>> thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. this is a big night. so, she's not a dumb person. she's highly educated. she's very, very, very highly educated. she's also not naive. she said right in there she knew what was coming. and even though she's not a political pro, she's not someone with any political experience, she's not at all from the political world, she was clear-eyed about what would happen in the political world. and she was right to be worried about what the political world would do with someone like her. she saw it coming. she said out loud from the

outset, she said i believed that if i came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by the powerful. >> as the hearing date got closer, i struggled with a terrible choice, do i share the facts with the senate and put myself and my family in the public spotlight? or do i preserve our privacy and allow the senate to make its decision without knowing the full truth of his past behaviors? i agonize daily with this decision throughout august and september 2018. the sense of duty that originally motivated me to reached out confidentially to the washington post and to anna eshoo's office when there was still a list of extremely qualified candidates and to senator feinstein, was always there. but my fears of the consequence

of speaking out started to exponentially increase. during august 2018, the press reported that mr. kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. i believed that if i came forward, my single voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. >> i believed if i came forward, my voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. but despite that fear, she did, of course, come forward. even though she knew what would happen as a result. we know that she saw it coming. she knew that this, in fact, would be the result. >> they just about destroyed a good person to be on the supreme court. hopefully we're 48 hours away from having a new person on the supreme court. >> i believe that we should and we did treat dr. ford the same way i would want my daughters or my wife or my mother treated under similar circumstances.

so now is the time to quit all of these antics, these high jinx. >> this is a man of outstanding character who has lived an exemplary life. >> we need to confirm him right away. i think he's one of the best nominees i've seen in my 42 years in the united states senate. and i apologize to him for the way he's been treated. >> i'm convinced of this man's character, of his truthfulness. >> a vote against judge kavanaugh tomorrow will be a -- a vote for abusing the confirmation process and a good person. and it will be a vote for the shameful intimidation tactics that have been employed as part of an orchestrated smear campaign. >> senator cornyn, number 2 republican in the senate, explaining today that he treated dr. christine blasey ford exactly the way he would have wanted his daughters to be treated. or his wife or his mother in these circumstances. so quit your high jinx, quit

your antics. these outrage us accusations that you've made, the shameful orchestrated smear campaign that you've been part of, mom, the first preliminary vote on the kavanaugh nomination is now scheduled for 10:30 tomorrow morning eastern time. and even though as predicted, a chorus of kavanaugh's supporters drowning out her voice, that is what dr. christine blasey ford predict and had she saw coming. despite her expectation, her accurate expectation, that is how she would be treated. she did decide to come forward anyway. because she did, when that vote happens 10:30 tomorrow morning eastern time, indellably this is what that vote is going to be about. >> i attended the school in bethesda, maryland from 1978 to 1984.

holt on arms is an all girls school that opened in 1901. during my time at the school, girls at holton arms frequently met and became friendly with boys from all boys schools in the area including the landon school, georgetown prep, gonzaga high school, wells our country clubs and others where friends and family socialized. this is how i met brett kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me. i am here today not because i want to be. i am terrified. i am here because i believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while brett kavanaugh and i were in high school. early in the evening, i went up the very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the rest room. while got to the top of the stairs, i was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom i couldn't see who pushed me.

brett and mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them there was music playing in the bedroom. it was turned up louder by either brett or mark once we were in the room. i was pushed onto the bed and brett got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me and i tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. he had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because i was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to rape me. i tried to yell for help. when i did, brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most and this had the most

lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to breathe and i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. both brett and mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. they seemed to be having a very good time. mark seemed invalid at times urging brett on, at times telling him to stop. a couple of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. >> a lot more people ended up seeing brett kavanaugh's explosive afternoon testimony last week. more people saw that than saw the morning testimony from dr. christine blasey ford. in part just because of the time of day. christine blasey ford's testimony was at 7:00 a.m. on the west coast. but it's also because brett

kavanaugh's enraged and sort of sneering and partisan in the afternoon, that was so strange for a supreme court nominee, for a supreme court nomination that performance got all the press that night once the hearing was over. but even though more people saw him than saw her, what happened that morning with her testimony, which kavanaugh himself admits he didn't even watch himself, you know, had he watched it, what he would have seen as a witness being as straightforward as she could possibly be about what she knew and what she knew had happened. >> one evening that summer after a day of diving at the club, i attended a small gathering at a house in the bethesda area. there were four boys i remember specifically being at the house. brett kavanaugh, mark judge, a boy named p.j., and one other

boy whose name i cannot recall. i truly wish i could be more helpful with detailed that have and will be asked about how i got to the party and where it took place and so forth. i don't have all the answers and i don't remember as much as i would like to. but the details that -- about that night that bring me here today are the ones i will never forget. they have been seared into my memory and haunted me episodically as an adult. >> you are very clear about the attack, being pushed into the room. you say you don't know quite by whom, but that it was brett kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming and then you escaped. how are you so sure it was he?

>> just as sure as i'm talking to you, basic memory functions and also just the level of nor epinephrine and epinephrine in the brain, as you know, encodes that nodes, transmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus so the trauma-related experience then is locked there, whereas other details kind of drift. >> so what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity? >> absolutely not. >> you would not mix up somebody else with brett kavanaugh, is that correct? >> correct. >> or mark judge? >> correct. >> then let's go back to the incident. what is the strongest memory you have, strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget. take whatever time you need. >> indelible in the hip campus is the laughter, the uproarious

laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense. >> you've never forgotten that laughter? you've never forgotten them laughing at you? >> they were laughing with each other. >> and you were the object of the laughter? >> i was underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends having a really good time with one another. >> and dr. ford had just concluded this. you do remember what happened, do you not? >> very much so. >> thank you. >> dr. ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> 100%? >> you know, from my experience with memory, i remember distinctly things that happened to me in high school or happened to me in college, but i don't

exactly remember the date. i don't exactly remember the time. i sometimes may not even remember the exact place where it occurred, but i remember the interaction. and many people are focused today what you don't remember about that night. i think you remember a lot. i'm going to phrase it a little differently. can you tell us what you don't forget about that night? >> the stairwell, the living room, the bedroom, the bed on the right side of the room as you walk into the room, there was a bed to the right, the bathroom in close proximity, the laughter, the uproarious laughter, the multiple attempts to escape and the final ability to do so. >> thank you very much, dr. ford. >> brett kavanaugh says that he

did not watch that testimony. that day when he testified later in the afternoon and furiously yelled at senators that this was a democratic plot that was revenge on behalf of the clintons to try to destroy him and it was all smears and lies, he also said under questioning that he didn't watch the testimony of the woman who came to the senate that same day just before him. >> i'll ask you a direct question. did you watch dr. ford's testimony? >> i did not. i plan to. >> thank you. >> i don't know if anybody ever asked him if he got around to actually watching what she said. he said he plans to. i don't know if he ever did. but senators watched it. they all did. so they can't say that they don't know what christine blasey ford brought to washington that day. senators watched it. senators know what her testimony was so that, again, indellably

is what they will be voting about tomorrow. >> brett's assault on me drastically altered my life for a very long time. i was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone these details. i did not want to tell my parents that i at age 15 was in a house without any parents present drinking beer with boys. i convinced myself that because brett didn't rape me, i should move on and pretend it didn't happen. over the years i told very, very few friends that i had this traumatic experience. i told my husband before we were married that i had experienced a sexual assault. >> the first all-senate vote on brett kavanaugh as a nominee to the supreme court is tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. and so now and through the night tonight, this

is now high gear, arrests numbers in the runs today as protesters were arrested at the capital, and we'll have more on that in detail later this hours. for the first time in living memory at least, a living retired justice of the supreme court, justice john paul stevens, announced opposition to a nominee for the court. justice stevens said at an event today in florida that he had thought that brett kavanaugh was qualified for the court when he was first nominated. he said today, he changed his views. >> his performance at the hearings caused me to change my mind. he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities.

and i think there is merit in that criticism. >> i know of no other circumstances in which a former supreme court justice has said that a nominee for the supreme court should be rejected. i don't know of any circumstance enter american history where that has ever happened before. and then there was this from the washington post. the first time in over 30 years that the washington post has said a nominee should be rejected. quote, too many questions remain about his history for senators to responsibly oat yes. at the same time enough has been learned about his partisan instincts they should say no. we believe presidents are entitled to significant deference if they nominate well qualified people within the broad mainstream of judicial thought. when mr. trump named mr. kavanaugh, he seemed to be such a person, a nominee anyone

would have picked. given republicans' refusal to properly vet mr. kavanaugh and what we have learned to the process, we believe it would be a serious blow to the court and the nation if he were confirmed. the post says this about the accusation raised against kavanaugh by dr. christine blasey ford. the post basically stays agnostic on the credibility of her accusation. but they say this. quote, we continue to believe that ms. ford is a credible witness with no motivation to law. it is conceivable she and mr. kavanaugh are both being truthful in the sense he has no memory of the event. it is also conceivable miss ford's memory is at fault. we wish the fbi had been allow today probe mr. kavanaugh's fitness does not rest on one side or the other. if he believes himself to be a victim of mistaken identity, his anger which he displayed at his confirmation hearing is understandable. but he went further in last

thursday's hearing than expressing anger. he gratuitously engaged in hyper partisan rhetoric against the left describing his stormy confirmation as, quote, a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled by apparent pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election and revenge on paf of the clintons. kavanaugh provided neither evidence nor a plausible explanation for this red meat partisanship. even beyond such cases, his judgment and temperament would be in doubt. the reads ton vote for mr. kavanaugh is that senators have not been given sufficient information to quarter him and that he has given them ample evidence to believe he is unsuited for the job. quote, the country deserves better. again, first time in more than 30 years that the washington post has editorialized against a

supreme court nominee. tonight, the nominee himself has published an op-ed on the hard line conservative editorial page of the "wall street journal." an op-ed from the nominee on the eve of his vote, this is also without precedent, but in this op-ed tonight, brett kavanaugh reiterates basically the case that he made for himself during his confirmation hearing. and then he says that he said things at his confirmation hearing when he was emotional that are things he shouldn't have said. quote, i was very emotional last thursday more so than i have ever been. i might have been too emotional at times. i know that my tone was sharp and i said a few things i should not have said. if all democratic senators vote no on brett kavanaugh's nomination tomorrow, which is an open question, more on that in a second. if all democrats did vote no, it would take two republican senators voting no to end the

kavanaugh nomination, to send the white house back to the drawing board for a new nominee, someone who presumably would be equally conservative but would not be brett kavanaugh. with all that we've come to learn about him over the course of this horrendously painful process. so far, conservative democratic senators joe donley and heidi heitkamp have said they will vote no on brett kavanaugh. heitkamp said that just today. only conservative democrat joe m manchin of west virginia hasn't said how he will vote on the kavanaugh nomination. there is washington rumor and chatter that senator manchin would like to vote in sort of a block with other like-minded senators, whichever way he goes so he won't be seen as the deciding vote to confirm or deny the kavanaugh nomination. however much the senator might want that, that responsibility may ultimately end up on him in the end whether he wants it or

not. depending, of course, on the decisions of senators lisa murkowski of alaska, susan collins of maine and jeff flake of arizona who at this point seem to be the only republicans whose votes may be in play. it takes a lot to bring tons of people to washington, d.c. from maine and tons of people to washington, d.c. from alaska. those are very long trips. but these senators from maine and alaska today were inundated with their own constituents who had flown in from alaska and maine, their own states, to try to meet personally to convince their senators to vote no. when it comes to senator jeff flake from arizona, there is one person who we know he has been spending a lot of time with as he tries to make this decision. one person who as far as we can tell more than anyone, has basically been at his side. and in long serious discussions with him about what to do and

how to decide and how to figure out what the right thing is to do. that person who has been with jeff flake through this process is actually another senator, a member of the judiciary committee, senator chris coons of delaware. he's a democrat. and he joins us live next. it's time for sleep number's fall sale on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, free home delivery.

ends monday.

i think a lot of people don't realize that you chose to come forward with your concerns about judge kavanaugh before he was nominated to the supreme court. do i understand correctly that when you first reached out to congresswoman eshoo and the washington post tip line, that was when he was on the short list but before he was nominated to the supreme court, is that correct? >> correct. >> and if i understood your testimony earlier, it's that you were motivated by a sense of civic duty and frankly i hope that some other highly qualified nominee might be picked, not out of a motivation at a late stage to have an impact on the final decision? >> correct. i thought it was very important to get the information to you, but i didn't know how to do it while there was still a short list of candidates. >> mr. president, it was a week

ago today that members of the senate judiciary committee on which i serve were riveted by the compelling and powerful testimony of dr. christine blasey ford. it is a week ago today that judge brett kavanaugh delivered his forceful rejoinder and rebuttal. this conversation is bigger. it's bigger, it's more pressing and i'd say it's more important than the question of one supreme court seat and one current nominee. this is a question about whether we as a country at the highest levels of power believe victims and survivors of sexual assault and are willing to listen to them, to believe them and to take action. >> that was today on the floor of the senate. joining us now is senator chris coons of delaware. he's a member of the judiciary committee on the senate. this is a tense time. thanks for being here. >> thank you, rachel, great to be on. >> as we head into this

overnight and tomorrow morning with this first vote scheduled at 10:30 a.m. eastern, what are you expecting? >> well, i don't know what to expect tomorrow. i think that the cloture vote hangs by a few undecided votes. there are i think at this .1 democrat and three republicans who haven't publicly declared their intentions for tomorrow. and since the senate is divided so closely 51-49, it may be a close outcome. but frankly what i'm also hoping comes out of this week, out of this pause for an fbi investigation, is what i was speaking about on the floor earlier today, which is the message to the thousands of survivors of sexual assault who have come forward to my office, to many other offices, to tip lines across the country, to speak to family and friends the first time. we are entering a phase to hear, to respect and respond to

allegations. i know there's been a lot of fighting this week about whether the process was fair to judge kavanaugh, whether the investigation was serious and thorough, and whether dr. ford and debbie ramirez had their allegations thoroughly enough investigated and i look forward to getting into that. but as a larger point, i just wanted to say up front, rachel, that i've been stunned by how many people -- people i've known for decades or just years or who i have just met -- have shared with me really powerful stories of their own experience, not seeking something, just wanting to be heard and wraanting to be valued and share the painful burdens they've had for so long. >> do you think the senate did right particularly by dr. ford and deborah ramirez who came forward with stories to tell, they said, about brett kavanaugh? obviously there's been a lot of controversy today as what has been described as the results of

this fbi expanded background investigation. a lot of public reporting indicates people who those women in particular said should be followed up with by the fbi who could offer corroborating information, the fbi didn't want do hear it, was not open to hearing from those corroborating witnesses. we then had a lot of republican senators say confidently well, there was no corroborating information in the fbi report. >> well, first let's look at where we were a week ago. we were barrelling ahead with a likely confirmation vote with judge kavanaugh without my friend jeff flake stepping forward and changing the course of where we were headed, judge kavanaugh would already be seated as justice kavanaugh for most of this week. so i do think something important was accomplished by showing that we could listen to each other and we could take a time-out in order to have the fbi question examine then deliver to the senate and

deliver some more facts on the core allegations. i am not satisfied with the scope of who was questioned. i expected there would be follow-on investigations, questioning of corroborating witnesses so that, for example, if debbie ramirez was questioned and at the end of her questioning she said, here's a dozen people who can offer corroborating testimony, i had expected that those sorts of interviews would take place. i know people have contacted my office. many other senate offices who were trying to get to the fbi, who were offering to be interviewed and who were not interviewed. >> senator, you mentioned your friend republican senator jeff flake. there's obviously been such a hot spotlight on him this week because of the way he's publicly wrestled with this nomination and with issues of the fbi investigation and the pace of the nomination as you just described. i know that you've been in close contact with him through at least some of this process. i don't want you to betray any confidences, but cull tell us anything about where he's at in his process and what his ongoing

concerns may be or if he's made up his mind? >> i can't. if i knew, i wouldn't betray his confidence. i can simply say this. that he is someone who because of our friendship and because of some of the stories he had heard and because of the testimony and because of the way he saw the judiciary committee being torn apart right in front of us, he listened to his conscience and took a lot of abuse from folks in his own party for insisting on this week pause. and i think that was an important contribution here. but to be clear about expectations, jeff is a conservative. he would like a conservative justice on the supreme court. i am not a conservative and i would not like a conservative justice on the supreme court. we have jurs skpruisprudence an direction the court should go in its interpretation of the

constitution. i can look at this and imagine how he might be looking at this, questions that we'd be bringing or i'd be bringing to the table wouldn't be about etiology because the president has lots of other credentialed conservatives from whom he can choose. i would be looking at questions of judicial temperament given the very sharp and partisan scree that judge kavanaugh unleashed on us. he was angry and feeling unjustly accused. there was a piece of his argument that i think crossed the line into partisanship. former justice, former republican and justice john paul stevens withdrew his support from kavanaugh today publicly because of the partisanship he showed in that defense. and then second, i'd be looking at questions of truthfulness. whether or not in testimony to the committee judge kavanaugh shaded the truth or was untruthful about a number of things. i frankly think when we get into

details about words in his year book and what they meant, we lose the average american. but when he made definitive statements to staff attorneys or to the committee, i did know this at this point. i didn't know it at that point, i've done this before, i've never done this before, and there is evidence that puts that into question, then i think we have to have a conversation about truthfulness. so to me fitness and truthfulness sit on top of this underlying body of evidence of sexual assault allegations where after i reviewed the evidence in front of the committee today, i still have unanswered questions. >> and as you say, separate and apart from any ideological consideration. i have one last question for you, senator, before we let you go. that is that there's been lots and lots of raj mathumors -- ob it's a developing story -- every reporter within the smelling distance of the beltway is working to figure out everything possible what is going to happen tomorrow. >> yes.

>> is there any sense there are other republican senators who may be considering -- wrestling with how they might vote? or is it your opinion senators murkowski, collins and flake the only ones at all open to the possibility of voting no tomorrow? >> i have had a number of conversations with friends and colleagues just to sort of put forward my views on what's happened and why i'm comfortable voting against judge kavanaugh tomorrow. but i could not say in any appropriate public way that they are undecided what to do tomorrow. i do know there are members who paused after dr. ford's testimony which was compelling and who wrestled with the appare apparent contribution that he was not guilty of assault, my

hope is they look beyond the materials in front of us from the fbi. and consider the folks who tried to testify to the fbi and were not able to who made reports and were seeking to talk to senators. frankly in the end, the fbi was not going to produce a conclusion to us, they were just going to give us facts. we're the decision makers and senators, i know, are wrestling with their vote tomorrow. i think it will be a very close vote and it will be closely watched which is appropriate because we look to the supreme court as the guarantor of our constitutional liberties in this country. >> democratic senator chris coons of delaware showing your well deserved reputation both f for comity, c-o-m-i-t-y and your discretion with your colleagues. appreciate your help tonight. we have much more to get to tonight. stay with us. easy to trust gei!

thank you todd. it's not just easy. it's-being-a-master-of-hypnotism easy. hey, i got your text- sleep! doug, when i snap my fingers you're going to clean my gutters. ooh i should clean your gutters! great idea. it's not just easy. it's geico easy. todd, you will go make me a frittata. when it comes to making bones stronger, are you headed in the right direction? we are. we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture. so with our doctors we chose prolia®. to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva® serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems,

as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you on the path to stronger bones? if you're not sure. ask your doctor about prolia®.

minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training and active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure 911 emergency care is there when you or your love one need it. monitor their blood glucose every day.

which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. they rode all night overnight by bus making the trip all the way from maine to washington, d.c. once these women from maine arrived at union station in d.c., they had their signs in hand. they were ready to go. some of them then marched over to the supreme court building, letting everybody know they were voters from maine, from the home state of republican senator susan collins. others made their way right to the office of senator collins who apparently does remain undecided on the kavanaugh

nomination. these women from maine ended up meeting with senator collins' staffers pressing their case. also in the capital today, over 100 women from alaska who flew in, i repeat, from alaska to plead with their senator republican lisa murkowski, to plead with her to vote no on brett kavanaugh. senator murkowski also remains undecided in terms of her volt. a key constituency for her alaska natives, they adamantly opposed to kavanaugh and have been pressing her very hard to vote no. but then murkowski spent this afternoon herself meeting with these alaskan women who had flown in to see her. heidi heitkamp from north dakota said she will be a no vote on kavanaugh. some north dakotans came to her office to thank her. she wasn't there, so they thanked her staff instead. outside the capital building, they chanted, who's courts?

our courts. tons of people sat in the tundra, filling the floor of the office building, unfurling a banner. do we have any that of footage from inside the senate office building? you can get a sense of how big these protesters were today. as people refused to leave, the capital police did make arrests today. the capital police say over 300 people were arrested in an act of civil disobedience. this is some of the footage from the senate office building as you can see the number of people in there. so, we're watching for votes of key undecided senators tonight and overnight and into tomorrow. we are also honestly watching to see how much pressure protesters like these ones can bring to bear before the final vote. and if it will make a difference. hi there. this is a commercial about insurance.

now i know you're thinking, "i don't want to hear about insurance." cause let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance, right? which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. i like dennis quaid. awww. and they want me to let you know that, cue overdramatic music, they're on a mission to make insurance painless. excuse me, you dropped this. they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and they know it's expensive.

yeah. so they're making it affordable. thank you. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. now, you might not believe any of this since this is a television commercial, but that's why they're being so transparent. anyways. this is the end of the commercial where i walk off into a very dramatic sunset to reveal the new esurance tagline so that you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.

i heard the chairman of the committee say there's no hint of misconduct. in plain english what i just read, there are hints of misconduct. and even in the documents themselves, i can't discuss that, but there were issues that were raised that i'm not a trained investigator, wow, shouldn't we have followed up on that point? and it was not followed up on. >> to the senators who are coming out who say there is just no new credible corroborating information, you say? >> well, there are two things wrong with that. the first is anybody who sits there and reads what i just read would see that clearly there were not relevant people interviewed, people that could help us get to the truth of this matter were not interviewed. and this is not just something about a he said she said about something that happened in our neighborhood last week. this is about the supreme court of the united states of america. it's about an appointment to that court. it is about a lifetime appointment. >> a lifetime appointment. senator cory booker is a member of the judiciary committee. that was him today speaking with

reporters right after he reviewed the fbi's reopened background report on brett kavanaugh. joining us now live is senator booker. senator, thank you so much for taking time to be with us tonight. i know it's a pretty intense night. >> thank you, rachel. it's good to be on with you. >> i know you can only say so much about that fbi report. it is a confidential document. but there have been public characterizations made particularly by republican senators about what is in that report and what great news it is for senator kavanaugh -- excuse me, for judge kavanaugh. you said there are hints of misconduct. you said there were issues raised. given the fact that some republicans are characterizing this fbi material, what can you tell us about it? >> well, first of all, i mean, those characterizations to me are tantamount to just a sham, perpetrating a sham on the american people because there are clearly many witnesses, people that could have corroborated what miss ramirez said, people that were eyewitnesses to what miss

ramirez said. they weren't even interviewed. i want to take you to that room for a second. the whole process was, to me -- again, i'm what's considered a young senator here for just five years, but i've never seen anything like it. they were shuttled in there were a dozen senators in our first schif shift. we had an hour. we were reading together, partnered up with folks. there were folks from red states, all the way to liberal and progressive democrats. there was a universal astonishment about what we were reading, sort of stunned at the limited scope of the fbi investigation, how it was not thorough, was not complete. it wasn't even a sincere effort to get to the truth. and i think that was what made me leave there on fire, just angry because i was expecting so much more and was just so let down by the process. and i saw that the fix seemed to be in from the very beginning. >> when you say "the fix was in"

that's a powerful allegation. i have been talking just with friends and people outside the news business about how this news about kavanaugh has been affecting people. i think it's caused a lot of pain and a lot of anguish and had psychological impact on the country because it's been so painful. one of the things people referenced to me was the prospect that if kavanaugh is confirmed, that this will never be over. if the fix was in on the overly curtailed fbi investigation, if there are serious corroborating witnesses to serious would be allegations of judge kavanaugh and his background, once he's on the supreme court, will those things follow him on the supreme court? will a judiciary committee investigate to find out if the fix was in? would he be potentially subject to criminal investigation or further congressional investigation how do you see that looking into the future if he is confirmed? >> we're on the eve of knowing

what is going to happen tomorrow. that is where my focus is, colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i think how you started the question about the emotional nature of this, again, being in these confidential rooms with senators, i was in two of them today, the second was a caucus meeting among democrats. it was a moment i felt pround of my colleagues. with no cameras around, it wasn't a public moment. you had senator after senator, male senator standing up and just confessing about how shaken they were about the numbers of folks that they are getting -- reaching out to their office who have never told their own personal stories, that were telling their senators, people they don't even know about sexual assault, they hadn't told members of their families, about how this is a in a moment in american history that has ripped us apart, exposed an ugliness, a pain, a hurtfulness. i think for this body, this

so-called most deliberative body in the world, i think we are failing that test and i think it's hurting a lot of folks, hurting the institution, and could after tomorrow's vote really hurt the supreme court. not just because of the credible allegations that have been brought against a person, but then how he conducted himself in such a just bald, raw partisan nature. so i don't know what the consequence of this is going to be, but we're at a sort of a low point, you know. in the christian faith there is a saying, weeping may endure through the night. i'm one of those people hoping for some joy tomorrow. right now this is a painful moment and i'm doing everything i can through my calls and texts with colleagues, still hoping that we will have the right outcome tomorrow. >> senator cory booker of the great state of new jersey, member of the judiciary committee. thank you for your time tonight, sir. i know it's going to be a long late night. appreciate it. >> appreciate it. >> we'll be right back.

stay with us. from the very beginning ... it was always our singular focus, a distinct determination. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share

the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. specialists focused on treating cancer. using advanced technologies. and more precise treatments than before. working as hard as we can- doing all that we can- for everyone who walks through our doors. this is cancer treatment centers of america. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. treating cancer isn't one thing we do. it's the only thing we do. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.

may i be petty one moment, a quick moment? i realize this is small, i realize if i were a bigger, better person i wouldn't let this slide under my fingernails like a very painful splinter. i am but human, though. i can't even -- i can't let it go. i know i should. you know how president trump already has a reelection campaign? the trump reelection campaign

has weighed in on all this tonight and according to them, the time has come, america, to put judge brett kavanaugh in the united states senate. what? wait, put him where? the trump campaign writing tonight, quote, no more games, no more excuses. all caps lock. the senate must confirm judge kavanaugh to the u.s. senate now. judge kavanaugh for senate. make america proofread again. i mean, i know i shouldn't care, but holy mother of word processing, right? you represent a person who happens to be the president of the united states. this reflects poorly on all of us, just like hire a 6th grader to write this stuff. all right. get back to the news. i'm sorry, i'm sorry, excuse me. . polident consists of 4 powerful ingredients that work together

to deep clean your denture in hard to reach places.

♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there. there's a little twist in what we're expecting on the kavanaugh nomination now in this

final stretch. as you know, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell set the first big procedural vote on the nomination 10:30 a.m. eastern. that will be the first full head count for senators, first chance for all senators to indicate where they stand on the nomination. if kavanaugh doesn't get 50 votes at the 10:30 a.m. vote, he's dead, his nomination is dead. but if he does get 50 votes, then he's not confirmed. then the nomination goes forward to one more vote. the senate will have to hold up to 30 hours of debate before that final vote could happen, which would put it at around 5:00 p.m. eastern on saturday. now, that's a separate vote. it would be possible for senators to vote yes tomorrow on moving forward, and still vote no on saturday to confirm kavanaugh to the court. the game so far has been that opponents of the nomination need every democrat to vote no, plus two republicans. here's that slight sort of twist in that calculation. the republican senator from montana named steve danes, not a high profile senator.

he said last week he looks forward to casting his vote for kavanaugh, he'd be a yes. an nbc reporter in montana said now senator danes has a scheduling conflict this weekend. he will be home in montana is getting married and he's walking her down the aisle. if he's away his absence could conceivably push republican tuesday hold off on the final vote until he comes back. for now the schedule is procedural vote until tomorrow morning. if they do get 50 final vote by late saturday. it's hard to imagine republican senators relish holding this open any longer than they absolutely have to. but every day something new comes up, and whatever happens we'll all be here covering it tonight. now it's time for "last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. and there's this thing we've seen many times in the senate where some people will stand up there and say i'm voting for