrow. the women in those big elevator moments, you're having them on. we're going to have one from the flake one and one of the hatch one because they were so different. they meant such different things, they confirm such different things. we'll have john dean on from nixon fame, obviously, he testified on kavanaugh, what he feels about the concerns. we're going to debate the way forward, and we're going to make the case, anderson, we've seen one thing for sure. this is the bottom. murkowski and collins agree on that. the question is what makes the change for the better?

>> a good question. about eight and a half minutes. chris, we'll see you then. the question is will they pay a price in the polls coming up? we'll talk to the former republican politician who knows a great deal about going against the tide. i think it will fit. ♪ want a performance car that actually fits your life? introducing the new 2019 ford edge st. capability meets power. in the first suv from the ford performance team. the new 2019 ford edge st.

that last place was pretty nice. i don't like this whole thing. dad, what happened? where's rosie? i let her go. wow! you going to help me finish this thing or what? i think we can do better. change is hard, dad. try to keep an open mind.

come on, dad. this is for me, son? so, you going to help me finish this thing or what? principal. we can help you plan for that. on your wild west vacation... guarantee you'll find gold but we can guarantee the best price on that thar rental cabin or any hotel, home, boat, yurt, whatever. ♪ just don't get carried away with the wild west thing. hey guys. get the best price on homes, hotels and so much more. booking.com, booking.yeah

and i am a certified arborist for pg&e.ughes i oversee the patrolling of trees near power lines and roots near pipes and underground infrastructure. at pg&e wherever we work, we work hard to protect the environment. getting the job done safely,

so we can keep the lights on for everybody. because i live here i have a deeper connection to the community. and i want to see the community grow and thrive. every year we work with cities and schools to plant trees in our communities. so the environment is there for my kids and future generations. together, we're building a better california. as we reported tonight two senators. murkowski republican and joe manchin a democrat. in a hall way interview with demonstrators against kavanaugh shouting disapproval. manchin offered third-degree about his vote and whether politics plaid a part. >> you're up for reelection. are you concerned lt basis of revolt? >> one person noticed about his political party. former congressman. at odds with the new republican party.

thanks for being with us. when you're a lawmakers do you vote along the lines of what citizens want or believe they want? or conscious tells you to do. there are times when they are in conflict. >> you tend to do both. it depends on the issue. follow your conscious or constituents and there can be conflict. in the case of joe manchin, from a purely political perspective he did the right thing. i don't think that'll suffer a big consequence as a result of this. he's his primary is behind him. even six years from now at reelection. even if they did, he could change parties and run as republican. and probably win. murkowski should be remembered in 2010 was challenged by joe miller from the right tea party and was defeated. she turned around and won a write in. in the fall. and beat joe miller and the democrats.

i don't think murkowski will face a heavy penalty from republicans voters in alaska. >> with manchin, who is obviously democratic conservative state. would there have been political deal with him for that vote? or was that mostly based on him wanting to lock up reelection in west virginia? obviously some votes people reach out to you, deals are made. >> i think it's tricky to make deal in this case. i can't imagine joe man chi wanted to be the one democrat voting voting for brett kavanaugh. he doesn't like being in that position at all. but i suspect with joe manchin political calculation he needs to win voters who voted not only for trump but for him. there are trump manchin voters in west virginia. i suspect that was a bigger political calculation from the bigger piece of that calculation.

than perhaps antagonizing elements of the base. where are they going to go at this point? the republican morse? they can stay home. but i suspect that would be self-defeating. at least with manchin they get somebody who supports democratic values more often than republican. >> were you vised by the way things fell into place today? >> not particularly. i thought that -- i think k collins is one of the best senators and i have the highest respect for him. i was not surprised by collins or manchin. i was surprised by murkowski reasoning for not voting for kavanaugh. i thought she might have relied upon he shed concerns about kavanaugh's support for native americans and federal land issues. she made it more about his temperament. that surprised me a little bit.

i was not surprised by flake, manchin or collins. >> were you surprised by how nasty this was? what does it mean moving forward from here. one can say it's not every day someone 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 a new normal? >> i'm afraid it is. i guess i'm kind of old fashion about it. when i started in the u.s. house i saw five supreme court justices be confirmed. roberts, keggen, and gorsuch. when i was asked i was a house member when i had to think say about this. i was not in senate. i had said each time each of them was qualified and deserved to be on the court. even if i might not agree with them all philosophically.

a democrat can't imagine a republican nominee is fit to serve as judge. based on abilities. and republicans are saying the same thing about democrat nominees. we're in a bad place. >> don't miss full circle. daily newscast on facebook. pick the stories we cover. weeknights at 6:25 p.m. eastern. find it on facebook. news continues. handing it over to chris for cuomo "prime time." >> i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." judge kavanaugh has the vote. likely be confirmed this weekend barring any surprises. so how did it all come to this? we know that. the real question, is how do we make sure the 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.

will he lose for winning? meaning will his base stay home satisfied they got what they want. or will this all generate more fire from the other side to turn out in the midterms? also, how did today's votes hit those women who put themselves in senators faces. remember the critical confrontation with flake. and orren hatch. survivors demanding they be heard and seen. have they been silenced? he can say he'll be impartial and independent. like his testimony some of the key rulings tell a different story. remember his threat. what goes around comes around. will he deliver on it? what do you say. it's friday night. let's get after it. so