will also talk aboutas always, we wir calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. >> i do think that we can have a sure these and make fbi can investigate. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." will open an inquiry into supreme court nominee brett it'saugh, this comes after ordinary -- extraordinary senate testimony from him and the woman accusing him of sexual assault when they were teenagers, christine blasey ford. president trump has given them one week to open the investigation.

what do you think about the fbi reopening its background investigation into brett kavanaugh? we are going to open the phone lines. if you support brett kavanaugh, call in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose brett kavanaugh, call in at (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, colleen at -- call in at (202) 748-8002. you can always reach us on twitter and facebook. the senate has adjourned for the week, which guarantees brett kavanaugh will not be seated on the supreme court when its session opens on monday for the new term. president donald trump released a statement yesterday through press secretary sarah sanders that says what is going to happen. fbi to conducthe a supplemental investigation to update brett kavanaugh's file.

this investigation must be limited in scope and completed. in less than one week." a lot of what is going on seems to revolve around senator jeff flake. here is an update from the new york times about what is happening with jeff flake. an leaders have little choice but to ask mr. trump to open the fbi investigation after jeff flake first announced it was supporting judge kavanaugh and then in a stunning reversal said he would not vote to confirm him without the fbi investigation first. with a handful of allies and a closely divided senate, mr. flake could determine the future of the cap not nomination. back -- kavanaugh nomination. that gives him leverage. we have to make sure we do all

due diligence with this nomination after extracting a promise from republican leaders to delay a vote on the nomination until after the investigation. this country is being ripped apart here." we want to know what you think about the fbi reopening the investigation into brett kavanaugh. if you support him, call (202) 748-8001 --(202) 748-8000. if you oppose him, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, call (202) 748-8002.we are to have john calling from california. john opposes brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. ppose him.ose -- o i am also very disappointed in this process. it is just not going to make any difference taking a one-week hiatus for the fbi to do an

investigation. i think we all know that. they will just find another excuse to delay. host: let's go to lori calling from maryland. she supports brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hi support kavanaugh -- i support kavanaugh simply based on both testimonies and the evidence to support or dispute either one. i think kavanaugh has stronger support on that. host: do you think anything the fbi comes up with will change anybody's mind? you think an additional investigation will do any good? caller: no. people have already made up their minds. it is justify to see who can gain more power in the senate. host: thank you. let's go to betty.

she opposes brett kavanaugh. caller: hi. how are you? host: i'm fine. caller: i am 88. i oppose brett kavanaugh. i oppose him because of the sex and also because of one of the papers i read where he felt that birth control was the same as an abortion. i am a survivor of 70 years. i wanted to call you earlier, but i was afraid because my children, and i am a grandmother, mother, a great grandma, and great great grandma . i had to tell my family first. i was a survivor at 16. this has brought back all the memories. my decision was not over the sex problem. it was over his belief. i would not want my grandchildren and my

great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren not to be able to have birth control. sex is no different than it was when i was 16 today. people think it is, but it is not. and not only raped but became pregnant from it. had a horrible time finding an abortion. i don't think men, and i am not realized how many women there is. i don't believe the survey that says one out of three. i think it is more like two out .f three has gone through this i do oppose him. those are my reasons. host: thank you for telling your story. let's go to tilda from new york.

she supports judge kavanaugh. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. i am supporting the judge because i find he is qualified for the job. the investigation of what he did or didn't do really has become ,olitical, not only for me because i have no doubts saying the doctor is lying, but what should become clear is this is now a joke. people are making fun of america. america has become a circus country rather than a leading country. we are wasting taxpayers money for this kind of thing. it is not helpful. the judge will be investigated again, background check in one

week. i don't think in one week they are going to find any new piece. we are a know his background. the fbi has already gone through. he will be confirmed. we have to go on. issue as aake this man versus woman. about education for our children. we are not abusing political power by wasting taxpayer money. from let's go to jane louisiana. she opposes brett kavanaugh. caller: good morning. yes, i support the investigation , the fbi investigation. i really think that they need more time because there might be more people who want to come

forward. i do oppose judge kavanaugh. my god, why would you want to weakhis file, -- vile, justice on the supreme court? host: let me jump in quickly. if the fbi comes back and says we cannot find any proof that he did this, would that change your mind? caller: you know what, i was just about to tell you the reason why. i look at that hearing. unhinged. completely he cannot stand to be criticized. he cannot stand to "be lied on." how can he be fair? how can he be fair to everyone when he shows how much he hates the democrats? he sounded like an eight-year-old child. by the way, he was very honest about how he hates the

democrats. being an african american woman, if i were to get up and do anything like what the judge did , or an african-american man, it would be the angry black person, and of course president obama would have been buried right there at the hearing. he will not be fair to the people, and he will not be fair to the women. i just oppose him. he seems to be a terrible person. im for the reasons i have stated. he is unhinged. he is weak. he is able. i think he is -- a bully. i think he is a functioning alcoholic. the washington post is keeping a vote count in the senate on who supports and

opposes judge kavanaugh. right now, they have five senators that are undecided on the nomination. that includes senator heitkamp, senator manchin of west virginia, senator collins of maine, senator mccaskey of alaska, and senator flake. here is more from senator flake as he calls for the investigation by the fbi before a final vote in the senate. [video clip] >> i have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. we have had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure we do due diligence here. i think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, in not more than one week order to let the fbi do an investigation limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and

limited in time to no more than one week. advance the bill to the floor without understanding. i have spoken to a few other members on my side of the aisle who may be supported as well. that is my position. i think we ought to do what we can that we do all due diligence with the nomination this important. i want to say this committee has acted properly. the chairman has bent over backwards to do investigations from this committee and to delay this vote in this committee for a week so that judge -- so that dr. ford could be heard, and she was yesterday. will voteagreement, i to advance the bill to the floor. host: let's go to edward calling

from wisconsin. he supports judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. i support senator -- i am sorry, judge kavanaugh because i think he is a fair and honest man. i don't quite understand what is happening to our country. overe so torn apart incidental thanks that should be -- things that should be considered normal. speechless as to what is happening to this world. i am an old man. i have been around a long time. i voted democrat. i voted republican. i have voted independent. i think i am pretty fair in my judgment of what goes on in the world. everybody should look in the near and search their const --

the mirror and search their conscience. it is a political war going on for power. host: would you continue to support judge kavanaugh if he fbi comes out with more information that proved dr. ford's allegations were correct? or do you think he would need to step back? caller: it has to be proved. if it is proved, i could change my mind and not support him. let's get it approved. -- proved. we are giving the democrats one more week. let the fbi make their decision and give it to the president, and the president pass it down to congress. that should be the end of it. then vote. it has carried on way too long. host: let's go to amy calling from virginia. she opposes brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: hello.

can you hear me? host: we can hear you. go ahead. vehementlyam th opposed to kavanaugh. he is clearly line. to me, he is a sociopath. i have known people like him. when someone who has done , and theylike he has are ashamed of it, he knows he is guilty, and he is trying to lie his way out of it. he is clearly a liar. what makes me ill is that the construe a would person like him who lies, and i agree with the lady that he is a terrible person. he is absolutely awful. becausentry is divided we have the most corrupt

administration there has ever been. amy, if the fbi investigates next week and doesn't come up with anything conclusive, do you think the senate should move forward? or does it not matter one way or the other what the fbi says? caller: i have a feeling that this fbi investigation is not going to make one bit of difference. that is not going to change my me, this manse, to is clearly lying. when they asked him the other day, would you support an fbi investigation? he never said yes. all he said was i am innocent. last night, this lady on cnn came out and said he was lying about his drinking habits. she says that he was one of the biggest drinkers she knew, and not only that, but this lady yesterday said she had looked up the meanings of devils triangle and those other words in his

yearbook, and they were completely false what he said. you can look it up online and theirat wikipedia changed meaning of devils tribal to match what he said in the hearing the other day. int: let's go to millie connecticut. she opposes judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. i am calling to let you know that i oppose. i think the fbi investigation should move forward. i think the two people they should investigate are the people that were in the room with the four teenagers. i also think judge kavanaugh felt, he projected that he was annoyed by this whole process. host: one of the interesting things about the fbi opening up this investigation is that they will not be able to subpoena or make anyone speak.

the people can only speak if they want to speak to the fbi. it is entirely possible that the people you want to hear from will say to the fbi they don't want to talk. will that satisfy you? will that change your mind one way or the other? caller: you have been asking the callers that question. the very first caller said, the matter what the outcome, the american public will not change their mind. my answer to your question is no. i oppose. i am opposed due to the hearings, due to his annoyance. i will always be opposed to him becoming. host: during a meeting with the ambassador, president trump said this about the developments in the judge kavanaugh nomination. [video clip] >> i will let the senate handle that. they have been doing a good job

and very professional. i am just hearing a little bit about it because i have been with the president of chile. i am sure it will all be very good. the vote was a positive note. there seems to be a delay. i will learn more as the day goes on. [inaudible] >> i thought her testimony was very compelling. she looks like a very fine woman, very fine woman. testimonyett's likewise was really something that i have not seen before. it was incredible. inwas an incredible moment the history of our country. certainly, she was a very credible witness. she was very good in many respects. i don't know if this is going to continue onward or if we will

get a vote. i am here, so i am not out there watching. i cannot be. maybe we will go watch together. we will watch together. i think it will work out very well for the country. i just want it to work out well for the country. if that happens, i am happy. [inaudible] not even a little bit. >> would you ask murkowski and collins -- >> i have no message. they have to do what is right. they have to do what they think is right. they have to be comfortable with themselves. i'm sure that is what they are. >> would you be willing to reopen the background investigation into kavanaugh? >> i am going to rely on all the people, including senator grassley who is doing a very good job. that is good to be a decision they are going to make. make somethey will decisions soon whether to take the vote or do whatever else they want to do.

i will be totally reliant on what senator grassley and the group decide to do. host: after making that statement, president trump went to twitter last. started our seventh investigation of brett kavanaugh. he will finally be recognized as a truly great justice of the u.s. supreme court." sandy from michigan. she is not sure about judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: the reason i am not sure is because there is not enough information from what dr. ford gave to make me go her way. first of all, it came out -- i don't know where i heard it -- that judge kavanaugh's mother was also a judge and that she ford'sged against dr. family. host: let me interrupt you because that has come up a

couple of times over the show this week. that story has been proven false. that story is incorrect. caller: ok. i did not hear that part of it. in her story of what happened that night, she did not know how she got to the house. well, she was swimming. how did she normally get to the country club to swim? never brought up. she said she went upstairs to go to the bathroom. why would she go upstairs when in a two-story house, there is always a bathroom on the first floor. she said when she was up there that this mark had jumped on the bed twice. if he was that drunk, and i have had my son drunk, and he could never jump on the bed. he may have fallen on the bed. there are other things.

i am questioning what really happened to her. at this point, i am not sure i can believe everything she said. host: what would you need to hear from the fbi to make up your mind in either direction? caller: the f the eye, i know, ,s going to investigate -- fbi i know, is going to investigate the background on judge kavanaugh. are they also going to investigate the background on dr. ford? host: what would you need to hear them say one way or the other? would you need to hear them say definitively that this happened or did not happen or just present what they find? whatr: they will present they find, and then it is up to somebody else decide whether it is true. if they are acting to investigate the background on dr. ford, that seems a little prejudiced. host: let's go to duane calling

from new york. he opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: sandy should have just called in on the support of kavanaugh. let's move on. , it wouldvestigation not really matter at this point because everybody has had their mind made up. you're going to have two judges on the supreme court that are going to be very bitter towards the democrats. that this moment, he is going to be nominated and appointed by the congress and the senate, republican senate. there are going to be bitter men on the courts, and they are going to turn this country upside down. it doesn't matter what happens at this moment. thank you for taking my call. host: let's go to justice calling from north carolina. he supports judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: how are you doing?

host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i support him completely. i think the media has done him a very bad injustice. i don't know what has happened in this country from being innocent until proven guilty. it is a sad thing the media is doing. he is clearly distraught when he is talking in his interview. also, i think it is a democrat scheme to try to get a republican, somebody who seems like he has had a very successful career, out of public office. it is clearly an agenda because she waited 36 years to bring it up. that seems crazy. justin, would you change your mind if the fbi said it had more proof that dr. ford was

correct or some of the other accusers of judge kavanaugh were correct? caller: i would be completely open to change my mind. i am registered as an independent. i go either way. lately, the democrats have not shown anything but distress. ifarly, i think it is wrong you attack women in that way. host: thank you. let's go to ken calling from florida. he is not sure. good morning. caller: good morning. that when you say are not sure about something, you should investigate it thoroughly. host: go ahead. caller: i'm just not sure. senateo, we have the asking, and president trump asking for a one-week investigation from the fbi.

what would you need to hear to make up your mind one way or the other? caller: i would have to hear that he did it or did not do it. you need to hear the fbi definitively say that he either is not telling the truth or definitively say that dr. ford is not telling the truth? caller: yeah. when in doubt, you should throw it out is the philosophy i live by. host: what if the investigation is inconclusive? this happened a long time ago, so it might end up being a he said she said. if it ends up with one person's word against the other, what would you say? caller: i would say, given judge kavanaugh's credentials over the course of the 38 years, then i would confirm him as being a

supreme court judge. host: thank you. one of the callers talked earlier about investigations of this as a crime. post has a story today that explains further about what is happening on the state level with this. these incidents happened in montgomery county, maryland, and the story, which was written by dan morris, montgomery county police note that no accuser of kavanaugh has come forward to request a police investigation. even if an accuser were to come -- has, the statute of long since passed. allegation thes authorities could pursue would be attempted rape, but that

would be considered a misdemeanor in maryland in 1982. that would be the relevant legal standard. charges would have had to have been filed within a year of the incident according to montgomery county's longtime chief prosecutor. the executive charter and counsel for the maryland coalition against sexual assault and other longtime maryland lawyers concurred. the maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, but we would have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations. other possible charges, such as second-degree assault remain misdemeanor offenses and subject to a one-year statute of limitations. based on all the allegations i have seen so far, there are a

number of legal barriers to criminal prosecution. from go to jackie calling pennsylvania. good morning. worker,i was a social and i investigated abuse reports for 18 years. when i watch kavanaugh respond to the charges, he sounded like a bitter man, not an innocent man. that is my comments. from let's go to jane virginia. jane opposes judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. i have four points in opposition. first, i don't think he has the character to be on the supreme court. two, i think temperament, he displayed his temperament. he is quite temperamental.

three, political, he is too closely tied political. forourth and strong reason opposing him in support of the fbi investigation is the fact that we have young men that have been abused and sexually molested and abused as young boys. you are telling me that 36 years because something happened to a female at 15, that is no reason to investigate? those -- what are we saying for the young men? and those in the church that abused them and misused them should not be held responsible? it's a double standard. i know i have another point. for 45 because of this, he made about grabbing

women by the p. hank from's go to maryland. he supports judge kavanaugh. caller: i support judge kavanaugh. the reason i support judge kavanaugh is the allegations are too outrageous after 36 years. especially with the fbi investigation coming up, why are we just investigating judge kavanaugh? why aren't we investigating dr. ford as well, whether she was promiscuous over these years? it seems if you are going to investigate one, let's investigate both. host: what reason would be fbi dr. ford?vestigate she is not the one looking for a supreme court seat. caller: it is credibility, don't you agree? host: this is not a criminal trial. this is a promotion trial for judge kavanaugh. caller: the only way i would not

vote for judge kavanaugh is if you had a witness that witnessed all of this. there is no witnesses. this is 36 years later. : fromlet's go to ed maryland. he opposes judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. gentleman mentioned there is no witness. the gentleman who helped him i believe loses virginity is the witness, but from what you just mentioned, he will not be interviewed by the fbi. he has mentioned he would not like to speak anybody. he did a sworn statement, and that is it. this investigation by the fbi is nothing if they cannot subpoena him to mention what he witnessed and how he was involved. i believe kavanaugh was telling the truth that he was a virgin and his buddy was trying to help

him lose his virginity because he was on the basketball team. host: let me jump in. senator susan collins has tweeted out that mark judge has indicated he would cooperate with investigators. we know at least that while he does not have to, he is not going to be subpoenaed, he has indicated to susan collins that he will at least be interviewed by fbi investigators. caller: i am glad you cleared that up. thank you so much. basically, i would not vote for him because i have never heard of anyone threatening senators by saying what goes around, comes around. that was a threat. i was shocked to hear that more than anything else. host: let's go to robert calling from north carolina. he is not sure about the cap nomination. -- kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning.

fort of all, the attorneys -- going to cooperate. kavanaugh,ttitude of the way he responded when he became unhinged, the way he got thrown into a conspiracy theory going all the way back to the clintons and also the statement of what goes around comes around , that alone would be enough to disqualify him. the fbi is going to do a thorough investigation into the allegations coming from dr. ford. he has been caught in lies. beer.k beer, you drink he is not fit even if he did not do anything to dr. ford. host: robert, exercise like -- white privilege

that feels entitled to things. i happen to be white. host: this sounds like you made up your mind about the kavanaugh nomination. it sounds like you don't support him. caller: i gave him the benefit of the doubt until he became unhinged. he doesn't have the temperament to be sitting on the supreme court when he is threatening senators that are accusing them of conspiracy. in my lifetime, i have never seen anything like it. that should tell you he is not capable. he is also saying if i am going to stay here and get elected, what goes around comes around. he is threatening the united states senators that were against him. host: here is what judge kavanaugh actually had to say yesterday. t this process i have been interviewed by the fbi, and

yesterday i answered questions under oath about every topic the senators and their counsel asks me. i have done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate."let's go to paul from pennsylvania. he supports judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i support him because i have not heard enough proof. these people that have already made their mind up before the fbi investigates, let them do it. i think they should investigate her because if she is lying about it, it is a crime also. i would go back and check or bank accounts to see if she is getting paid or is going to get paidthe next few months -- in the next months. host: let's go to sharon calling

from kentucky. she opposes judge kavanaugh. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning. i have got to say this, i have been watching the hearings since the beginning. i have a real problem. there were over 40,000 documents that were never turned over to the democrats. i understand that this has gotten to be extremely political, but i also heard judge kavanaugh repeat the same with every single democratic senator, which was that he could not or would not answer their questions did to him possibly sitting on the court. when it was pointed out that

other potential supreme court nominees had gone ahead and answered some of these questions , he stuck by it. i think that is a problem. that he has been so scripted. i hate that. i hate that. daytemperament the other just turned me off. i am sorry because i think he is . smart man a lot of people believe he is a hed person, and he may be, just doesn't have the temperament to sit on our highest court. thank you. .ost: let's go to ray he is not sure about the nomination. good morning.

caller: i would make up my mind if i had one question to answer. who took the 15-year-old girl to the party, and who took her home? that is all i want to know. rich.let's go to he is also not sure about the nomination. caller: good morning. you're doing a great job moderating. i want to start by saying i was , and i was a preteen also a survivor of an attempted sexual assault in college that i was able to fight off. having said that, these people talking about kavanaugh's temperament, i think they need to put themselves in the place of someone being accused of attempted rape and say how would

you respond? if you are innocent, would you not be indignant? the lady saying she would not support his nomination as he was annoyed. i think most people would be annoyed if they are innocent. i don't know whether he is innocent or not. ord's testimony, she said her attacker was so drunk he could not even unbutton her clothes and that they were giggling. it sounded like whoever did this, if it happened, and i believe something probably did happen at some point, it sounded like they were incapacitated and not even aware of what they were doing. --ther reason i amateur is will bee, i think there a cloud hanging around regardless. i would support any parent --

amy barrett. feinsteine nominated, would go after her for her religious views when she came up for confirmation as a circuit court judge. host: one thing a lot of people have been saying is about dr. ford's memory of exactly what happened to her. you say you have gone through something similar. how reliable the you think your memory is of what happened to you? would you be able to give details under oath and in front of the senate the way she did? would your memory of what happened be a little sketchy because of how long ago was? caller: it was quite some time. it was in the 1970's. one i was a preteen, that happened in my house. that happened in the house i live in now. i could give explicit details. in college, i could recall the

name of the dorm, on the second floor. i have a very good memory of the details. incidents that stood out. one was an ongoing situation. one-time was a thing. i was not a big partygoer. that might make a difference, too. if they are attending a lot of these gatherings and a lot of stuff going on, i don't know. i could provide details. i am just not sure. as far as her memory goes, i could understand forgetting things, certain details, especially, from an event, -- trauma from that event, especially from a female. that sounds sexist, but i think it is true. host: let's call to -- let's go

to judith calling from texas. she opposes judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning. im because of his belief that a president should not be indicted while sitting in office. i have a feeling that is why -- list, not on the first but he appeared on the second list. maybe trump wants him because he does not want the pressure of being indicted. e would notrape charg appear on the fbi's previous reports because it had not been reported, and that is not what they were looking for. hatch tweeted out his thoughts about the upcoming fbi investigation yesterday. ile i will personally believe that it is appropriate to proceed at this time, i understand some members believe

additional investigations could be useful. i support the decision for an investigation limited in length and scope. this will address the concerns raised by senator flake and others while also being fair to the kavanaugh family." let's go to phyllis coming from ohio. she is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning to you also. on toeciate you taking me explain to you why i am not sure. . am not sure for two reasons would she, her into with all in that place those guys? that is one thing. the other thing, why would it wouldn'tstigate --

they investigate both sides, her and the upcoming judge? host: what would they that would about her make a difference one way or the other? caller: i could say the same to you on the judge. who knows, she might have gotten paid. i would remember every single detail of it even though it has been 36 years. host: ok. let's go to rob calling from michigan. rob is also not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. i listened to both testimonies. ford, to agree with mrs. although i think at that time they were all teenagers.

stuff happens. they are very immature at that age. her.d of believe i believe the judge don't remember, don't want to remember. at any rate, you have to hold him at a higher standard. i understand that. i was dismissed from a job in the 1960's because i had a minor possession charge for drinking beer. today, nothing would probably happen. back then, it was more strict. that kept me from a job. we have got to put this in perspective. the judge is not being charged with raped. he is not being charged with anything. this is a job interview. there was no penetration or anything like that. we need to hold the judges to a higher standard i will make up my mind after this fbi investigation. host: what do you need to hear from the fbi to make up your

mind? need to know that this actually happened in the house with these people that she says were there. for some reason, they are all denying this happened, the so-called witnesses. host: let me point out that a lot of the witnesses say they don't recall. very few of them have said it did not happen. they are saying they don't remember. that is a different thing from saying it did not happen, don't you think? caller: exactly. i am going to wait for the week. i don't know if a week is enough time. we will see what happens. i'm leaning towards mrs. ford. host: let's go to janet calling from maryland. she supports judge kavanaugh. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i guess i will be the one to say it. i believe in my heart, although there are plenty of women who have been sexually abused for

real, i believe this woman is a paid liar. i also believe they need to look who handedaxon lee one of her attorneys and .nvelope, sneakingly i don't think this would happen at the 11th hour. not only should she be investigated along with mr. kavanaugh, they should also investigate senator feinstein and should investigate ms. ford. i don't believe a lot of things she said. -- the loan was done in 2008, not 2012. host: let's go to your wham! from oregon. from oregon. she opposes judge kavanaugh. caller: hello.

how are you doing? host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: i think this can wait a little longer because other nominees to the supreme court have waited longer. he should not be confirmed until the investigation into russia is over with. plus, i think he painted a different picture of himself when he was up there. if he just said, i did this when i was younger. he should be held to a higher than thebecause -- average person also. i think we should wait and investigate what is going on. host: joann, would you change your mind if the fbi came back in a week and said there was no conclusive evidence that said dr. ford was correct?

caller: that would be better. i think him saying that -- i believe i heard him say that he believet -- he did not in prosecuting a sitting president on anything that might come up. that kind of threw me off a little bit. there are other documents that need to be presented, and plus we are in the middle of an investigation into russia. .t is just everything all of that is why i oppose him right now. host: let's go to scott calling from georgia. he supports judge kavanaugh. good morning. caller: my wife and i both were victims of molestation. i played in the nfl for a number of years. in the 30 years i have been married, i have never laid a hand on my wife, never cussed

her out. that's unbelievable. in church, we had a friend that came to me crying saying he was accused of molestation in school. i have no reason to doubt him. i didn't believe him. -- did believe him. his emotional outburst indicates to me his innocence. if you look at both of these people running their campaign, one to become a supreme court nominee and the other to give testimony against that, i cannot determine guilt or innocence just by persona, just by temperament. cannot do that. there is no basis. we don't have enough evidence one way or the other to discharge him from becoming a supreme court justice. we just don't have the evidence. host: if you are a senator having to vote on this, what would you do?

you have these allegations from dr. ford and judge kavanaugh denying it strongly. you have this fbi investigation coming up. what do you do? caller: let me speak to the element of so-called pain that is a possibility on -- payment that is a possibility for dr. ford. that is not enough. the kind of payment the left wants is to keep this man from getting into office. it is not an issue of money. it is an issue of political position. i am a liberal for life black man. liberal pro-life. those two don't go together. when i talk to some of the representatives in my state, and ofay i am outside the keel what is normal. i said there is no party that represents me. one representative said, you are

exactly right. there is no party that represents a liberal, pro-life black man. and i looked at all of this. there is no evidence. there is no proof right now to stop his nomination going through. that is all there is to it. host: let's go to tom calling from alabama. tom is not sure. i am not sure everybody is listening to what has been going on. this lady has a gofundme page of over $500,000 just for her legal bills and security. she should go to the police department and file these charges. limitation if is this really happened. she can go to the police department. host: i don't know if you heard me earlier, but the statute of limitations has passed.

it would be very hard for her to ask for an investigation or file charges in maryland. caller: she should have went there if this is what happened when all this happened. ruining later, during this man. they are in every part of him. you have got to be fair about it . sit back and watch. $500,000, $200,000, she is getting paid. from let's go to robert maryland. robert is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning, sir. i have heard you and your callers use the word evidence. i agree with that 100%. the evidence shows the lady has been caught in a lie. she said she would not fly to washington, d.c.

she has flown all over the world. the evidence says the evidence she put forth as witnesses on her side cannot corroborate her story. if anything, they say they don't understand it, it did not take place. the evidence shows that ms. ford's statement, you can google this statement, she said when she went to marriage counseling, she first told her psychologist about this incident 2000 voted she said the reason for doing so -- this incident in 2012. she said the reason for doing so was she was afraid judge kavanaugh would be nominated for the sprinkler. that his motive. it just happens to be coincidence that her brother works for fusion gps. earlier i heard you tell a gentleman on the phone that it is not true, but judge kavanaugh's mother sat on the

case that foreclosed her house. host: that is not true. that has been debunked by several media organizations. withother sat on a case dr. ford's parents, but she was not the cause for their house to be foreclosed. documents are on the internet. judge kavanaugh's mother signed off on those final documents that foreclosed on that house. host: i don't think that is correct, but go ahead. caller: get it on the google machine. host: let's go to bill calling from georgia. he supports judge kavanaugh. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. is this renewed investigation also going to look into feinstein's handling of the letter from the good doctor? host: i don't know. they say that the probe will be limited in scope and only last one week. caller: limited in scope to

what? host: whatever president trump limits it to. he is the one who has to call for the investigation. oneer: the last caller hit of my big points, the profit situation with the 500,000 and 200,000. which i think is kind of suspicious. politicaly brought up affiliation of the good doctor? i understand she is a democrat. feinstein and that group was a democrat. her to lawyers are progressive democrats. you keep saying if i don't that isr don't remember basically saying that i may or may not have been there, but what about hillary clinton and all of her interviews? 132 times she said i don't recall or don't remember.

host: let's go to mark calling from virginia. mark is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. go ahead. myself and points, yourself and these colors don't know what happened. the whole thing i look at is the drama this country is being put through. it is unnecessary. let the process play out. i went into these hearings with a completely open mind. i wanted to hear both sides. the problem i have is it seems like the current talking point is we need more investigation. you couldn't had eight weeks of investigation if dianne feinstein, while protecting the victim, could have proceeded and republican leadership actually started the investigation back then. that is all i have to say on the matter. host: coming up, we will

continue to discuss the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court with ira shapiro. later on, we will be joined by andrew egger of the weekly standard. we will be right back. coming up this weekend on the, today at 6:15 p.m. eastern commodity "wall street journal' s" matthew hennessey discusses x."book "zero hour for gen matthew: if you are a millennial, google help to get through high school. if you are a millennial, wikipedia help to get through college.

if you are a millennial, you are what is called a digital native. and keyways, this is the thesis of my book, this makes millennials different from the rest of us. >> that sunday, stanford university professor francis fu "yama talks about his book identity." francis: identity can be shaped by readers, schools, education, the way we talk about our shared history and our shared values, and that is important. >> and on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "after words," in university african-american studies chair carol anderson discusses her book "one person, no vote." interviewed by democratic

congressman jamie raskin of maryland. raskin: if you look at the history of the right to vote, it has been violently contested. dr. anderson: absolutely. one of the things i talk about aspirational an nation dreamweaver people, we hold these truths to be self-evident, leader of the free world, is waste on those aspirations and not the hard-core reality where people have fought to gain access. >> watch this weekend on c-span2's booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're here with ira shapiro, author of "broken: can the senate save itself and the

country?" you have written that the senate is broken. is what happened yesterday professed it is broken or proof that it is working the way it should? it has been quite a few days. i think i had everyone in the country was depressed about the overall senate's performance on thursday and then heartened by the way things turned around friday. it has been described as a glimmer of hope. one of the things that i describe in my book is it does not take that many people to make the senate work the way it is supposed to work. i think senator flake working with senator coons, consulting with senators manchin.rakowski markowski,

host: where will the fbi investigation lead the senate when it is over? guest: it is hard to do this, thei need to drop back to ancient history two or three weeks ago before dr. blasey ford. before she came forward, this was already an extraordinarily important confirmation fight. i have been spending most of my time in opposition to the nomination. opposed theat -- i nomination for the reasons that president trump and senator mcconnell put it forward. they want to lock in a right-wing majority for the next 30 years. i think that would be terrible for the court and the country. i do not want my children and grandchildren living under the court that they have in mind. so i have been opposed for this for a long time. and i thought it was very important and would be fought out on the merits.

i believe judge kavanaugh, looking at his record, is a partisan warrior turned ideological judge. i think his views are extreme. so i thought the fight would be on that basis. it may only be for member by the important allegations and the courage dr. blasey ford showed in setting forward. we will see what happens now. my personal view is that the fbi investigation is the right thing to do. i think the republicans would never have gone along with it if ram had had the votes to the nominations through. host: you have written before that this is the defining moment for the senate. in what way is this the defining moment? has been inenate long decline, 25 or 30 years, and then about 10 years ago, it

took a deep dive. the gradual decline took a deep and there seems to be no bottom. it seems to almost coincidentally coincide with mitch mcconnell's leadership in the senate. it is a defining moment because the course of the supreme court nominee, potential swing vote for the next 30 years, is one of the largest decisions the senate whatever face. i anticipated it a couple of months before justice kennedy's retirement. couldested the senate suggest this to be a moderate candidate, not a federalist society judge. i think that would be the right thing to do by conveying it to the white house. i do not know that president trump or senator mcconnell would have agreed with it. we are where we are. but this is a defining moment. host: we are talking with ira shapiro.

since we are with judge kavanaugh, we will continue the lines the way they were the first hour of the show. if you support judge kavanaugh, we want you to call (202) 748-8000. if you oppose judge kavanaugh, we want you to call (202) 748-8001. thef you are not sure about kavanaugh nomination, we want you to call (202) 748-8002. once again coming you can always -- once again, you always regis on twitter, @cspanwj, and on facebook at journal@c-span.org facebook.com/cspan. for you used to work senator jay rockefeller, if i am not mistaken. what the process as broken then? guest: the republicans would argue that the 1987 confirmation wasess of judge bork

broken. i would disagree with your donation was -- with that. was he hadation extreme views, and he was rejected for that reason. republicans say that is where it all started. the fact is that virtually every nomination with since then, with the exception of judge clarence smoothlyent relatively , democrats and republicans, until mitch mcconnell refused to take up the nomination of judge garland. there has been a bitterness this,then that hangs over but leaving that aside, i have tried, and i have asked senators to focus on what the court needs

and what the country needs in this justice. reason, i was against judge kavanaugh because of the extremists of his views, very much like bork, buddy was a more likable bork. extraconstitutional views. host: given your experience and what you know, how do you fix the judicial nomination process? guest: actually, the way you fix the judicial nomination process is you look at the senate rules comprehensively, and you find some agreement on rules that would apply to future confirmations. the next president. we do not know if the next president will be a republican or a democrat. what are rules that are fair? certainly a system that works that is trying to ram through a supreme court justice of this

important that warps the with 50 votes plus the vice president. were ready and thought they would vote in a committee yesterday, work on the procedural issues over the weekend, vote this thing out. it was stopped only because a couple of people stepped forward and said that is not the way to do it. host: let's go to matt who is calling from new jersey, and he supports judge kavanaugh. matt, good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you. your guest mentioned he does not want his children or grandchildren to live in a country with extreme views. what? most of this country do not want their children or grandchildren to live in a country that have extreme views like the democrats do, the current democrats, of

anti-police, kill orders, which dans no crime and more rugs, and nancy pelosi said, she will raise taxes, was romaine lettuce jobs. mean less jobs. to this guest -- do you think it would be fair for the fbi to also investigate allegations by a woman who has doctors' reports of beatings and abuse from mr. keith ellison, and/or mr. robert menendez, who is currently under senate ethics investigation for having illegal relations with minors? , cory booker,cus who has allegations against his

conduct with a 15-year-old girl? guest: i do not know that we can resolve all of the issues that you have addressed, political issues or those specifically. i would like to just say why i described judge kavanaugh's views as extreme, and it is very simple. there is a long history of the ist society seeking judges that would change the approach to the constitution, essentially to make it more originalist, protection alist approach. longhave been opposed to a series of republican justices, appointed bycordins opponent republican presidents. they opposed 10 in a row and

never satisfy the federalist society, because they were fair-minded guardians of the constitution, so they do not want another sandra day o'connor or anthony kennedy or another lewis powell. they want extremists. that is the reason i turned justice kavanagh "extreme." it is in the context of that. , and let's go to ahmed he opposes judge kavanaugh. ahmed, go ahead. myler: thanks for taking call. i have a follow-up question for mr. shapiro about potential solutions on fixing this process of judicial nominations. micro solutions three i want to ask about macro fixes. is there legislation? what you think about amending

the constitution to require a higher vote count, which will recently mandate more bipartisan or multi-partisan input on a judicial candidate? guest: thanks for the question. it is interesting that you can some of these things without amending the constitution. you could actually have a senate role that says that for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court or a federal judiciary, we would require 60 votes. that is not a constitutional matter. and frankly, i think it is reasonable to say executive branch nomination, the president has a right to run deference -- broad deference. it only requires a majority, and guarantee that those nominations will be taken up within 90 days or 120 days.

lifetime appointments are different. if you are going to serve 25, 30 years, why don't we have a supermajority requirement? but the important thing is the fairness of it. you do not try to change the rules during a crisis. you say -- what would be fair? come up with rules that will work for the democrats, the republicans, and everyone else. host: yesterday, senator lindsey graham talked about how democrats' treatment of judge kavanaugh will have a lasting impact. here is what he had to say. [video clip] plenty of time, plenty of opportunities to get to the truth. this has never been about the truth. about delay and disruption, and if we rework this, it is the

end of good people wanting to be judges. any concept off the rule of law. it is the beginning of a process that will tear the country apart. year, i am chairman next if we keep the majority and senator grassley moves over -- i hope he does not. i think he has done a great job. and we remember this, there is the process before kavanaugh and the process after kavanaugh. if you want to vet the nominee, you can. if you want to delay things for the next election, you will not. if you try to destroy somebody,

you will not get away with it. host: react to what senator graham said there. guest: i think that senator graham, while i do not agree with all that he is saying, i think the republicans have a grievance in that if the letter -- i believe that senator not sharingred by the letter with senator grassley immediately after she got it. in this situation, when i was a senate staff director, minority staff director, if i had gotten that letter, i think the senator i worked for and myself would have gone to the republicans and say "here is what came in. here is what we have got. how do we handle it?" i think that in that case, the notion of a late hit would not have been a problem. so i think that was an error.

i think senator feinstein was trying to protect the confidentiality, and she was undoubtedly working under very complex separation for the hearing, but i think that was an error. that does not change the importance of assessing judge kavanaugh's record, and it does not change the power of dr. blasey ford's testimony. host: let's go to evelyn, who is calling from massachusetts, and she is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. evelyn, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i am sitting here, and i am wondering why i called the not sure number. are naughty -- until they-y --

learn otherwise. these teenagers growing up one in theirttle games homes. they have ruined it for everybody, always bringing in sex anti-woman -- the woman is always the corporate. that is what i am not sure of. everyone except the culprits in the government. well, i think one reason why this is such an extraordinary national moment is you have the importance, fundamental importance of a supreme court nomination at this time with a president who is under investigation and a very closely divided senate. so that would be a very difficult situation anyway. and then it combines with the national debate we are adding over allegations and realities of sexual assault, sexual misconduct. so this is an extraordinarily

difficult moment. i would never have anticipated that these issues would have been part of this confirmation situation, but they cannot be andded, and dr. blasey ford others that have come forward needed to be heard. and i am sorry if judge outraged and offended by the charges, but the fact is those charges have a great deal of credibility and need to be assessed by the fbi, the senate, and ultimately the public. host: explain to interviewers what -- to our viewers what the judicial filibuster was. said: well, it is always that harry reid, former leader harry reid, the democratic leader, killed the judicial filibuster for several district

several circuit court judges. when he did that, he don't visiting door -- he opened the and to senator mcconnell the gorsuch case, see the cast with 50, 51 votes rather than 60. i think it is an important factor but somewhat misunderstood. bork was defeated in 1957, 58-42, without a filibuster. clarence thomas was confirmed with only 52 votes, without a filibuster. in mysenator mcconnell, estimation, would have changed the filibuster rule once he became the majority leader and once there was a republican president whether harry reid had

done something or not. there is no substitution for a handful of senators who are willing to cross party lines because of their judgment of the situation can because they think the country requires it. from the beginning, it has been evident that there were maybe six or seven senators, maybe eight senators here who might be open, depending on how things went. and those are the senators that are crucial. whether there was a filibuster or not. host: if a filibuster was theible, would that change confirmation on his nomination to the senate right now? guest: i think it would. if there was a realistic 60-vote ush thement, it would p president for nominating someone who could get those 60 votes. but look, the political climate

is extraordinarily divided. that is a factor, to some extent a function of the trump presidency, and to some extent a function of what senator mcconnell did to the garlands nomination. the garland nomination. i think we will always look at of donalds the era trump. he looms large over the landscape. but i think the most powerful figure over the last 10 years has actually been senator mcconnell, and i think he has been quite destructive. host: but go to alex: from lexington, kentucky, and alex supports judge kavanaugh. i support, yeah, judge kavanaugh, but i can tell you this, i do believe dr. ford was assaulted by something, it is called indoctrination of the colleges, and moving to liberal california.

we have already had six investigations by the fbi to prove his character. how much more money to we have to waste with another investigation from the fbi? it is obvious this woman is mentally ill. she can speak with a raspy voice like this to the prosecutors and be almost giggly to the democrats when they asked her questions during the hearing. even i can break up my words with a rhythm. it is ridiculous. this is interesting, because she has already confirmed to be at the women's march. she is a political derailer. mean, obviously people have different opinions. i was struck -- i believe her testimony, personally, but that is irrelevant. ist is relevant, i think, that many of the republican senators listening to the

testimony found it to be compelling and credible. why did she come forward? she was obviously in some pain. if we know anything about -- and we should know something about -- victims of sexual assault and the difficulties coming forward, because the victims, -- the cosby victims, harvey weinstein victims, michigan state victims, catholic church victims -- we know it is difficult to come forward. she had credibility for that reason, she had credibility because of the details that she provided. host: let's go to darrell: from new jersey, and he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i agree with your guest. what happened with

dr. ford, there is no way i could prove judge kavanaugh is important given his views on torture, his station at his time in the white house, his dishonesty about the gambling debts in all of this. to me, it is problematic. i think one of the problems is because it is not consulting all of congress when selecting his candidates for the supreme court. he is one of these right-wing thing takes like the american enterprise institute. instead of trying to build consensus among democrats and republicans, this is not the way we should be nominating supreme court justices. my second thought, if you do not passionndsey graham's notwithstanding, let's not forget lindsey graham is going to be challenged by john warrant senate race in south

carolina, and right now, i think what lindsey graham is doing has nothing to do with kavanaugh, has nothing to do with dr. ford, it is about washing the stench -- and i say stench, because this is the way right-wingers see -- by cozying up to donald this faryda playing isht-winger, saying this about politics when he himself is all about politics. i certainly agree on the first part. president trump, canada candidate trump, as you recall, outsourced the list of supreme

court candidates that he would consider. he outsourced it to the heritage society anti-federalist association. it was brilliant because it the right wing of the party that, understandably, touted that trump was committed to their causes, so it worked brilliantly for them, and it got neil gorsuch on the springboard. -- the supreme court. againturning to he diminishes the notion that you should pick supreme court justices. pres. trump: mcconnell, the federalist society, they are not interested in justices that have a broad support, they are interested in ramming through an extreme judge, and i have no doubt that if the avenal

nomination fails, which i believe it will come of it will put forth their next right-wing justice nominee, and there will be another fight over that person. with respect to lindsey graham, i would just add, and it has been a disappointment to me, because i think his independence have been useful t at times, in over thedmired years. i will not get into his south carolina politics. lindsey graham is a close friend of brett kavanaugh's. i have no doubt. then worked together on a close investigation of president clinton, when brett kavanaugh can started in the team, lindsey graham was one of the house prosecutors and presenters of the case. so they are friends. in not put a lot of weight the views of family and friends.

they are supposed to be loyal. i think that as a given. the judgment on these candidates should be made by people who are not their. family and friends. host: constitution says the senate should only advise and consent on the nomination. has the usefulness of onfirmation hearings and evaporated after thi? guest: i don't think so. i think it is a good question, not be services, but i think we will back on this -- hopefully -- and find it within an extraordinary spectacle for the combination of reason i described, but also as something that is ultimately positive. the hearings aired kavanaugh's views.

as one of the callers pointed out, his testimony about his service during the bush administration is questionable. now we are seeing how what he has perhaps done in the past and how he responds to the charges. i think, frankly, from the republican standpoint, they were probably alarmed at his treatment ofshing the senators on the panel. he was virtually out of control and showed it partisan side and a lack of judicial temperament, which, even under pressure, he made clarence thomas look extremely calm by comparison 27 years ago. host: let's go to agnes calling from fairview, oklahoma, and agnes opposes the kavanaugh nomination. agnes, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

the reason i am calling is i opposed capital after watching his hearing. he had all of these flaws that kept popping up from his prior confirmation, and it shows he is an obvious liar. when he did his performance on thursday, that was frosting on the cake. this man is not fit to be judged. publicto remind the this is not a democrat witchhunt likely keep claiming. go to the remember just last year they confirmed neil gorsuch with no problem, no witchhunt, no fuss or must? keep that in mind and put this in context. this man does not belong there. thank you for taking my call. host: does the gorsuch nomination and confirmation mean that this confirmation process is not broken, this is an anomaly with brett kavanaugh?

guest: i think that is a great question. i think the gorsuch nomination, which was made very difficult, more difficult than it would've been because of the memory of thegarland situation, but gorsuch, confirmation was to madea sea that had been death.ice scalia's this one was always going to be more focused on, more difficult. confirm one justice of the federalist type but perhaps not the other. let's play a hypothetical here, let's say judge kavanaugh was nominated for scalia's seat, and neil gorsuch was nominated for kennedy's seat.

with the process the broken -- would the process still be broken? guest: because it took three years to get him on the court of appeals originally, those facts evidently caused mitch mcconnell to say "we would be better off with someone else who had less of a paper record. " so a long record what has suggested that judge kavanaugh would have been looked at closely. on the other hand, it would have been much easier for him if he was filling the scalia see. i agree with that. go to edward calling from jersey city, new jersey, and he is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. go ahead. caller: good morning. . am not sure when the news broke and i got the news on msnbc, i was shocked, i was disgusted, ok, all of the reports are coming out about people being sexually assaulted and raped.

the culture in our country is so sad. ford, i i see ms. believe her testimony already, and by the time judge kavanaugh came on, i had already condemned him. then he came on, he began to cry, i thought this is bad, all ad but after it all, i still believe ms. ford,, and despite it being 30 years ago, 35 years ago, we still have to get justice for her. as far as his temperament goes, he was angry, i would have been angry. i wanted t her to be more angry, ms. ford. the senate being broken, i agree with you the saint-etienne broken. the senate is doing nothing about war. the senate is broken. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you.

with respect to the senate being the title offraid my book is almost a cliché, because everybody believes the senate is broken. if everybody believes that, why don't they do something about it? there are a lot of believers, but they are not willing to push back against the leader. the senate has become more broken over the last 10 years. reid and mcconnell were a disastrous nomination, but this is -- combination, but this is the mcconnell era. who hasrictly partisan destroyed trust rather than building trust and has abused the process constantly, when in unprecedented obstruction to president obama's agenda. in the majority and with president trump, unprecedented

steamroller. one thing after another that we have never seen before. i am not talking now about policy differences. i have talked with a lot of republicans on policy differences. i am talking about actions that strike at the fundamental ability of institutions to work. so he has taken one after another, and he would have rammed this through. flake,ires senators like collins, murkowski, manchin to push back and say this is not the way the senate is supposed to work. it is not the way our country is supposed to work. i am hopeful they will do it. host: let's go to liz: from l laurel, new jersey, and liz opposes the kavanaugh nomination . go ahead. oppose the, i

kavanaugh nomination. one, it came from a very right-wing group. i've having a problem with his partisanship. a judge should represent the nation. i think the federal list of candidates seems to go out the window. wants to do something for this country, he should be qualified conservative judges, but v judges of the state level, v somebody who graduated from somewhere other than yellow or harvard law school. let them the someone who came up and i thinkranks all americans can get beyond that, and my hats off to senator flake, who is a decent conservative, and also senator kunz.

maybe they can think about a run for the presidency and the vice presidency together, because i think they support. that is another good ticket of common sense and mutual respect. thank you. guest: i cannot agree with you more on virtually all of those points. i mean, the problem basically has been, in my view, that the president and senator mcconnell have not been interested in that kind of justice, picking that kind of justice. interested in completing the 30, 35, or 50 years, depending on how you calculate it, effort to take over the supreme court. it has gone on for a long time, and they are interested in completing it. frankly, i give them credit for their candor. they have not hit it when they

are trying to do, and that's why i and many other people opposed the nomination very strongly long before these allegations surfaced, but i completely agree with the caller. and uncle one step forward. , there are so many superbly qualified lawyers who would be wonderful judges justices.xcellent we do not have to pay a very small crop from harvard and yale, but we also do not have to pick from a right-wing list assembled by the federalist society. host: let's go to john calling from florida. john supports judge kavanaugh. john, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you today? i want to thank you and your guests. this morning. i want to start off by saying i

am a retired veterans. i am an mba. i have been following since eisenhower. i completely support the judge. i completely support obama -- obama was that was -- the most anti-constitutional american i have ever seen in the office. i want to tell your guests, he should follow things a little bit closer. there was no charges against the judge -- it was unsubstantiated allegations. you want to say there was a charge, i think you had better go back to school. but anyway, you have a great day. talk to you later. thank you. guest: thank you. host: let's go to georgia, florida, and george also supports the kavanaugh nomination. george, good morning. caller: good morning. just two things very quickly. this gentleman commented he did not believe relatives of the judge. he gives them no weight.

what weight does he give anything? if you want to clear this up, when the prosecutor, rachel, whatever her name is, was said there ford, she is a way to do it, forensic investigation by an educated professional sexual abuse counselor. worth ofe in an hour's time with just the two individuals. she even proper the name of a firm that does this kind of thing. let's get serious. let's give professor ford an opportunity to go on a psychological -- professor ford seems to be with her hippocampus and psychological phd to be knowledgeable of, so let her have that test, and let's see what the result of that is.

and if that test comes in she is telling the truth and this test shows it, hey, get rid of him. , i think that professor ford has given us a lot of detail. she has also submitted to a lie detector test. relevanttor tests are in law enforcement investigations, according to the d.c. circuit judge in an opinion that was written by judge kavanaugh. so he might want to submit to a lie detector test as well. but i favor an investigation. we are having an investigation, and i favor an investigation. but i don't agree with those who saidt is a "he said, she situation, and i cannot figure it out." she came forward with great detail and under considerable

duress and agonized over whether to come forward. he is fighting for his reputation and asserting and reasserting his complete innocence. i do not think those are equivalent. host: we would like to thank ira shapiro, author of "broken: can the senate save itself and the country?" and former chief of staff for senator jay rockefeller, for joining us today. ira, thank you. guest: thank you for having me today. it has been great. host: coming up next, the "weekly standard's" andrew egger joins us to continue the conversation about judge kavanaugh. this week's hearing and the vote. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, tonight

at 8:00 p.m. eastern on brandeis in history," university professor abigail cooper talks about african-americans during the reconstruction period. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on america," the 1919 film "the lost battalion" about the lead up to the end of world war i and a unit of men in new york who ran out of food after they were surrounded by german forces for seven days in october. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on "american artifacts," women's history with a visit to civil war-related sites and virginia where women worked as nurses. and at 8:00 p.m. on "the presidency," a look and how first ladies have influenced political and cultural times through fashion. watch american history tv this week c-span3.

>> every president, and i think it would confirm that experience. "i going to tell this guy off," and then they get in there, and there is something about the office where you just do not feel like blowing out the president or taking him on the way you told your colleagues you are going to do. >> you know, when he was in china, he was initially called back in order to run the cia, something he did not want to do, because he thought, what, the cia was a political career killer. he had aspirations to higher office. and we should take him at his word that he remembered his father saying if the president of the united states ask you to do something for your country, the answer is yes. that sentiment i think really embodies his entire sense of be aation, not necessarily president in his own right but to hold the presidency up as a

chart should have told off to the next person. >> jeffrey angle, the director of southern methodist university's center for history, discusses his book "when the world seemed new: president george w. bush at the end of the cold war," sunday night at 8:00 a." eastern on "q and >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're joined by andrew egger from the "weekly standard ." andrew, what was your reaction to senator flake calling for a week's delay into the investigation into judge kavanaugh? guest: it was a madhouse. we did not expect it. jeff flake came out in the morning and essentially said he supportded to judge kavanaugh's nomination, and that they scheduled a vote that morning to come back and vote at 1:30 p.m. to send his

nomination to the full senate. they get back, and immediately it is clear something is crazy. something is going unexpectedly, and it is clear that flake has been talking to the minority and having second thoughts. there was not a lot of republicans did you get it may only have a one-c majority on the judiciary committee, and flake wanted a delay in order to get his vote, then they could do that. one confusing thing about it is the still vote to push kavanaugh out of the judiciary committee. they get that, so his nomination is on the senate floor now, which actually removes some of flake's own leverage. at this point, he is not the only swing vote. he is one of four or five potential swing votes. he has made it clear he is not going to vote to confirm the nominee unless they go forward with this at investigation, which has now been ordered. it seems to be the case he had

been in communication with some of the other swing voters in making that decision. host: what was the tipping point for senator flake? what changed his mind when announcing earlier in the morning that he was going to vote for the nomination, and that coming to the judiciary committee "i will vote him out, but i have to have this investigation before i vote for them on the floor"? guest: a lot has been made with the interaction he had with some howconstituents on heroes."some "folk is also beholden to other senators because he is on his way out. he is not running for reelection. i think he talked to the minority. where some had approached the democrats' request for further at the investigation as a partisan political move -- and

there is some reason to believe that. i think flake himself, some members of the minority made the judgment that this was the kind of thing that would be the right move to make it good faith in order to try to appeal to some of the rage and part of the animus that have surrounded all of this. we are on the up and up at me the release. least.- at the very host: we know senators do not like to be surprised, somehow blindsided with senator grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and senator mcconnell, the majority leader of the senate, westlake made this announcement that he would not vote for the nomination on the floor and let the has a one-we delay on the nomination? at 1:30 when it looked like they were going to push the nomination through the drama had already happened, grassley is a pretty circumspec

guy. he has explained -- shown occasionally irritation. he said senator flake has something to say, and then it was amazing, because the senators could figure out exactly what the next move was. nobody was sure what they were voting on, what exactly flake was demanding. it seems like some of the senators thought flake propose an amendment that would force a delay, but ascent, he toed to approve the motion advance in the senate and the ethic of money, losing some of his own leverage. the committee,nd of his own leverage. now obviously, they gaveled out of that hearing very quickly. senator grassley sort of abruptly brought the thing to an end, so everybody could go back

behind away from the cameras and sort of hash out what was going to happen next. but i think anybody at least in terms of political capability who can handle this last second bomb, it is senator mcconnell who is, the very least, very capable of handling politics. it certainly was a curveball. host: was it clear the sen. grassley: was senator flake was going to suggest? guest: i think he knew about 10 or 15 minutes prior to flake saying his fees, because they were scheduled to vote at 130, go,sant, and 1:30 come and and immediately after grassley in, he says "play once to say something."

host: we will go to phones. we will use the same lines for this hour. if you support the kavanaugh nomination, we want you to call in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the kavanaugh nomination, call us at (202) 748-8001. and if you are not sure about the kavanaugh nomination, call .s at (202) 748-8002 and was again, you can always reach us on social media, a twitter @cspanwj, on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. let's go to tracy who is calling from league city, texas. tracy opposes the kavanaugh nomination. tracy, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. tracy, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i had a statement i wanted to make, it is actually regarding dr. shapiro's statement. when he is saying as far as how the leadership in the congress as well as the senate is becoming radicalized.

i remember that obama had spoke fine thatut it is people have opposing views, but when your views become so radical that there is no opportunity to have any kind of consensus, it is not healthy in the country or in the government. ford, i, regarding dr. am saddened to hear so many people who basically are condemning this woman for that she experienced as a child. when i listened to her story, my heart out to her, because obviously nobody what advice their child, their daughter, to be in that type of setting. thatan relate to the fact as a child, you are already in a situation that you know you are not supposed to be in in the first place, and this is what happens to a lot of victims. so at the end of the day, you're

able to comprehend that if you go and report what has happened to you, then someone is going to say to you that you will be blamed for being in the situation to begin with. so the lack of compassion or mercy on behalf of the public for dr. ford is very distressing. that is my only comment. thank you so much. dede callingo to from massachusetts, and dede is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. caller: thank you so much. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i am not sure, so i watched very carefully, and i have to say that what i am now seeing in this country on the left is actually the use of tradecraft. this is not brainstorming to come up with solutions. this is, to me, watching an organized tradecraft, the attempt to completely destroy an american citizen.

mr. shapiro said in the last hour that he thought that the event was something good at the end, and i wonder if ashley kavanaugh would agree with that. when i saw dr. feinstein looking rather abashed when judge kavanaugh was railing out, as i think any human being would do, she seemed to be the only one who was a little bit sam a shame that they held the letter so long. it was her law firm. i find it strange that she had no idea about the coming to california. all of a sudden, she does like him when before, the lawyer said she could not fly. this is tradecraft, to me, it is black ops stuff. i do not think the democrats realize that people are aware

that they are doing. i was surprised that mr. shapiro did not answer a question about a broker and the other two liberals, who apparently can abuse women and not have anybody call them on it. host: what do you think about how president trump has reacted to this entire last two or three days? he is normal very active on twitter and very stringent on his opinion. he has been less on twitter over the last couple of days. guest: this is consistent from what you have seen from trump throughout his presidency, whether it is an issue that is important to him or does not rile them up personally, you do not see president trump go after people on the issue of the supreme court like you do on a lot of other things. i think part of it is that he correctly assesses that, you know, he picked a guy, but after

he picks the guy, it is not his battle anymore. with the other issues, he sees himself as the primary driver. i think his aides are constantly telling him and wheedling him that in situations like this, he want the process to be as professional as possible. you want the process to go as smoothly as possible. you do not want to introduce the element of chaos that is oftentimes the crucial to president trump's style, it appears that he buys that when it comes to these nominations. the kavanaugh nomination has gotten chaotic without the president weighing in. and he has weighed in if times in ways that sort of broken of the new cycle a little bit. host: what is going on behind the scenes? is judge kavanaugh gaining, losing support on the republican side? on the democratic side, will the investigation change any minds? guest: that is a really interesting question.

it is hard to say. are people, it seems, pretty confident that the fbi investigation is not going to turn up anything new, barring some completely unexpected, you know, change out of left field about the testimony of mark judge, brett kavanaugh's friend, who is alleged to have been in the room during the high school party, when the fbi interviews him. something like that clearly would be a big shakeup. democrats cannot oppose brett kavanaugh anymore than they already do. he is going to get one, maybe two democratic votes tops in the senate. potentiallyon none, one, which would be senator joe manchin. politically important question is -- how many republicans will they lose? i do think this is one area in which jeff flake's move yesterday potentially is a helping kavanaugh in the end, if the fbi comes forward and says we cannot uncover any more

information, we essentially reached all the same witnesses who made all the same statements that the senate already has, then that enables people like flake and senator collins, senator michalski to say we have , -- our duty diligence senator murkowski to say we have done our duty diligence, we cannot prove it one the allegations as made don't reach the level of proof they find comfortable to stop the nominee. i think that's what flake was thinking when he made that pitch and that has the potential to help kavanaugh in the medium to long run. host: brian calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. brian opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: a couple of points on our two statesmen of note. mitch mcconnell famously said

his biggest quest was to make barack obama a one term president. role -- ifchose the we still had the 60 vote threshold, we would not be in this position. brett kavanaugh's nomination would be dead. i would have supported alito, i would have supported roberts because, ideologically, it should be irrelevant. when you look at kavanaugh, his temperament is abhorrent, completely nonjudicial, he is straight from the heritage foundation playbook. when you look at the allegations, lets air on the side of caution. trump and others say anyone can make up anything, what is the president for this -- precedent for this? when there's smoke, there's

fire. there's plenty of circumstantial evidence here. the fact that we are getting close to this man still being on the court shows you the partisan hackery that exists. let's get another gop conservative type. elections have consequences, they will get it done and we will move on, but this man has euro business being on the court. guest: that is a reasonable position to take. the thing people need to realize about this, this is a hard thing to parse out. you have these two extremely pitched camps who staked their place. have a virtuous motivation and one that is more politically motivated. on the republican side, they do see a danger in having an

accident used allegation -- unsubstantiated allegation be sufficient to effect some as career. -- fact someone's career -- affect someone's career. they don't trust democrats. on the democrat side, you have the same thing. this virtuous motivation of wanting women to be heard and at the same time, the more-based political motivation -- the more toe political motivation stall this out as long as possible. you have to parse those things out. say what you will about senator flake. he's trying to be as aboveboard as possible, he's trying to get

the republicans to air on the side of that virtuous motivation. -- whyular republican enemyulnerability to your when your enemy will use that to stab you in the back? i certainly think it would have behooved senator feinstein to bring these allegations to the fbi long ago. if you'd want to go back to who punched the first political punch, there's no way to do it. at some point, you have to stick to your principles. host: let's get into this. there are several conservatives, including lus rush limbaugh, who warned that republicans could lose their majority if they don't get kavanaugh on the supreme court. is that what the republicans are thinking about, midterm consequences? guest: every person in congress

is constantly thinking about their reelection odds. the potential for any action they take to hurt them in their own state. arguments like the one that limbaugh makes are a little convenient. whether or not kavanaugh gets through, this situation has fired up republican voters. republicans were already in pretty good shape to hold the senate. not so much the house. it is a hard map across the country or republicans this year. there's a good chance that we get through this cycle and republicans still hold the senate. mitch mcconnell is a bottom line guy. he doesn't want to take that chance. pushing this extremely pivotal decision, what the ideological

makeup of the supreme court is going to be until after an election is antithetical to what mcconnell wants to do in this situation. host: steve calling from san diego. steve is not sure about the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. previous investigations were politically hacked -- dr. wilson brought it up prior to this. did the committee barry this somehow -- bury this somehow? it's really sad to see our country this way. guest: i thought he was asking why the allegation came out as late as it did. theret was your question,

are a couple of explanations for why that is. senator feinstein swears up and down that her office did not blasey ford's letter to the press. she alleges it must have been some of ford's own friends. is she initially did not want her name to become public at all. after she sent a private letter to her congresswoman initially and eventually to senator feinstein, the press got wind of it and were nosing around her house and workplace all the time. eventually, she realized sh it was going to come out one way or another. republicans have pointed to the fact that it appears even before somes name became public,

news outlets had already seen a copy of that confidential letter that ford had given to feinstein. she didn't give that letter to them. she wasn't coming forward. someone in feinstein's office must have leaked that letter to "washington post." it's always easy to accuse the opponent of doing sleazy things. at a certain point, it's impossible to say how exactly that came out. it is certainly damaging that it came out as late as it did. host: let's go to larry calling from indiana. larry supports the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i do support judge kavanaugh. i do support an investigation into senator feinstein.

there was only three people who had this letter. feinstein and the lady's congresswoman in california and the lady herself. between those three people, someone leaked that letter to try to destroy this man. i think dianne feinstein should be investigated. this lady should be investigated. so should the lady from california, the congresswoman. people should get out and vote these democrats out. all they are trying to do is destroy this country. host: will there be an investigation from anyone on how this letter became public? guest: it's hard. i know this is something republicans in the senate -- it has irked them. if this happened in the house,

that might be the kind of thing where you would see members coming to the floor, trying to start an investigation into something like this. that people in the senate on the republican side feel like they have bigger fish to fry. it is an issue if feinstein's office did leak it. feinstein'stime, reasoning behind it, that she didn't want to bring the allegation forward until ford herself was comfortable bringing her name forward, that is not an unreasonable explanation. host: senator lindsey graham criticized the democrats for playing politics. here's what senator graham said. [video clip] >> if you wanted an fbi investigation, you could have come to us. you want to destroy this guy's

life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. you've said that. not me. you've got nothing to apologize for. kaganou see sotomayor and , tell them hello because i voted for them. i would never do to them what you did to this guy. this is the most unethical sham since i've been in politics. if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy. are you a gang rapist? >> no. >> i cannot imagine what you and your family are going through. you all want power. it. i hope you never get you knew about it and you held it. you had no intention of protecting dr. ford. she's as much of a victim as you are.

i hate to say it. these have been my friends. when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. host: what has this meant for lindsey graham's reputation among conservatives? guest: i think a lot of people in brett kavanaugh's corner were sort of surprised to see graham gets a fiery on the subject -- get so fiery on the subject. he tends to be more even keel, more friendly with democrats. "the weekly standard" have said senators grahamand -- they think was genuinely fired up and angry at democrats. you can see why.

from where graham is sitting, democrats sat on this allegation rather than introduce it under the regular process. it would happen investigated by the fbi during the regular course of their background check of brett kavanaugh. cares for the well-being of the country. at least presumably. to thebeen damaging nation for these things to come out in the way they have. whether that's the democrats fault or anybody's fault is up for debate. it's impossible to have been on twitter or what have you the last two weeks and not to have seen just how bitter and angry and paranoid people have gotten around this issue. if it could have been avoided, it would have been great. host: tom calling from clinton,

massachusetts. tom opposes the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: hello. the american bar association sent a letter to the committee last week pleading for an fbi investigation. don't you think that was truly critical to the changes that happened? as a separate thing, one of the senators showed mr. cavanaugh's alendar, july 1, 1982, meeting mr. cavanaugh went to that was very interesting. mr. cavanaugh -- mr. kavanaugh was mimicking clarence thomas almost verbatim. what do you think of the bar association's letter? guest: i'm glad you brought that up. i forgot to mention earlier, but i think you're absolutely right.

that was a surprising development. wasamerican bar association such a critical institution in bringing kavanaugh's name forward in the first place. we heard their letter of endorsement quoted a lot. they initially gave him a totally clean bill of health, said he was an outstanding nominee, an outstanding person. for them to come out on thursday and say, look, that letter was true based on what we know, but these are serious allegations, they deserve to be investigated. that caused people like jeff flake to step back and say it's another delay, but if we are going to say we did our due diligence, we have to take a break and look at these allegations more clearly. host: does limiting the fbi investigation to one week help

or hurt? guest: politically, no, i don't think so. for them to make that concession at all, it shows they are not given democrats full rein to continue to delay as much as they want. these investigations don't take a lot of time. if you look back at the anita hill allegation, it to the fbi -- took the fbi to or three days. -- two or three days. this is not a crunch timetable for the fbi to work on. this is a high priority for the country. does it provide an opportunity for democrats to say this is a fig leaf? yes. democrats will make that claim because it is expedient. people in congress make the expedient argument. host: dave calling from california.

dave is unsure about the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: i'm not sure, but i listen to a very suspicious you hear deception on top of deception on top of deception. they are in the business of misleading us. most of us can be misled. office, there's hundreds of people. -- there areng some people seeing through it all. trump will come up with someone even worse. he's not in the business of trying to benefit the people. that's the problem we are up against.

way to beg in his own an honorable person. but that's in fact deception. host: joe calling from spoke in, washington -- spokane, washington. joe supports the kavanaugh nomination. caller: i want to ask your guest real quick -- write this down. i want to make sure the female caller gets her answer. can you elaborate why -- host: did we lose you? caller: i'm here. host: what was your question? caller: have the guest write down why he didn't answer the question regarding booker. prosecutor had a map of her home to where the incident

supposedly took place, it was 6.2 miles. that's why there are so many holes in her credibility. she didn't know how she got to the home where this incident took place. she doesn't know how she got back to her home. all of her supposedly witnesses that were there corroborated that this never happened. hearing everye time a pointed question was asked, she would say "i can't remember." this is a sham. miss con ford. guest: i can't speak -- to yourly to the

second point, it's true that there are gaps and holes in her testimony. there are gaps and holes in his testimony. this is a 35-year-old allegation. it's hard to get to the truth. what do you do with that? for a lot of republicans, the important thing is that we not throw out all of our standards, burden of evidence, just because there's an accusation here. i tend to sympathize with that. for democrats, just the fact that there is this credible accusation, she seems believable, it seems like something really did happen to her, you can see why democrats are wanting to ensure that a potential sex offender doesn't get on the supreme court. what does potential sex offender mean?

is anyone who's had an accusation made against them and potential sex offender -- a potential sex offender? because this allegation is decades old and there's some a gaps -- so many gaps, this is a dangerous thing for people on the left to make the flagship of the me too movement. you can see why they would want to do that because it is ,olitically important moment but the issue is that it's really hard to get to the truth in this situation. jeff flake is one of the only people so far who has said we ought to be looking at this with a bit of humility and the bit of knowledge about the difficulty. host: assuming there's no definitive information or proof one week from now, what happens in the senate then?

guest: it is so hard to say what's going to happen. we've heard little from susan collins and joe manchin and lisa murkowski. my money would be if the fbi comes out and says they've uncovered nothing new, his nomination will pass. you will get at least 50 votes. host: let's go to wendy calling from maryland. she opposes the kavanaugh nomination. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the speed with which the republicans are trying to push this supreme court nominee through. i don't know if anybody has talked about this this morning. the case they are trying to bring in front of the supreme court, the issue is whether the supreme court should override separate sovereign and exception to the double jeopardy clause.

this is related to the ableort-gates, him being to be charged federally -- the able to case, him being be charged federally. at. is important to look orrin hatch summit did a brief about this. this.mitted a brief about i think kavanaugh is corrupt. they know he is corrupt and he's their guy. he will help them in the supreme court case that could allow president trump to pass greater party power. guest: clearly, you do know more about this supreme court case then i do -- than i do. senate are in the essentially just trying to get this -- i take issue with the fact that they are pushing it

through at a particularly insane speed. we've seen over the past few weeks republicans agreed to votes and now of for the investigation to allow these facts to come to light. theyrepublicans are angry, wish they would have shouted through faster. -- shove it through faster. i don't think we've seen any evidence of kavanaugh being a corrupt judge. of --bout as upstanding to have beenged anything but upstanding in his legal career. the most important question we are considering right now isn't what he does when he's at the bench, and whether he's had this history of great moral errors.

host: richard calling from wisconsin. richard supports judge kavanaugh . good morning. caller: i guess i have a question and then i will follow up with a comment. why do you suppose mrs. ford would have brought forth these four character witnesses when she had no idea what their attitude was? in fact, they supported the nominee. the follow-up comment is the fact that it seems like all through this -- it has been mentioned that one of your previous callers did mention it. -- it'stle has been like it's not all that important. i just don't understand this at

all. guest: to respond to the first thing you said, perhaps you could make the argument that is -- you can find someone to make up a corroborating account. she has a story she remembers and she related all the people who were there and none of them remember that thing. that's a hard thing for investigators to get their heads around. that doesn't mean she's lying. it's hard to get to the truth of the matter. host: we want to thank andrew egger for being here from "the weekly standard." thank you for being here. next, we will open up the telephone lines to talk about any public policy you want to or

talk about anything we talked about on the show today. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will be right back. say, coming upo on newsmakers, we have david mcintosh talking about judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. >> how much of a disaster is this for republicans if kavanaugh can't get through? in november? >> the first response is very demoralizing for republicans. againstthe mccain vote the repeal of obamacare was demoralizing for several months. on the other hand, what we are arguing, i'm picking up feedback thisthe field, ok,

happened because the margin is so narrow, we have to win these races in the trump states, north dakota, west virginia, missouri, bring a few more republicans so it is not 51-49. that will be the sentiment among republicans. what republicans need now is something that energizes their base. the democrats are white-hot, very energized against trump. now, something like this, if it doesn't go through, will steal the results from the republican base. never again. we have to stop this. if i were senator mcconnell, if they decide to do the fbi investigation, i would call them up and ask, do you need a week? i would drive towards getting a boat and having this be resolved. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: once again, we are going to open phones. you can talk about any public policy you want to. democrats call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we are always available on social media, on twitter and facebook. paulirst call will be from from indianapolis on independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. a couple of points. the first point is on the aba letter. that was a he said -- according to the wall street journal this morning, the president of the aba sent that letter. the committee that puts together the recommendation said he was speaking as an individual and

their opinion of judge kavanaugh had not changed at all. that being said, i think the against is strongly ford. sexual predators do not all of a sudden stop being sexual predators. if he was what dr. ford says he of, there should be a trail women up to the last few years. women from the last 20 years have said he's just the opposite. at least one of those background checks had to be for top-secret clearance as he was the president's secretary and the bush administration -- in the bush and ministration. -- the bush administration.

they would have found a lot more. i've been through those investigations. i've been 25 years an auditor and i did a lot of investigations. accusation, an unsupported allegation, does not have the evidence to sustain it. host: jean calling from florida on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two things. one, when she said she met up in the supermarket with a judge, he said hello to him. world which you say hello to a man who locked you in a room? why would she think of him and not kavanaugh?

our supreme court just the name they are so great and honest. when you have a judge now and you say everyone assumes how they are going to vote, is that right? believe/now who to . i hope this ends soon. host: walter calling from harrisonville, montana -- harrisonville, missouri on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i'm an independent moderate conservative. what is missing here is the way kavanaugh appeared before its agenda -- before a senate judiciary subcommittee for confirmation to be appointed to the supreme court. his appearance before this

committee, just like in a court of law -- i appeared in 1970. i've been to the federal court system. there's a certain demeanor that has to be met. the way he was so arrogant and belligerent and disrespectful toward these senators is appalling to me. -- irinking problem don't know if you've ever read the constitution for conduct for federal judges. you cannot bring any type of alcohol or intoxicant on the premises of the courthouse. there was a judge kennedy appointed in 1961 that had a drinking problem. in spite of that, he was appointed as a judge. i witnessed him in a pretrial

conference in december of 1969 -- i remember it just as vivid today as back then that he pulled out alcohol and drank during the job on a pretrial conference. he's admitted that he likes beer and whatever else. that should be taken into consideration. his temperament, the way he acted -- when you are being questioned by a judge or prosecutor, this is more than a job interview. he's also being accused of a crime. let's get back to the judicial temperament. i find it disgraceful and disgusting the way he acted. you do not start sassing and showing disrespect and rudeness to a member of the senate. if he's going to do that before a televised hearing before the american people and the president is watching this, i would not hesitate to pull his

nomination the way he acted. if he's going to act this way in public, what is he going to do in private when they are considering a case? host: harold calling from california on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i don't believe this is about kavanaugh as much as it is about higher and lower taxes, public and private sector, who is going to be in control and these people are being used as pawns. it's hurting the american public by not moving things forward for the people. democrats and republicans have to get over what they are doing. a lot of them should be investigated on how they made their moneys and what they've got now and how much they've done for the american people and

how much they've done for themselves. host: debbie calling from north carolina on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. there's so much ground we can cover, but i know we don't have that much time. first of all, i would like to say we are all human beings on this land. i wish we would try to restore some sense of decency, respect, peace and love towards one another whether we agree or disagree. i'm not judge kavanaugh's judge, jury or executioner, nor dr. ford. however, my scripture tells me to pray for my leaders. i wish the people who sit in congress and on the senate and even in the white house would stop looking at how they look on halfow good they sound --

the people in this country don't understand the words they use -- and start doing what they were hired or nominated to do, to help the people in the united states of america. this thing has gotten so blown out of proportion. i'm not just talking about the nomination of judge kavanaugh. i'm talking all the way across the board. i know you understand what i'm saying. we need not turn against one another because we have separate views. we need not slander and hate one another because we don't agree wha with what the other person s or hasn't said. we should not allow what's going on in washington or any other part of this nation to separate us from the love of god, the

love of one another. for those of us who say we are christians and we believe in scripture, i believe we need to start acting that way. love comes from the heart. you can hate the behavior and still love the person. if you are true christians, that's what scripture tells us to do. i'm not going into a preaching sermon, i'm just telling the truth. i would pray and ask each of my brothers and sisters throughout this nation to get back to basics and learn to love, pray for peace and pray for one another. host: earl calling from las vegas, nevada on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank that lady for calling in. i believe in everything she says. what a great statement. pertaining to kavanaugh's temperament, is clearly -- he is

human, he's not a robot. they degraded his reputation as a judge. warm partly that's more importantly -- more importantly, this has affected his family negatively forever. it hasn't affected his 1 anure as adc judge. -- as d.c. judge. the left says this is a job interview, yet they are approaching everything like it's a criminal offense. i believe dr. ford is credible. i believe something happened. but not having any involvement with judge kavanaugh. the democrats' agenda is obviously to delay until after the midterms in hopes they can further the same tactics with

more substantial footing. it would be really interesting to me for the fbi to investigate not only the allegation, like they are going to do, hopefully, but the chain of events from the time senator feinstein received the letter of to and including the cash up to and including the actions of this lady -- received the letter up to and including the actions of this lady. the liberal left is democratic in name only. host: gloria calling from indiana on the democratic line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i want to say i am opposed to judge kavanaugh's appointment. feinstein wasr

trying to keep the letter confidential. the republicans keep saying if they had given the letter earlier, they could have investigated, the fbi could have investigated. does anybody out there believe the republicans would have done right by that letter? the way they are trying to push kavanaugh through, no, i don't think so. they would have buried it. we would have never heard about this. i am against kavanaugh and i hope he doesn't get appointed to the supreme court. host: melvin calling from florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: i'm a republican and a retired attorney. i found mr. cavanaugh -- mr. kavanaugh's demeanor and appropriate to be a judge -- inappropriate to be a judge.

test.rd took a polygraph requiredaugh should be to take a polygraph test. when you have two people contending they are telling the truth, both should be willing to take a lie detector test. that's been my experience and practice of law -- in practice of law. it is usually easy to tell when a defendant or an accused refuses to take a lie detector test whether he's telling the truth. he should be requested to take a lie detector test. if he refuses, the nomination should be withdrawn. host: russell calling from florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the people of the united states of america to read george washington's 20 recommendations were unheeded

warnings when he was leaving office. the father of our country -- without him, we wouldn't have a country -- those 20 recommendations or warnings he tried to pass along, the political parties are divisive. it's very difficult to have real fairness and openness when you have this power struggle all the time. i believe strongly in nonpartisan government. we need to look at that real close and stop with this red team like a football .ame eventn go to any sporting and whenever the referee says out or safe, each side will take

an opposition side. --need to look at it closely there's a real divisiveness in our nation. this was told to us by our founding government, we need to be careful about political parties, they are divisive. it's unfortunate that we have to sadness for the united states of america to have walked down this path. when president kennedy was our president and the kid cruz jeff kruschev said we are burying ourselves. if we keep tearing ourselves

apart -- host: catherine calling from illinois on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. is like what a lot of women happened talking about. i'm 71. latei was 68 -- in the 60's, i was at school in pittsburgh. i was running up the steps and someone came after me. he assaulted me. to escape because i ran faster than he did. saidsecutor came to me and we found him. they asked me if i would prosecute him. i said i would go to court and testify.

i get in court and i see this person -- it's as clear today as it was when it happened -- you don't forget this -- when i'm looking at this person, i see sitting beside him are his two young children. said, "what do i i do?" i was assaulted, but i recovered, so i told the court that he attempted to do it. i let the guy go. here, weorward to now, have somebody who came out and said they were assaulted in a similar way -- she was worse than mine -- would i let him go today? i think i wouldn't.

people fromtop doing this to one another. you can't have guys assaulting women and getting away with it. something has to stop. this has hurt the poor family and that is so very sad. host: karen calling from minnesota on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: what i've never heard is where was this party at? they say there was liquor and beer there. who provided this liquor and beer? they never said what time this was. was this in the early afternoon or late evening?

were they at why this kind of a party at that young age? how come these questions have never come up? thank you. host: let's go to karen calling from weatherford, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i hope you are having a good day. host: so far, so good. caller: everybody keeps forgetting that she kept saying her beach friends were the ones who encouraged her to go forward. none of these beach friends' names have been brought up. who are these beach friends? i've been a victim of assault and i remember every detail, up to and including how i got away and how it felt.

she has so many holes in her story. she had been flying all over the place on vacation and for business reasons and she says she is scared to fly. that is a contradiction in her story. she herself leaked it to the washington post the same day she sent the letter. finding a a hard time continuous line in her story. she has too many holes. beach friends- are the ones who told her to come forward. where are they? host: cj calling from baton rouge, louisiana on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i think there should be an fbi investigation of where the leak came from, the

letter. thepositive it came from feinstein camp. if it did, that is a felony. she needs to be investigated. my second thing is, where were all these people back in the days of bill clinton when these people were raped, fondled and harassed and nobody believed them? in fact, hillary paid millions of dollars for people to shut these women up. let's open that up again. ago.sn't been 38 years let's open that up again and find the truth about that. host: martin calling from dayton, ohio on the democratic line. good morning. caller: hello. i've been watching this like the

rest of the country. i have something to say that i haven't heard anybody say yet. the guy from indiana said she's done this, there has to be a trail, he's going to be a predator for the rest of his life -- not necessarily true. it's possible there's a middle way here. possibly when he was 17 and drunk, he did something really stupid and his friend was in the room and they were making a really stupid, heinous act with jocularity. they were having fun at her expense. the other guy jumped on her and they ran out of the room laughing and she was scared out of her mind. it's possible that judge kavanaugh for the next 30 years fine, life -- he had a upstanding career rest of his life.

maybe he had a few moments were that frat boy, drunken behavior came out. there's a middle way here. no one will ever really know. it will be hard to find the exact truth. it's also ok to just move on to another candidate. there's plenty of good people. there's a conservative lady from notre dame who could have been selected. maybe kavanaugh stays a judge, he doesn't have to be on supreme court and we go to somebody else. host: david calling from a grin, ohio -- akron, ohio on the independent line. caller: good morning. i'm against the kavanaugh nomination. i'm a political independent. i tried to look at the facts and the characters of different people in politics. the one thing that bothers me is even before the sexual assault allegations came up, they only

released 70% of kavanaugh's records as opposed to other where closer to 100% of their records were released. what were they hiding? that was a bit disturbing. the senate's role of advice and consent, they should have those records. i've noticed when it comes to the sexual assault allegations, the people that support kavanaugh keep saying that people she named as being at the house don't remember -- supporters are saying it never happened. that's not what they said. they said they don't remember. there's a difference. if they were used to going to a lot of casual parties and nothing happened to them, they would not remember.

i found her testimony totally believable. she's going to remember the party because of the terrible incident that happened to her. i find that totally consistent that she would and the others downstairs would not have a recollection. there's a difference between saying they don't remember and saying it didn't happen. that is very important. host: ryan calling from california on the republican line. good morning. caller: hi. what i have to say has to do with the whole lying thing, how dr. ford said she can't fly but then she flies for vacation. if she's afraid to fly, she would have access to a doctor's prescription for a sedative. that said it would help her -- sedative would help her before taking the polygraph. host: james calling from texas

on the republican line. good morning. are you there? caller: yes, i'm here. host: please go ahead. caller: i'm talking on the air. because of experience being accused of doing something, i find it hard to believe that this lady is telling the truth about what happened. i've been accused of doing something, too, and i know i didn't do it. baby talking about how this particular man was angry, he was beropriately angry -- they talking about how this particular man was angry, he was appropriately angry.

there was a lady accusing her husband of molesting their children and also raping her. a. phil happened to have lying machine and it showed who was lying. i don't see why they don't have something like that. the only asked her to questions. -- two questions. that was in a motel. host: let's go to marge calling from west branch, michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call this morning. i love c-span. i'm an addict. anyways, all these comments, nobody has mentioned about this envelope. what was in this envelope that sheila jackson lee handed to dr.

ford's attorney after her testimony? i've seen it circling the internet last night. so, this morning, i went on youtube and i went to c-span and i watched it and i did see sheila jackson lee actually handing dr. ford's attorney an envelope. what was in it? a payoff, maybe? host: karen calling from winterhaven, florida. caller: good morning. i just would like to remind our betterthat we deserve than what we are getting with justice kavanaugh. ford's own testimony, she stated she anonymously called "the washington post" hotline to

report this incident after she had sent the letter. "the washington post" followed it down and that's why they were showing up outside her door. everybody needs to understand it egwork on the part of the washington post that this all came out. host: we would like to thank everybody for being with us today on "washington journal." thanks to all the callers. we would also like to thank our guests. join us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. we will have a brand-new edition of "washington journal." thank you and have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] ♪ ♪

>> c-span's "washington journal, " live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, a discussion about the hispanic vote and campaign 2018 with mark hugo lopez. national puerto rican chamber of commerce senior policy advisor on republican strategy, russ portella. and crystal ball that -- and cristobal. >> next, president trump's speech to the united nations earlier this week. then, remarks by benjamin netanyahu. palestinian president, mahmoud

tonight, two retiring members of congress, bill shuster of pennsylvania and democratic congressman luis gutierrez of illinois, talk about their experience in congress. >> i'm coming to the end of my term as the chairman of the infrastructure committee. that was the driving force and i thought to myself, playing sports in high school, when you are in the starting team and they put you on the bench, it is not fun. leave and for me to make room for new members. onhave a lot of good people the committee and i do not doubt someone will continue to do good work. >> i have been here 26 years in the congress of the united states. think the last couple of weeks are demonstrative of that, that i helped create an immigrant

movement in the united states and in the democratic caucus and ,n many areas and spaces economic business spaces, educational spaces. most importantly, it is the congress of the united states, a genuine support and immigration reform. join us for our conversations with bill shuster and luis gutierrez tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org and listen on the free app. on tuesday, president trump delivered a speech on u.s. foreign-policy at the united nations 73rd general assembly. this is 35 minutes. >> the assembly will hear an

address by his excellency, donald trump, president of the united states of america. i request protocol to escort his excellency. on behalf of the general have the honor to welcome to the united nations, his excellency, donald trump, president of the united states of america, and to invite him to address the assembly. you have the floor, sir.