mrs. ramirez. we have problems with her story. read all of the inconsistencies of professor ford's story and no cooperation there. we getting rid of due process and presumption of innocence no? >> obviously this isn't a criminal proceeding. as jonathan starley said, it is a tradition that people who are accused of these kinds of activities should get a presumption of innocence. the accuser should have two produce evidence or credible evidence. i don't deny this sincerity of dr. ford. it seems like this has traveled and there are some inconsistencies in her testimony. my quarrel isn't with dr. ford who i believe is in good faith. my quarrels with the democrats were lying in wait to ambush any nominee who is a constitutionalist because they want judges on the supreme court, justices, who would legislate their political liberal agenda. it is horrendous. my real thrust here is for feckless conservatives, feckless republicans to realize why president trump is so popular and it is because a feckless conservatism isn't . we are in a stru

mrs. ramirez lawyers many witnesses wishes - - wish to be interviewed and they were not. why not? and what limits were placed on the fbi? so they could not do a thorough investigation? the word is, it was the white house from some of those republican senate oitaffers here so the white house had two choices. they could admit that or deny that or at the very minimum make the directive that they sent to the fbi public if the white house did limit when it normally does with the background check it sure seems they did given the limited witnesses that were not called and should have been, make it public. let the american people see. and what else should be made public are these documents. first, the idea that should be thorough and open and available by the pedant - - pettiness there is only one document for members to see. that's very hard to do that's a lot of documents there is only one copy. why were there ten copies? what the heck is going on? but it's just a pattern of limiting access to truth into what the american people want to know. so i reiterate my call particularly after wh

mrs. ramirez was credible. >> i think it's credible.need an investigation and i think what's being called an investigation is not. it's a con job. i say that. i don't say that lightly, but i will say that because in fact people i provided names, i know other names were provided by debby ramirez's lawyer. i know and you mentioned this on the program, one of my old friends, can corroborate debby ramirez talked about this back in 83, '84 with him. he approached the fbi and the fbi did not contact him. there seems to be a pattern of not just the usual sort of bureaucratic neglect, but of a conscious effort to make sure that some of these stories don't get out there. that of course is extremely problematic. we need an investigation before we can reach a final judgment on this whole thing. we did not get that. >> what does that say to you because one of the key ways that you can corroborate claims against people, prominent people. claims people because there can be reasons people may come forward falsely is whether there was earlier corrobora

mrs. ramirez, dr. ford, they're giving 20 to 25 witnesses that they want to be interviewed as well.t's where that slippery slope -- it needed to be tight in scope so that it didn't just continue to grow legs. >> neil: thanks, chad. very much. appreciate your patience with the questioning here. just want to know how it works. all right. thank you. so it's out there right now. you'd think this would be broiling, which it is. and think it would be roiling wall street, which it is not. concerns of the political class have no concerns on the investor class. in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? >> neil: i know everyone and his uncle following these heated politic

mrs. ramirez, interviewed her, and interviewed everyone that she said would corroborate her story. at the end of that investigation, all those reports came in, and we have now read through them, and every single one of those individuals reported back i don't remember anything like what they're describing. not only do i not remember anything like what they're describing, i know brett kavanaugh. i can't even imagine he would do something like that. person after person after person, instead of agreeing with their story, the accusation, actually agreed with brett kavanaugh instead. what's interesting is brett kavanaugh has been through six different f.b.i. background checks in the past. he's now at 150 people in his life that have been interviewed. interestingly enough, one of the questions to all 150 people in his life that have been interviewed, leading up before this time even, was one of the questions that the f.b.i. asked everyone -- asks everyone when they are doing the background check. do you know of any issues this person has with alcohol or drug use that would be a problem fo

mrs. ramirez' allegations against you? >> in the period since then. in the new yorker story. >> the undecided republican jeff flake saying he was troubled by the partisanin tone dthe hearing. >> we can't have this. >> president trump not only defending kavanaugh's tone but suggesting men in general are being treated unfairly. >> it is a very scary time for young men the >> as it plays out behind the scenes, a public fight over judge kavanaugh, his past and his future. >> now republican senator lindsey graham is, if kavanaugh is voted down, president trump should just nominate him again. >> thank you. blayne alexander reporting live. >>>et get to that breaking news on the white supremacist rally last year. newrrests were made on the rallies. scott? >> the u.s.ey atto office says four people have been arrested. they are militants of a white supremacist group from california. they're accused of punching, kicking and head butting several people during august 11 and 12, 2017.ic thems included an african-american man, two women and a minister. federal offic

mrs. ramirez and dr. ford. not a single one corroborated the allegations. and there were some indications of politics. and i think we're making a mistake not to allow the american people to see this report and judge for themselves. i trust them. >> ed: you said also in recent days that congress has hit rock bottom and keeps on digging. i don't know if you were referring to this. but the house democratic leader nancy pelosi compared judge kavanaugh to a dictator. listen. >> i guess there's a similarity that people have with the people that they -- love with kim jong-un, thinks kavanaugh is a great outstanding person. you know what? he doesn't even know what he's talking about. >> ed: how do you react to that? >> i probably shouldn't say this, but i'm going to be frank. billy goat brain, mouth. >> ed: wow. >> that's just typical. that's symbolic of all that has gone on. and it didn't have to be this way. there's some high points -- >> ed: such as what? let's give a positive. >> i'm so pleased that judge kavanaugh will be confirmed. i'm so pleased that due pro

mrs. ramirez, was it him? could it be him? they're throwing allegations out there. this is a disinformation campaign pain with one object in mound, to discredit judge kavanaugh. god bless him. he needs to continue to fight this. >> the accusation will stay with him forever. >> it will. but you know what, sean, at this point in time, he can fight this and the people will stand up and believe him. we cannot walk away from this. >> professor. >> but the real villain of this is the american civil liberties union on whose board i served with honor for many years when it was the aclu, the american civil liberties union, instead of the aclu, the anti-civil liberties union. they are now saying that suspicion is enough, that presumptions ought to be in favor of guilt. if there is doubt, you convict. imagine if they had said thatre during the mccarthy period.duri, they never said when people were fired from their jobs, this is just a job interview.evthey reqh standard. when it comes to this, they are making a fortune of money. the budget has been to from 20 million to 130 mil

mrs. ramirez and mrs. swetnick are false? >> doi. >> i want to point out the democrats in this committee have acted like cowards. now, if you'll excuse me, i'd like to hide behind the female prosecutor we hired as a human shield. >> judge kavanaugh, would you say in high school that you were a frequent drinker? >> look, i like beer, okay? [ laughter ] >> i like beer. boys like beer. girls like beer. i like beer. i like beer. >> shake my finger at a tomato 15 minutes. >> if you think i'm angry now, you just wait until i get on that supreme court because then you're all going to pay. give me a can of water. it's saturday night! >>> what can i do. i can't see the use in me crying, if i'm not trying to make the change i want to see singer/songwriter john legend performing at our global citizens festival, is crusading on an issue that in the words of the "new york times" magazine that could enfranchise more people. florida's amendment 4 would restore voting rights for people with prior felony convictions, more than 1.5 million peo

mrs. ramirez' claims, and if that's the case you are not going to see any changes in anybody's vote. much of the voting is going to come down on ideological grounds that has little to do with the hearing that took place. >> when you say there's no corroborating information, and you are getting that from press reports, and we will speak to the white house, that's because they are not talking to the people who corroborate it? >> at what point do you say, anybody can come forward and make an allegation? they had the chance to do that weeks ago. they had the chance to do it at the time of the testimony and now people are coming out of the woodwork? i think this has become so poisoned. the supreme court is being damaged in the process and our political -- this has done enormous damage to our democracy, this whole mess. and the democrats are not blameless here. >> because you think it has been so damaged, do you think brett kavanaugh should be seated on the supreme court? >> i have to tell you, if i were in brett kavanaugh's shoes i would say -- i would not assume the job. >> you would bow

mrs. ramirez, she gave the fbi additional names. this arbitrary one week deadline is ultimately going to be a disservice to the full investigation. it leaves lingering questions whether it was done in a way that provides a full picture of what this person is in his life. >> it gives the republicans on the committee who had some doubt about it, it gives them cover to say, we went with the investigation. >> that is it, don. that is the point. they are putting the fbi's good housekeeping stamp of approval that is limited in scope. >> do you think the fbi will prove that some of the statements kavanaugh made about his drinking are false? >> well, good question. question, of course, is whether or not they're going to be actually interviewing people regarding his drinking habits outside of any relationship that it might have to the allegations of sexual assault. the issue of course will go to what his yale classmate was talking about, did he lie to the senate judiciary committee. the alcohol use itself back in high school and college will

mrs. ramirez's. and people are specifically named in the room when it happened. and you don't interview those people? that to me is outrageous. that the fbi would not interview those people. >> this hour senators continue reviewing that fbi report and soon will be asked to draw their own conclusions. >> shepard: mike emanuel with a view from the hill. let's get one from the white house. john roberts is live on the north lawn. john? >> haven't heard anything from the president except on twitter. we might hear something on this tonight when he has a political rally at 6:30 local time in rochester, minnesota. the white house not even trying to convince or change the minds of the 46 now 47 with senator heitkamp who said they will vote no on kavanaugh. the president tweeting out earlier today, this is the seventh time the fbi has investigated judge kavanaugh. if we made it 100, wouldn't be good enough for the obstructionist democrats. the white house is mustering its efforts to republican flake, collins and murkowski to vote. they're also working manchin and donnelly.

mrs. ramirez. it was at him, could it be him? they are just throwing allegations out there.is a disinformation campaign with one objective in mind, to destroy judge kavanaugh. and god bless him, if he is actually standing up for what he believes in and fighting this back, he needs to continue -- >> sean: the acquisition will stay with him forever. >> it will. but at this point in time he can fight this and the people will stand up and believing. we cannot walk away from this. >> sean: professor? >> the real villain is the american civil liberties union. on the board i served with honor for many years when it was the aclu, the american civil liberties union instead of the aclu, the anti-civil liberties union. they are now saying that suspicion is enough, that presumptions are to be in favor of guilt. that if there is doubt, you convict. imagine if they had said that during the mccarthy period. during the mccarthy period they never set when people were fired from their jobs, this is just a job interview, their required proof by a high standard. when it comes to this, they are

mr. ramirez, for example, did yield additional potential witnesses, so the question would be, is the fbi permitted to run that down and look at it? or is this merely a check the box exercise? >> shan, to you, james comey in his op-ed said a lot of interesting things. one of the most notable is that he clearly thinks that judge kavanaugh perjured himself. he said, they, meaning the fbi, also know that little lies point to bigger lies. they know that obvious lies about the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper. aside from james comey's opinion of whether or not judge kavanaugh was forthcoming or not, what do you make of what he writes here and following, you know, that indication? because republican senator jeff flake, a key swing vote said, if it is proven that he wasn't fully honest in that testimony or lied, that's disqualifying for him. what do you make of comey's assertion here? >> you know, people may think what they want about james comey, but he's clearly a very skilled investigator. and i completely agree with his take that there are

mrs. ramirez, for example, provided the names of additional witnesses, additional people that the fbi needsgo out and talk to. so i don't think we shubham stringing or constraining the fbi in that respect, because it is about who knows what, what they saw, and are they believed? at the end of the day, that's what it's going to come down to. >> mr. chairman, the president said today, he's okay with the fbi talking to kavanaugh for this investigation, which might be news to kavanaugh. do you think they should? >> absolutely. i mean, he is clearly important into this equation, and if there is anything they talked about in the previous investigations that doesn't cover either this time period or this event, and i would argue it doesn't, then yes, in fact, they should do that. and i'm going to disagree with the supervisory agent, josh, because we did these things in very short time lines when the bush administration came and we had very short deadlines, and what we did is schedule our resources according to the time that we had. and i think that you can do it. i think the democrats are going to

mr. ramirez." mazie hirono said that "judge kavanaugh does not preserve do not deserve the presumption of innocence. democrats want to block kavanaugh and hold the seat open until the 2020 election. this is about politics and this is about power, pure and simple. they've destroyed judge kavanaugh's reputation, undermined dr. ford's privacy and tried to upend our traditions of innocence until proven guilty in the process. it's a complete and total disgrace. we will receive and submit the fpi supplemental background investigation on his nomination to the senate as a leader mcconnell said, judge kavanaugh deserves our prompt vote and we expect them to get one. with that, i will take your questions. >> the three people that are the most important in this processor senator murkowski, collins, and ford. this morning, to go of them were upset about how the president described christine mallozzi ford in that rally in mississippi. knowing how sensitive this is, these people need to be comfortable with votin

mrs. ramirez and mrs. swetnick are false?i. >> i want to point out the democrats in this committee have acted like kourdcowards. now, if you'll excuse me, i'd like to hide behind the female prosecutor we hired as a human shield. >> judge kavanaugh, would you say in high school that you were a frequent drinker? >> look, i like beer, okay? [ laughter ] >> i like beer. boys like beer. girls like beer. i like beer. i like beer. >> shake my finger at a tomato 15 minutes. >> if you think i'm angry now, you just wait until i get on that supreme court because then you're all going to pay. give me a can of water. it's saturday night! n really ge. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms,... and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in el

mr. kavanaugh to debbie ramirez, who relayed that story to another student in his first year of graduate school, and who went to the f.b.i. and said come and talk to me because i can tell you she's telling the truth. i may not have witnessed it, but i heard about it after it happened. and i'm not making it up now because i told somebody about it, and they're willing to come forward and talk to you. so it goes to the f.b.i. could the f.b.i. talk to him? no, they couldn't because the president of the united states prohibited the f.b.i. from talking to anyone who had real information about the two experiences these two women brought forward. that is just beyond wrong. think about how much worse this body is treating these two women than did this senate treat anita hill in 1991. think about that comparison. you would think in the nearly four decades since, three decades since, we would have improved, 27 years, but have we? with anita hill, the president immediately reopened the f.b.i. investigation of his own volition, wanting to get a full background checking of the issue. the committee hel

deborah ramirez. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank the distinguished senator from hawaii for her comments. she has had a strong voice of reason and conscience throughout this whole debate. mr. president, this is not a normal confirmation vote. i've now served in the senate for 19 supreme court nominations , more than any other senator. i've never seen so much at stake with a single seat. i've never seen this much at stake precisely because this is about more than one seat. indeed, the integrity of two of the three coequal branches of our republic is at stake. this vote will decide whether the united states senate which at its best can serve as the conscience of the nation causes the supreme court to be indelibly tainted in the eyes of millions of americans, perhaps more than half the country. and to be clear, my opposition to judge kavanaugh is not because he was nominated by a republican president. in my 44 years in the senate, i have voted for more republican-appointed judges than almost every singl

mrs. ford and miss ramirez are talking about, have not been consulted. the public, have been misled by the -- what's going on in washington, by the president, by his party, that this week would be spent, the entire week, up to the entire week would be spent in a serious inquiry to get to the bottom of things and talk to people who are relevant. obviously, roche is relevant to the question of whether the, you know, kavanaugh's been lying and about whether he blacked out or not. whether he got -- couldn't remember things. and it seems to me we're on the verge of a vote that's going to tear this country apart because there are going to be a lot of people -- if he goes through, there's going to be a lot of people on the losing side who are going to say, wait a minute, this was a sham investigation. we thought you were, you know, dousing out the fires, instead you poured more fuel on. >> jeff, from, you know -- do you think this was a sham investigation? >> well, it certainly is a meager investigation. i don't think it's a sham in the sense that, you know, it

mr. president, dr. ford made a credible allegation of a serious offense that needs to be taken seriously. we've also heard from other women, miss ramirez, miss swetnick with their own experiences to share. they should be listened to. they should be heard. we should presume they are telling the truth and republican leaders should allow a full investigation into their allegations. because in the end, despite what some republicans tried to claim, this is not a trial. we are not supposed to weigh evidence and make judgment about innocence or guilt. our job as senators is to weigh what we know, weigh what we hear, weigh what we learn and use our own judgment to determine whether a nominee deserves a promotion to the highest court in the land. and based on everything i know about the allegations made against judge kavanaugh, he should not be confirmed and he should not be in a position to make decisions on the supreme court that impact women and families and the future of our country which takes me to my second point. judge kavanaugh's serious credibility issues. i went through this in some detail on the floor yesterday. i won't go through a

ramirez, and a couple of classmates. according to mark judge's attorney, in a statement saying that mr. judge completed his fbi interview, but they're not commenting on the questions that were asked by the fbi. notably, not on that list of people being interviewed, dr. christine blasey ford. sources telling us that the white house believes her testimony was sufficient. keep in mind republicans are calling for a vote to happen sometime this week. that process would have to gett. whend mull over the testimony from last op terms of his temperament. we're also now hearing hillary clinton talk about the tone of that hearing. >> i think for anyone who believes there's such a thing as a judicial temperament and that we want judges, particularly those on our highest court, to approach issues, approach plaintiffs and defendants with a sense of fairness, that there's a lot to be concerned about. >> reporter: so two things to look out for today, whether or not the fbi announces they are done with this probe, the report would go to senators, we're told, not go public, at least not immediately. and

mr. trump was responding to media reports that the whitect house inst the f.b.i. to investigate only the first two allegations from christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, and not a claim from a third ther potential witnesses. democratic senator mazie hirono expressed doubt that the investigation will be thorough. >> to limit the f.b.i. as to the scope and who they're going to question, that- that really- i wanted to use the word farce, but that's not the kind of investigation that all of us are expecting the f.b.i. to conduct. >> sreenivasan: white house press secretary sarah sanders said the white house is not" micromanaging" the f.b.i. investigation and said the process is up to senate republans. >> the senate is going to lay out, senate republicans are going to layut and dictate those terms and we look forward to this wrapping up so we can see what was seein the last six background investigations that judge kavanaugh has been a part of. >> sreenivasan: rescuers continued searching for survivors in indonesia today. the death toll from friday's earthquake and tsunami doubled to more than 830 overnight. the city of palu, rescu workers climbed through collapsed

mr. kavanaugh. they didn't talk to the dozens of individuals deborah ramirez said could potentially corroborate her story. they closed the investigation a full day ahead of the arbitrary deadline, and it's not clear why. based on that, in my view, this investigation was a whitewash. it was not legitimate. it was a product of intense political meddling, in my view, by the trump administration. that means if brett kavanaugh's nomination is confirmed, there are going to be questions about his legitimacy looming large for years to come. mr. president, i believe dr. ford. i heard you discussing this this morning on television. i respectfully would say, i know you don't share my view, but i felt that brett kavanaugh's behavior before the senate last week ought to be disqualifying on its own. and if you compare what he said last week to what he wrote ought to be the requirements for how a judge behaves. there is a very large gap between what brett kavanaugh said ought to be expected of a judge's behavior and what we saw last week when he testified. from the time his nomination was announced, kavanaugh por

mr. kavanaugh himself wasn't even questioned or the dozen-plus people dr. ford and debra ramirez have said could have helped collaborate their stories? why the rush? what are the republicans afraid of? if they're so convinced their nominee isn't a serial sexual assaulter, why have they done everything in their power to curb investigations into the incidents in question? the republicans who angrily claimed on tv yesterday that this nomination is taking too long are literally the same people who delayed the consideration of merrick garland's nomination for 293 days simply because he was nominated by president obama. for the chairman to claim this nomination has gone on longer than the, quote, average supreme court nomination ignores the reality that their nominee who has been credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults is being jammed through at lightning speed compared to the only other nomination he has overseen as chairman merrick garland. to leader mcconnell, chairman grassley, and my republican colleagues, i warn you, history has its eyes on you and i beg you to slow down and

sexual assaulted her in high school and deborah ramirez has come forward to allege that he sexually humiliated her at a party during his time at yale. mr. president, the two allegations by two people who do not know each other about instances that happened at different times at different places have striking similarities. both ford and ramirez allege that judge kavanaugh under the influence of alcohol and in the presence of other people assaulted or sexually humiliated while others stood by laughing. laughing. in both allegations, the sexual abuse of a woman was treated as some form of entertainment for other persons. people who suffer from suit or harassment are watching to see how the senate responds to these serious charges. and when do they see? a hearing where dr. ford described her experience calmly and carefully while judge kavanaugh attacked her claims as well as those of ms. ramirez as nothing more than a partisan, political conspiracy. a narrowly limited five-day investigation by the f.b.i., who under orders from the white house conducted a -- contacted a handful of witnesses while dozens of witnesses proffered by dr. ford an

mr. nguyen died as the result of five gunshot wounds. his family said he suffered from paranoia for years. he was 27 years old. reporting live in san jose, len ramirez, kpix 5. >>> new at 6:00, when it comes to innovation, silicon valley usually gets all the credit. but up north, napa valley is making big moves in the way they grow grapes and make wine. our emily turner joins us live from napa on what it this means for the industry. >> reporter: as the demand for wine grows and the labor market gets ghr, there are fewer and fewer human hands that touch the vines and the wine. it is also faster with quality control. >> on his computer screen he can sort what goes out and what stays in, what goes into this tank verses that tank. >> reporter: almost half the valley vineyards are harvested automatically this way. and more will be joining their ranks as they replant, especially as the labor pool will treat and the demand for wine will grow. >> there's so many acres that are planted and need to be harvested at the same time. even with 30 crews, we cannot get it done. >> reporter: wineries are going high-tech too. this machine automatically sorts the fruit

mrs. feinstein: thank you. finally, i want to mention the serious and credible allegations raised by dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, the two women who came forward to tell their experiences facing sexual assault. when dr. ford decided to make her story public, she faced all her worst fears. she was harassed, she received death threats. she had to relocate her home, her husband, and two children. and yet, in less than a week, she came before the senate and told 21 senators she had never met, along with millions of americans, about the most tragic, traumatic, and difficult experience of her life. and she did so with poise, grace, and most importantly bravery. unfortunately, she was met with partisanship and hostility. my republican colleagues have largely chosen to ignore her powerful testimony. senators weren't allowed to hear from any witnesses who could corroborate or refute her account. they refused to gather evidence or do an impartial investigation into her allegations. deborah ramirez also reluctantly came forward to tell her story. like dr. ford, miss ramirez offered to speak to the f.b.i. both ford and rami

we already know that is not true because apparently the fbi interviewed debra ramirez who was at yale and has suggested that mrugh exposed himself. ainsley: she is the avenatti client? steve: no. that is the second one. julie swetnick is the avenatti client. ainsley: oh, right. steve: she has not been contacted by the fbi or dr. ford. the second accuser debra ramirez has. shy talked to the fbi for a couple of hours. already it's beyond those four people. ainsley: they are interviewing mark judge and p.j. smythe. the dr. dr. ford said was her best friend at the party they are interviewing her and debra ramirez. brian: we will see where this goes because debra ramirez sells a week from the event whether or not it was brett kavanaugh before receive came forward. we know the democrats fanned out across the yale campus to do it. somebody else came up and said kavanaugh did in the past drink a lot to the point where he blacked out. how you would know where somebody blacked out is yawnged me. steve: they were on the team together. brian: ohio do you know somebody blacked out? ainsley: they have to have evidence. even

mr. shah in the white house. they did not include 28 corroborating character witnesses that were asked for by dr. ford, as well as ms. ramirez. so it wasn't really a complete investigation, as it should have been. when you have this kind of contradiction in sworn testimony at this level, you'd expect the fbi to have done a much better and more fulsome job. >> your colleague cory booker last night called it a sham. do you agree with that assessment? >> we can characterize it one way or another, but i expected more from the fbi. if their hands were tied by the white house and by the senate republicans, that i think has to be established publicly so that the fbi as an institution doesn't suffer from this experience. >> would you call the process a sham? >> i'd certainly say the process, the whole process is highly suspect. start to finish. >> if the democrats take over the house, do you expect ---or the senate, do you expect to want to see more of the background information, the communications between the white house counsel's office and chris wray or rosenstein we know jeff flake was on the phone with, that dramatic moment whe

ramirez, they have interviewed p.j., who was one of the witnesses, fbi announced that, leland, another one of the witnesses at the party. and i believe mr. judge. is that right? do i have that right? so you think that the white house is already in possession of these four accounts? >> the information is coming back and there's direction going back the other way. it's by direction, i'm sure, about who to go and follow up on. there will be some management from outside the fbi in my opinion based on my experience here. >> and what is the impact of that for an fbi agent? >> well, look, they want to be able to follow theological leads because they are collecting facts. so they can present the facts. they want to be alf able to resolve the allegations. if agents feel like they're being micromanaged and not able to do that with people who are two or three or four levels away from the investigation, that's somewhat frustrating. they are professionals. they'll do this in a nonpartisan way. they'll follow the facts where they lead. they're going to do the best that they can with the time constrantss placed upon them. one thing i will add, i belie

mr. kavanaugh, i'm trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. are you bart kavanaugh that he's referring t referring to? yes or no. >> reporter: as for deborah ramirez'sllegations that kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken party at a dorm. she spent two hours with the fbi giving them a list of names that they could contact for leads. cnn contacted some on the list saying they were never contacted or reached out to the fbi themselves only not to hear back. the fbi is not counting on any of this, wolf, but i can tell you based on the people i talked to, they either called or tried to talk to the fbi or talked to the fbi, it seems the fbi is very interested in what happened in dr. ford's allegations, not so much what is taking place at yale in those days. >> thank you for that report, drew. >>> we are getting some more breaking news on the fbi investigation of brett kavanaugh. let's go right to our congressional correspondent phil mattingly. he's up on capitol hill. phil, democrats on the senate judiciary committee just sent a new letter. tell us about that? >> reporter: yeah, just to give you a sense of how heated things have gotten on capitol hill and

mr. judge has been interviewed by the fbi, but his interview has not been completed. we request your patience as the fbi completes its investigation. earlier, we were told that pj smith, leland kaiser, deborah ramirezthey have also been interviewed by the fbi. so they're moving along. and it's only monday. >> yeah. so there is some confusion about the actual scope, but what's going to happen here is standard operating procedure, they're going to do interviews and each of those interviews will develop a new set of leads and just peel back the layers of the onion. now, i do think it's really unlikely they come up with something definitive, some kind of answer that is really going to convince people. you know, that said, they are probably going to develop information about, for example, judge kavanaugh's drinking. and now the gop is sort of trying to cast that as well outside the scope, but it's not. it's actually central to the allegations, not only because it would mean judge kavanaugh lied under oath, but also because if he was actually a heavy drinker as many of his classmates have testified he was, if it's likely that he blacked out, it suddenly becomes more likely that his is the faulty memory a

mr. president? the result is completely predictable. the result is we have lots of key witnesses that say they have corroborating evidence to support the allegations of dr. ford and deborah ramirez who were not interviewed. and the country will continue to hear from these witnesses after today's vote because the investigation was orchestrated by the white house and senate republican leadership. the f.b.i. was not allowed to do its full job. mr. president, it would have been better for all parties involved -- and i mean all parties, including judge kavanaugh -- to have had a thorough investigation where at the end of the day the public could have confidence that all the available evidence had been tracked down and viewed. that would have been best for the integrity of the court and the integrity of the senate. and we all know there's no requirement that we rush this confirmation. we all know that. after all, it was the republican leader who kept a seat open on the supreme court for months and months and months after president obama had nominated judge merrick garland. so this notion that there's some kind of artificial deadline is simply untrue. this is all being done to do as th