they're so desperate to not have the fbi look at this. parallel to that. when it comes to assessing the credibility of accusations, we are in a remarkable situation when a woman is brought forth this allegation, she's begging for the fbi's scrutiny of her claims. he has made a claim against brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh's supporters do not want any agencies to look into it. she on the other hand is begging for others to look into it. she's doing everything she can to try to get independent federal law enforcement scrutiny of her claims. i don't know anything more of her claims other than what's reported in the press. if you were going to make something up, if you are going to take a high stake lie because you want to take somebody out for whatever reason, would you beg the fbi to look into it? it is not a crime to lie to the washington post or a lie or a letter to your member congress, it is definitely a crime to lie to the fbi. it is a serious crime, a crime that people go to prison for. why would you ask for fbi scrutiny if you had any doubt of your st

since the fbi was in charge of looking into the nominee and documenting potential derogatory information about him the white house, naturally, asked the fbi to look into this new information, too. we actually spoke with c. boyden gray today about that moment in the clarence thomas nomination process. mr. gray confirmed for us today this basic timeline about how this went down, basically confirmed the understanding that we have from looking at the historical record that this was -- this part of it just wasn't a pivotal moment in this controversy. the fbi did reopen its background investigation of clarence thomas to add this matter when the white house asked them to. the fbi, when they received this request from the white house, they went out and interviewed judge thomas about it. they interviewed anita hill about it. c. boyden gray told us by phone today, quote, what they interviewed anita hill about was the basic facts. the fbi, such as it was, was very basic, very quick. if there was any controversy about it at all, it was that it was too cursory. it was too unimportant. the very same d

we will also ask the fbi to look into that. then there is another allegation at some point. we'll ask the fbi to look into that. it's a way to govern the process. it also shows that you're allowing these allegations to be investigated, that you're not trying to sweep them under the rug. in this case they are left now with now mounting refusals to let the fbi look into this for the first allegation, now for the second allegation as well. why can't the fbi look into this? there are two other things from this new yorker piece that i think are going to end up being important here. the first is about how republican senators handled this second allegation. this is about the timing. again, this is about that yale allegation that i just described. quote, senior republican staffers also learned of this yale allegation last week. and in conversations with the new yorker expressed concern about its potential impact on kavanaugh's nomination. soon after, senate republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. hey, there is another allegation coming. hurry, g

why can't the fbi look into this? there are two other things from this new yorker piece that i think are going to end up being important here. the first is about how republican senators handled this second allegation. this is about the timing. and again, this is about that yale allegation that i just described. quote, senior republican staffers also learned of this yale allegation last week and in conversations with the new yorker expressed concern about its potential impact on kavanaugh's nomination. soon after, senate republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. hey, there is another allegation coming. hurry, get him through. get the vote done. get the vote done before anything more comes out, get him on the court. it's not a good look but then there is one other element of this story that becomes important for the interview that i think we are about to have in just a minute tonight. one of the sticking points in the negotiations about this hearing on thursday and christine blasey f

you can't hold fbi accountable for what they can't know. now they know. look, is politics at play? that's a given. you see it on both sides. why not take it out of their hands and give it to the fbi. they are the only fair broker. >> it is unfair to suggest they missed something if you don't know if something is true or false. >> missed the allegation. she hadn't come forward. >> we agree, the fbi didn't make a mistake. they didn't know. i'm saying your point is what did they find they didn't find before. this because they never knew about this. they should look at it. >> the premise is true. >> you can't say it's true, a tautology. >> what can you do with background information. >> we have to unpack what those investigations normally entail. sometimes eight months, 10 months, a year and a half in some circumstances. they talk to all the people you've been involved in in your life. here with professor ford if there was some professfer of evidence, some nexus of facts to investigate. >> we don't know there isn't. >> we would feel healthier. >> we don't know there is. >> that's probab

ask our republican friends if president trump and senate republicans are not true to welcome the fbi to look into it. leader mcconnell spent five minutes pointing fingers at democrats that shows someone is in a pickle dog and a deep hole. and to call for an fbi investigation a what is judge kavanaugh hiding?dy >> nobody knows. and with those accusations untethered allegations that is what leader mcconnell is doing he prides his role that is part of his legacy when they see their rulings there will be a huge backlash and that is not the search for truth. and to avoid the truth and it should not happen. the white house is blocking anpa impartial allegations chairman grassley is setting arbitrary deadlines dictating the terms of appearance to deny the minority including the alleged eyewitness and saying that he doesn't remember. and hearing chairman grassley as if doctor ford were on trial as if they were afraid to question doctor ford it is so unusual but it is theater on the part of the republican friends and as they go down this road far from what a serious fact-finding inquiry should lookd

the president very much respects the independence of the fbi and feels as he said last night that they should be looking at anything that they think is credible within this limited scope. >> our legal and national security analyst is with us now, she is a former fbi agent and also here with us boris sanchez. your reaction to what we're learning that ford and kavanaugh apparently are not on this list of people for the fbi to interview. >> yes, i find that incredibly troubling. you know, these are the two main people involved in this allegation. and they would be normally the first people that the fbi would interview. to get a baseline narrative of both the accuser and the person refuting the allegation, get their versions of events. now, some people have said, well, they testified in front the senate judiciary committee and that should be enough. and the reason that it is not enough is that as you saw from that hearing, not only did each side have particular directed questions, they were cut off after a ter five minutes, so there weren't always followup questions, the judge in particular did not often an

fbi. and so that was my hope. when he apologized i said lookwant to see an fbi investigation here. we know that she passed a polygraph test, which while not admissible in regular court, is used all the time for fbi, for cia, for defense department. and she passed it with flying colors. so these are the things that the fbi could look at if they evaluated the credibility of the witnesses. >> are you confident -- you just heard kellyanne conway say the fbi can investigate whatever they want to investigate. are you confident that the fbi will be able to explore everything they want to, including if they are interested, the julie swetnick allegations, including whether or not he was honest to the senate judiciary committee about his drinking? >> well, based on some of the reports we've seen this weekend i'm very concerned about this because the white house should not be allowed to micromanage an fbi investigation. >> she says they're not. kellyanne said they're not. >> i know and there was one thing she did say and that was that the hardworking men

and senate republicans are so certain the allegations are not true, why are they welcoming the fbi to look into it? >> leader mcconnell spent five minutes pointing a finger at democrats that show someone in a pickle who has dug in a deep hole. if you really believe these allegations are part of a smear job leader mcconnell , why don't you call for an fbi investigation? >> what are you afraid of? >> what are you hiding? >> what is judge kavanaugh hiding? >> nobody knows. but people who want the truth will find the truth teller people who don't want the truth will run away from it. and instead point fingers of accusations wild and untethered allegations that is what leader mcconnell is doing. i know he prides his role to expand through the justice i don't think america will see their rulings if kavanaugh gets on the court but that is not the search for i truth. that is a rush job. it should not happen. think of that. the white house is blocking and impartial investigation about the allegations chairman grassley is sending arbitrary deadlines to testify dictating the terms of her appearance t

i would be fine with the fbi looking at anything that they chose to look at.ike the most pressing concern right now. >> all right. so now let me go from sunshine to rain. here's my fear, okay. my fear is, and i don't like being a kasandra, but my fear is a week from now assuming christopher wray says, fine, you want it to be a week, that's crazy to ask me to do it in a week but, fine, i'll do it. what if they say my men and women doing this, i threw everybody at it, they say it's incomplete. they say they have some real stuff, they're finding value or whatever terminology they use, they're not done. now what, niger? >> that's going to be a pickle. i have to be candid here and not talk like a conservative pundit. that is going to be a pickle. it would have to be, i would suspect that the vote would have to be delayed a little bit longer. obviously there would have to be a discussion between grassley and feinstein and wray and i suppose other stakeholders to find out how long the fbi would need. the question that i think you should ask is if the fbi comes back w

can the fbi look into this, should they look into this? we went in, did some digging, laid out all the propositions we're dealing with here and we'll chart a path that goes forward next. what does help for heart ♪ the beat goes on. it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪ the beat goes on. it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪ la-di-la-di. entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart... so you can keep on doing what you love. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪ the beat goes on. - [nar

look at that process, too. number one, i think you acknowledged this the other night. the fbi is not in this particular case looking at a criminal action investigation. >> right. >> so for those that are watching the broadcast i think it is important to point out what would the fbi do. if the fbi were to do an investigation or follow-up, it's basically a follow-up to their report that they give to congress that they would give to the white house if it was asked for. and that's the way the process would go out. so, again, i'm not one that gets to make the policy decision. >> i get it. what's wrong with that? >> it's not a question what's wrong with it. who makes that decision. >> the president would have to make the decision. >> not the president's private lawyers. >> i totally get it. i'm asking you this as a legal mind right now. we'll get more and more specific to your current state of employment with the lawyer on these separate issues. but on this one, the president can make the call, right? absolutely. >> sure. >> presidents have made the call in the past. and at a minimu

the fbi looked into it three days, you have precedent, you set the time. at least you show you checked the boxes and shame on the democrats how you handled the letter. >> if you could do that in three days, then you could do that with -- >> why wouldn't you be able to? >> because there would be demands for another witness and another person and another question to be asked. you had somebody-on our program last -- i think it was this week, actually. somebody who you said was a lifelong friend of dr. ford. >> yes, samantha garret. >> and i don't know if you asked this and it got cut, but the question i was waiting to here is when for the first time did you hear about this. >> now. >> okay. what does that tell you in. >> it can tell you a lot of things. as we know from the study of people in this position it's not easy to talk about it. when they do -- >> it tells you also there's no corroboration -- >> she told her husband, she told her therapist. >> when? >> 2012 the husband and the therapist. when kavanaugh's name started to come up for these positions she

after a committee of us senators approved mr kavanaugh‘s nomination, but with the condition that the fbi lookthe claims before the final vote in the senate can take place. our north america editor jon sopel reports. why not wait? it's just possible this confrontation in a lift in the senate building has altered the course of the supreme court nomination. you're telling me that my assault doesn't matter, that what happened to me doesn't matter! and then you're going to let people who do these things... republican senator jeff flake, a key swing vote on the committee, had just announced he backed judge cavanagh. these women were not impressed. do you think that he's telling the truth? do you think that he is telling the truth to the country? what they said clearly left an impression after yesterday's visceral testimony. brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me the most. i have never done this, to her or to anyone. what is the strongest memory you have? uproarious laughter between the two. and they're having fun at my expense. you're saying there's neve

i would be okay with the fbi looking at anything they may look at but that doesn't seem like the mostt now. >> let me go from sunshine to rain. i don't like being a cusandra. but assuming christopher ray says you want a week, i'll give you a week. fine, i'll do it. what if they come back and say my guys and men and women doing this. i threw everybody at it, they say it's incomplete and they have real stuff, they're finding value oefr or whatever terminology, now what? >> that's going to be a pickle. i've got to be completely candid and not talk like a conservative pundant. that is going to be a pickle. i would suspect that the vote would have to be delayed a little bit longer. obviously a discussion between grassley and feinstein and ray and i suppose other stake holders to find out how long the fbi would need. the other question you should ask is if the fbi comes back the information weallredy know from the testimony and just public knowledge in general, if they say there's no more there there, are there going to be any democrats that change their mind and actually vote for kavanaugh

in doing background investigations on nominees, in both of those cases the fbi reopened those background investigations and looked into these new allegations when those new allegations arose during the confirmation process. the fbi part of it is not a high-profile part of the history of those controversies. if you ever take a class where you study the controversial nomination of clarence thomas or the controversial and ultimately failed nomination of john tower, if you ever study those matters, the fbi looking into the allegations won't come up in class because it's such a mundane part of the process. it's not remarked on. when the history of brett kavanagh some day is told, the thing that will stand out like this one like a 10-foot tall high hat on a horse, this one, the republicans and the senate and the white house couldn't even explain the reasons why they absolutely insisted the fbi must not be allowed to do that in this case. the fbi must not be allowed to reopen and complete their background investigation on brett kavanagh to account for this new allegation. that would be regular order. that's the way that

again by senator mcconnell, fairness would dictate that a nonpartisan investigative group like the fbi look into this matter and come to conclusions, whatever they may be. i listened as senator mcconnell said this morning, justice matters, he said. evidence matters, he said. facts matter, he said. i might add, a fbi investigation matters, too because it would get to the bottom of all three of those things. and yet, the white house, the president, senator mcconnell and republicans have resisted this fbi investigation, despite dr. ford asking for it. as far as the presumption of innocence, i listened to senator mcconnell say that someone suggested that judge kavanaugh's not entitled to that. i disagree with whom ever said that. both, both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh are entitled to a presumption of innocence. the case has to be proven and facts shown as best as they can. i want to add something else, too. i'm troubled by what president trump said over the weekend about dr. ford's charges, suggestion it's been so long that her charges are not credible. the suggestion that if they were truly c

again for senator mcconnell, fairness would dictate that a nonpartisan investigative group like the fbi lookedinto this matter, can come to conclusions whatever they may be. i listened to senator mcconnell said this morning. justice matters are at evidence matters he said. fact matters i might add. an fbi investigation matters, too because it would get to the bottom of all three of those things and yet the white house summoned the president, senator mcconnell and republicans have resisted this fbi investigation despite dr. ford asking for it. as far as the presumption i listened that someone suggested judge kavanaugh not entitled to that. i disagree with whoever said that. both. both, dr. ford and judge presumption of innocence. the facts have to be shown as best they can. i want to add something else, too. i'm troubled by what president trump said over the weekend about dr. ford charges. suggestion it's been so flaunts that they are not credible. the suggestion that if they were truly credible she would've told her parents what happened that night in my bedroom when her parents would've repor

democrats appealed to him for one week delay to have the fbi look into the allegations. i think 2 would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to but not more than one week in order to let the fbi continue to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current alleges that are there and limit in time to no more than one week, i will vote to advance the bill to the floor with that understanding. >> senator coons and senator flake have been working together on this. this was kind of a surprise to all of us. senator flake has expressed, including in his speech yesterday, his concern about the divide in this country that is being exacerbated by what's happening here. and, of course, we have been asking over and over again for follow-up the judge brett kavanaugh nomination was reported out of the committee 11 to 10 along party lines. jeff flake wants more time. a number of his colleagues here on capitol hill think that would be a very good idea. trace? >> yeah. all the attention right now is focused on young senator flake, mike. but there are other key senators to

we do know that it is possible for them to ask the fbi to look into these questions. senate democrats have been pushing for a couple of weeks now and obviously dr. blasey has been asking for this and her legal team has been asking for this since she came forward. they can do that. it was done decades ago in the anita hill/clarence thomas affair and they're going to have to do that now if they want to fully vet this to the degree to the people who have the deciding votes on this question want to see at this point. in some ways it ju's just aboute reality of the situation that they would love to go forward with a vote as soon as they can but they don't have the votes do that. >> julie, stay with me. mark preston, you heard him say he was ready, if you're an innocent man, say yes to an investigation. if it is delayed a week and what if in the week additional women come forward? >> that's a good question. i think you can talk about agreeing to scope and the fbi will only look at if there is an agreement that has been brought up in this time period. in the court of public

they would like to say to their constituents we have the fbi look at the allegations. there is also some thought that moderate democrats up for reelection in conservative states like joe manchin and heidi heitkamp could get to yes and a political cover to come around and say the fbi looked at it, it was nonpartisan and in the end i decided to vote for his nomination so jeff flake not guaranteeing democratic votes. shannon: the fiery speech from senator graham yesterday in front of brett kavanaugh, we saw him looking down the dais and he confirmed he was talking to jeff flake. how are they feeling about each other today? >> i had a chance to ask the senator about that and he said there is no ill will towards jeff flake. he likes the attribute flake has and susan collins has that they take things so seriously. if any republican senators got out of the meeting, like the senator who is retiring holding up the cavanagh nomination and as far as we can tell nobody is willing to air the dirty laundry from the conference room in public yet. shannon: those things have a way of t

this is bbc news. been delayed, while the fbi looks into allegations of sexual assault. 50 million accountsounts. that the two countries can't return to everyday business. in turkey along with large numbers of other opposition figures. with protests outside and inside the official events. bill hayton reports. it was not exactly all smiles. some way still to go. tayyip erdogan‘s opponents. in the turkish media. the official banquet was his chance to say something back. but even germany's head of state has some strong words. in turkey for political reasons. intellectuals, and politicians still in prison. we discussed individual cases this morning. to everyday business without further ado. faced one of his other critics in a news conference. wearing a t—shirt calling for press freedom. he was bundled out of the room. after being named in a list of people whom turkey wants extradited. community. between the eu and turkey. there are 6 million turks living outside of turkey. 50 years, to come back. we want relations to come back to life again. we want a policy between two states with bilateral be

is the fbi permitted to look into the testimony judge kavanaugh gave? some democrats think he wasn't honest under oath about the extent of his drinking, other parts of his testimony if the fbi finds that he gave answers under oath that were less than forthcoming, is that part of this? >> we trust the hardworking men and women of the fbi to do their jobs in this case, jake, and they will determine what is -- what can be included within that scope. let me go back to something you said. we'll remind the viewers politely that senators manchin heitkampf and donnelly did vote for gorsuch. that is relevant. if they want to listen to the voters within their own states they will see that the voters do want a supreme court justice confirmed sooner rather than later. those who were saying fbi investigation, fbi investigation, that was the most common thing, not cory booker, who talked about me, myself and i, apparently his three favorite people. and now is -- >> i want to take a listen to what the president had to say about christine blasey-ford. >> her testimony w

the fbi needs to have reign that is free enough to look at the allegations and within his testimony to see where he was not truthful. >> when you hear that the fbi is not going to be held responsible for giving a summary and assess what is conclusive or not or hand it over to whom? to the body of the senate to ex-traply what is believable or not? >> it is an imperfect process, but that's in a lot of ways how the background checks work. they need to look at the allegations and the other women that voiced concerns and made allegations as well. it should not be so narrow that you can't find it. >> the primary focus of importance, but lindsey graham said wait a minute, before we tackle this, let's talk about what happened or didn't happen months ago with senator feinstein not sharing this letter of anonymity. this is what he had to say. >> i got a call for an investigation of what happened to this committee, who betrayed dr. ford's trust. who recommended katz as a lawyer. why did she not know the committee was willing to go to california. who released the anonymous letter by cory gardner.

they would like to be able to say to their constituents, we had the fbi look into the allegations. there's also thoughts that a lot of those democrats up for re-election in conservative states could get to yes. and this may give them the political cover to come around and say, you know, the fbi looked at it. it was nonpartisan, and in the end i decided to vote for his nominati nomination. there's certainly hope. >> listen, the fiery speech that we saw from senator graham yesterday in front of judge kavanaugh. he confirmed to us later he was talking to jeff flake. how do you think those two are feeling about each other today? >> i just had a chance to ask senator about that and he said there's no ill will towards jeff flake. he said that he likes the attribute that flake has and that senator susan collins has, that they take things so seriously. and so i asked if any republican senators after they got out of that meeting were seen at the senator from arizona who is retiring, who is actually holding up the nomination right now. as far as we can tell, no one is willing to air out the

leigh ann, how could an fbi agent look into potential false statements made by kavanaugh during the hearing if they can't question those who have publicly disputed his capitol hill testimony. >> yeah, i mean, it's an excellent question and how the fbi does its work is beyond my scope. but they do have kavanaugh under oath in that hearing. they have him under oath over 32 hours. they also conducted three phone calls with judiciary committee staff. it is a federal crime to lie to staff in those phone calls, and so they have a record. so if they do come across something that contradicts what he said, they have something to go back to and that can be a disqualifying factor for a lot of lawmakers if it comes out that he did lie. >> does the fbi report back in realtime as they complete interviews and get information or at the end of this week does this wrap up with some kind of report or a specific form? >> republican senators i talked to friday seem it would come in the form of a report and then they would go through the report and decide how to proceed. >> all right. thank you very much. stick

the fbi looked into it three days.boxes, shame on the democrats for how they handled the letter. >> if you could do that in three days, then i would agree you could do that. that would be adequate. >> why wouldn't you be able to. >> there would be demands for another witness and another person and another question to be asked. you had somebody on your program last -- i think it was this week, actually, someone you said was a lifelong friend of samantha fords. the one question i was dying to hear and never heard is, when for the first time did you hear about this? >> now. >> what does that tell you? >> it can tell you a lot of things. as we know, it's not easy to talk about it. they don't come forward some never do, when they do, it can be very long afterwards. >> i don't think you can see delay as dishonesty. >> she told other people. >> oh. >> she told her husband, her therapist? >> when? >> 2012 the husband, and when kavanaugh's name started coming up she talked to friends to discuss whether she should bring it forwa

but the democrats, if the fbi can't make conclusions and they can't make recommendations and there's no evidence to look at, it's just the four witnesses again that have sworn statements under the threat of perjury, felony, what else is there to do for the fbi? and how long should that take? why couldn't that be done tomorrow? >> immediately, the attorney general is exactly right. send the agents out from one of the california offices and sit down with mrs. ford. all this is is political cover. i'm not minimizing the fact that these are serious allegations. all i'm saying is when they opened up the fbi investigation on clarence thomas, it was just about cover. the democrats know it. they thought they had the republicans by just chiming and ringing this bell. we need to have an opening of the fbi. look, we're here. they're gonna do it. it will be excruciating for judge kavanaugh. i'm sure the democrats will come out with more information about more ridiculousness this week. in the end, leader mcconnell is gonna have to force the vote. these republicans are going to have to choose. >> sean: mitch mcconnel

just look at what is now being exposed in our department of justice and the fbi. look at what's going on. look at what's going on. i want to tell you. we have great people in the department of justice. we have great people. these are people, i really believe, you take a poll, i have got to be at 95%. but you have some real bad ones, you have seen what happened sat the fbi. they are all gone. they are all gone. [cheers and applause] but there is a lingering stench and we'll get rid of that, too. clare mccass ski, when i read about this sitting in a beautiful house called the white house. anybody hear of the white house? she revealed her true colors when she preternlded to tour -- pretended to tour the state in an rv while she was actually flying around the state in her luxurious private airplane. and honestly, this is before i ever thought about running, by the way, we decided to run. how did we do? how did we do? [cheers and applause] senator, a good guy, said to me the other day. we were talking about judge kavanaugh. and i said, we have to fight for him. not worry ab

but the democrats, if the fbi can't make conclusions and they can't make recommendations and there's no evidence to look at, it's just the four witnesses again that have sworn statements under the threat of perjury, felony, what else is there to do for the fbi? and how long should that take? why couldn't that be done tomorrow? >> immediately, the attorney general is exactly right. send the agents out from one of the california offices and sit down with mrs. ford. all this is is political cover. i'm not minimizing the fact that these are serious allegations. all i'm saying is when they opened up the fbi investigation on clarence thomas, it was just about cover. the democrats know it. they thought they had the republicans by just chiming and ringing this bell. we need to have an opening of the fbi. look, we're here. they're gonna do it. it will be excruciating for judge kavanaugh. i'm sure the democrats will come out with more information about more ridiculousness this week. in the end, leader mcconnell is gonna have to force the vote. these republicans are going to have to choose. >> sean: mitch mcconnel

hypocrisy by the president to say the fbi has no business, no interest to look into this? question. trump views the fbi has his own force that should be used to investigate his political opponents and his enemies and then i think recently suggested that the attorney general should have quashed the investigations of his political allies. so there's no question here. if you really want to have a nonpartisan professional investigation, you'd have the fbi do it. they're professionals, not a bunch of senators who will use this to score political points and potentially embarrass dr. ford. it would be better if the fbi was doing it but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. >> thank you both very much. >>> up next, the evangelicals were part of the brett kavanaugh base. has this shaken the base in them? the kavanaugh chaos now front and center in florida's red hot senate race. >> doctor ford needs to come and give an opportunity to testify. time. it shouldn't be measured by clocks. it should be measured by how long steak & lobster is back at outback. back by popular demand,

i certainly feel strongly that without the fbi looking at the corroborating evidence that dr.rd with, folks that she disclosed this history, this alleged violent, terrifying sexual incident she had with judge kavanaugh as a teenager, without those being examined, corroborated, and put in front of the committee, we're not doing our job, and this is not a full and fair process. >> in terms of how the process is going to go tomorrow, you raised sort of an alert about the fact that this is essentially going to be sort of a lightning process tomorrow, that senators will be given five minutes to ask questions, and that's it. no followup, no second round. how do you expect this to up fold tomorrow, particularly given this unusual situation where your republican colleagues prepare to be outsourcing their own questions to an external prosecutor, who has been brought in from arizona to ask questions instead of the senators themselves. >> rachel, if the majority -- if the republicans on the committee think that by hiring an outside prosecutor they can hide behind that and not be held acc

fbi do this for a living. they have resources, they can look at whether he lied to congress, they can look at his drinking. and the nation now, people might call the fbi and bring up new allegations. this is tough for him going forward. i don't know that republicans could have done anything else, though. coming out of the hearings on thursday, a lot of senate republicans found ford to be believable and credible. naturally for republicans who are moderates or people like jeff flake who are retiring and not sort of wielded to party, the next call is for an investigation. i'm not surprised they ended up doing this. >> michael, in terms of an investigation, they don't have subpoena power, do they? can they force all these people that they're going to be looking for this week to talk -- >> the cup has subpoena power. they can look at people and bring them in. if you give a false statement to the fbi agent, it's a 1001 violation. the problem for kavanaugh, the new investigation will be more focused on these specific circumstances, the specific allegations. in a general backgrounds check, they want ton -- backgrou

fbi. >> just look at what is now being exposed in our department of justice and the fbi. look at what is going on. look at what is going on. and i want to tell you, we have great people in the department of justice. great people. i really believe, you take a poll, i got to be at 95%. but you have some real bad ones. you've seen what has happenedato the fbi. they are all gone. they are all gone. they are all gone. but there is a lingering stench and we'll get rid of that too. >> and sara murray has more on the political firestorm surrounding rod rosenstein. >> reporter: he floated the idea of wearing a wire to secretly record president trump last year according to sources familiar with the situation. the second most powerful person at the justice department also reportedly discussed with doj officials recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove trump from office for being unfit in the days following fbi director james comey's firing. rosenstein he vehemently denying the claims saying in a statement, the "new york times" story is inaccurate and factuall

fbi investigation. >> i think that, you know, if you could get both sides together, when we look back that one of the things both sides did well is then senator thurman and biden, they both agree today have the fbi jointly look into this and do this in a bipartisan manner. here in this case you both sides. you have a democrat showing up before, you know, judge kavanaugh was nominated. not a great hearing that took place. >> david, if i could jump in i think we are missing the point here. there is one person interviewing far job. that is judge kavanaugh. it should be a question of making sure the victim -- >> i agree. >> but you're defending the approach -- >> no. i'm saying -- >> it is a suspicion. my suggestion is you have some sort of limited, give the fbi a week that doesn't appear that there are 100 people involved. it appears there are a handful of people involved. the fbi could look into the allegations, talking to all of the parties involved and from se present the facts to both sides. >> let's try to get the president on board. >> and it's not done until it is done. the president's voice is a

our republican friends who are running away from anyin objective and not only does she want the fbi to look into this but she took volunteer lie detector test and she knew she was inviting harassment and ridicule and abuse for going forward and she feared her life would be appended for still has the courage to do this not the rushed kangaroo court with members on the republican side. that will say things behind her back. who is more credible? >> doctor ford to submit to all this or republicans of the white house to stonewall who are refusing to call other witnesses? >> in including the alleged eyewitness it is an easy easy answer. so when he rails and rants to set up the straw man he is afraid of what would come out and what the truth is. we heard judge kavanaugh's defenders say this happened 36 years ago it should not matter with those tortured formulations of boys will be boys i don't agree with any of those excuses but let me address those that say that you think it is a long time ago now let's not hold somebody 30 years later one obvious answer is the supreme court so those who believe

many questions still remain about what and who the fbi is looking at. we're just learning that kavanaugh's first accuser christine blasey ford has not been contacted yet by the fbi according to two sources. meanwhile sources say senate republicans are working with white house counsel don mcgahn who is trying to narrow the scope of the investigation as much as possible. but president trump and his team insist that they are hands off in the process saying that the fbi has free rein. let's go to boris sanchez at the white house. so the president is waeighing i. what are you learning? >> reporter: that's right. president trump tweeting in light of some complaints that the white house may have too much influence oefrver the prob. quote, wow, just starting to heart democrats are starting to put out the word that the time and scope of fbi looking in to judge kavanaugh and witnesses is not enough. hello, for them it will never be enough. stay tuned and watch. the root of that is president saying that the fbi will have free rein into this probe and then what we'r

that is why the fbi won't look at it. there is nothing there, as matt said, he's gone through six fbi background checks. if anyone can come forward -- jason, if someone tried to save us about you, it would be disgusting and despicable. there is no cooperation at all. >> then why not bring in mark judge, why not bring in people -- i'm not -- >> there is nothing to go forward. nothing left at all. >> laura: i think the democrats better watch out. if they want to go down this road for every nominee, -- >> bring it on. >> laura: tables will be turned on you better be worried about what you did in eighth grade. you cannot put every man in the target zone. it's not fair. real victims of sexual assault have also spoken out against this, saying it hurts our cause. so it plays both ways. passion is a very high on this issue. fantastic panel, as always, gentlemen and pam, thanks so much. and a later stall tactic by the democrats, they are bristling at the republican suggestion that n christine blase ford this thursday. republicans a

one week is what senator flake was interested in and you can do a lot if you have the whole fbi looking at things in one week. >> reporter: [ inaudible question ] >> you should talk to senator flake about that. i think you have seen him to be quite independent in terms of what he says. he felt he had a very important role to play. >> again, first white house reaction. let's go now. >> george, the white house press corp. is here inside the oval office. he is meeting with the president and he was asked about the latest of what is happening on the hill. he says i will read you some notes. it is just coming in. the president said he is deferring to gop senators. he spoke fondly about the ford testimony and the quote is of this delay that we just witnessed happened, whatever they think is necessary. so president trump in a pretty surprise move seems to be deferring to the gop, the republican senators on the judiciary committee to allow for the -- >> excuse me. he is coming out. let's see if he will explain. >> i don't expect any of them to vote for the if we you know, i don't know if that's

you can do a lot if you have the whole fbi looking at things in one week. >> did senator flake bring this idea to the democrats? >> you should talk to senator flake about that. i think you've seen him to be quite an independent in terms of a lot of decisions he makes and what he says. he felt he had a very important role to play as a member of the committee. thank you. >> is he still in there? >> i believe he's still in there. again, a number of us had suggested the week. i suggested it today as did senator coons. did we actually think this was going to happen today, no. we're in a better place than we were at 8:00 a.m. this morning. >> why do you think he switched? >> i think you should talk to him. >> we're probably going to see this happen a lot. jeff flake is still inside. they are moving to a room. here comes lindsey graham. >> i think i know what happened. i hope some democrats will say if we do what jeff said, that would end the process dispute, at least a few of them. i don't expect them to vote for the guy but if we ask the fbi to look at what's in front of us, no later than

fbi. >> just look at what is now being exposed in our department of justice and the fbi. look at what's going on. and wherei want to tell you. we have great people in the department of justice. we have great people -- these are people -- i really believe you take a pole. i got to be at 95%. but you got some real bad ones. they're all gone. they're all gone. they're all gone. but there's a lingering sterch and we're going to get rid of that too. >> so the question, what happens of the political fire storm around rosenstein. we have this report ahead. >> reporter: deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein floated the idea of secretly wearing a wire to record president trump last year. the second most powerful person also reportedly discussed with doj officials are kruting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove president trump from office for being unfit. rosenstein vehemently denying this saying the new york times story is factually incorrect. i will not further comment on a stora based on anonymous source whose are obviously bias against the department and adv