the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background check had no knowledge of what went on here. so it is now the f.b.i.'s responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis to judge kavanaugh's background, and report back to the senate the f.b.i. is the right place for this investigation for two reasons. first, the f.b.i. has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way, far better than some staffer talking to professor ford on the phone. you cannot lie to the f.b.i. that's a crime. the f.b.i. will get to the truth. they almost always do. second, our republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan conversation process, and then they immediately insinuated that dr. ford is being untruthful. republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations. they've already said that they're not true. republicans and their staff cannot do this in a respected way because they have run such a partisan investigation thus far. there

f.b.i. the f.b.i. directed us back to the white house. sb -- so if the white house takes the lead of jeff flake that wld suggest that only the ackizations the ones from blasey ford will be investierted. the owo, we'll have to see from there. >> thes investigati would cover "current credible allegations." i asked them. so what does that mn? st dr. ford tor other two and the other one? i haven't heard yet robert: the nation was transfixed. buty the riveting testimony of blasey ford and kavanaugh. >> i believed he was going to rain me. -- raped me. i tried to yell for help. this is what terrified the most. this has had the most impacting part of my life. i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. >> i'm not questioning that dr. ford may b haven sexually assaulted by some person in some place, at some time. but i have never done this. i am innocentge of this ch robert: so different than that fox news. intervi you had judge kavanaugh almost red in the face, indignant, brought back them inries of justicehomas of his confirmation he

the f.b.i. yes the f.b.i. will have gone through about going check that will of happened with a number of appointments the break cavanaugh has taken up but there are those who say that there is no reason why the f.b.i. couldn't carry out an investigation no they're not talking about something long term this could probably be wrapped up according to an f.b.i. investigator within two or three days and why is that because there's a very specific timeframe of what alleged to have happened and there are only three people to question and so for all of that they're saying that this could be done very quickly but you can see the polarization in washington d.c. hasn't got any better even though there is a president in the white house so you remember you said that he was going to heal the country quite fresh at helen fisher on twitter if you want to connect with and thank you for that leah can you expand on something for us and we sort of kimberly's report that this is the tweet from donald trump say this surely this was

percent so it really doesn't matter from their standpoint that's why when john asked about the f.b.i. if the f.b.i. did the most their own investigation of the history of the f.b.i. and they found him to be one hundred percent perfect he would lose every single vote now if the republicans win tomorrow i think you're going to get some votes from the democrats you know why because we all know why because it's called politics then you'll probably get some votes and ok let's go it's one more question i guess to follow this up i'd like to ask about three questions it's not really fair to everyone else between should i let her ask another question. go ahead it's a follow up on a question that a colleague asked as well about the benefit of the doubt that you have given to people like more and more to roger ailes to bill o'reilly to brett kavanaugh they're all men why is that it's not a benefit of their doubt but i'd instance when given the best i've known them one hit halle i've known them for a long time and a lot of these people lot of people and some i've been disappointed with i have been disappointe

the f.b.i. has. senator chuck grassley stating this. the f.b.i. ibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. nor is it tasked with investigating a matter simply because the committee deems it is important. we have no power to commandeer an executive brand agency to conduct our due diligence. it is the role of the united states senate. karen moynahan, the former girlfriend accusing d.n.c. deputy chair keith ellison of domestic abuse, she is speaking out. by the way, democrats saying nothing. moynahan was asked on twitter how she has been tweeted by the democratic party in light of the kavanaugh accusations. when asked on twitter if the dimms believed her, this is what she said -- "no, they don't. i have been feared, threatened,ite lad from my own party. i have provided medical records. i told them about the abuse and who did it. my therapist release effort saying i have been dealing and healing from the abuse. where are the dems calling for an investigation into a major leader of their party?" quite a different standa

the f.b.i. investigation, we turn to retired f.b.i. agent warren flagg. he's worked at the f.b.i. for 27 years. thank you very much, mr. flagg, for joining us. we know judge kavanaugh has undergone six background checks. how will this investigation be different? >> well, obviously, those background searches are specific as to his character, for the six times. everyone more extensive than the next as he moved up the ladder. and this one, though, has to do with additional evidence that was presented at the hearing. ie-- people were named, a diary was used, there were other people that have come forward, other people who made allegations. all those people will be interviewed as soon as possible. >> ninan: we know that dr. ford was administered a polygraph test. is that something the f.b.i. will also administer? >> the f.b.i. will not administer polygraphs because it's not evidence. it can't be used in a criminal case. we don't use them in a criminal case. it's an investigative tool. she's already passed that polygraph, but we would ask those people who the particular polygrapher is. i

the f.b.i. and the f.b.i. did what it does -- and i don't know exactly what they did in the anita hill case but did what it usually does is to re-open and evaluate the letter and then i understand that the f.b.i. closed it and sent the information to the white house as they did with the previous report before this allege came up, is that correct, mr. chairman? senator grassley: only thing i can verify is is that the f.b.i. did what -- they would usually do and they then -- and i don't know what that was, and they probably would keep their own internal stiff to themselves, but they sent a cover letter to the white house saying the issue was closed. senator crapo: the f.b.i. did look at this and did whatever it does in its background check activities and then re-sent an updated amount of information to the white house, which the white house then forwarded to us. and then the process which is traditionally been followed in this community was followed again. and i believe that immediately the chairman up an investi

the f.b.i. what doesn't someone go to f.b.i.? i have been listening to this for three weeks. one. >> juan: wait. i thought you said you oppose the f.b.i. looking at this? >> judge pirro: because they won't look at it. they don't do local crimes. they don't do sex crimes. >> juan: excuse me. they do. supreme court nominees. >> judge pirro: they do background checks if you are over 18. >> juan: so this is a background check. >> judge pirro: they did six of them. they didn't know about the woman. if the dems found the woman, they found the second one, ramirez, why didn't the f.b.i. find her in the six background checks? >> juan: remember with the anita hill case, again, the democrats were the ones who kind of forced her to public. >> judge pirro: jesse, i need your opinion. >> jesse: voice of reason needs to step in. i will say this. if you go to a party with your best friend and it's a house party and something happens. and you don't tell your best friend about it afterwards. and then the person, your best friend, who you say was at the party where the incident happened says i w

the f.b.i. investigation limited in scope, that the f.b.i. doesn't really investigate state crimes especially 36-year-old state crimes. if you're going to limit the scope of the investigation i don't expect they'll find anything. it seems almost a copout to me. they can come back and say, they found nothing, there's no corroborating witnesses, move ahead, seems like a copout for mr. flake. host: to new orleans next. caller: i think they're doing the right thing with the investigation. i think that, i mean, you shouldn't have a person like that in a high position in my opinion. and i think also that, why would this woman make something like that up? who makes something like that up? and the fact of the matter is, somebody lies. somebody is definitely lying. that's the whole point of this. the thing is, she says she knows him. she's seen him before. it wasn't like she pulled him out of a lineup. host: going to let you go, you're breaking up somewhat on us. colorado springs is next, joe on our democrats line. caller: hello. thanks for taking my c

the f.b.i. does. and they won't. >> i'm not sure the f.b.i. does. well look we'll see what happens. >> tucker: don't bring it up. what is this? you don't see this as mccarthyis? >> i don't. it came to her from a con constituent. this is not part of the hearings. >> tucker: you know what i would do? >> feinstein decided for the hearings to be based on the law and the interpretation of the law. >> tucker: you know what i would do? if i were a senator and there was someone whose politics i hated, if michael moore was up for the supreme court and i got a letter saying michael moore committed a sex crime 35 years ago and you should know about it. i'd say tell me the details, come forward. if you don't i'm burning the letter. i don't like michael moore but i'm not going to wreck his life on the basis of an anonymous accusation. that is immoral. >> this is why senator feinstein held on to letter and did not make it part of the hearing. >> tucker: so leaked to make sure the kids were ashamed. i don't even know the guy. >> we are not even sure that they leak

the f.b.i. and the f.b.i. doesn't even have jurisdiction to investigate ms ford says claim if anything it would have been investigated years ago but there's no corroboration for it so even if she had reported what she claimed at the time no prosecutor would have prosecuted anybody for it there were no clothes removed she in fact i find it difficult to even describe it as a sexual assault if you take the names out of it and think of it as a fifteen year old girl and a seventeen year old boy who'd had a beer or two or at a party it really didn't amount to any more than a fumbled attempt to make out and that's what teenagers tend to go to parties to do start seeing that we've got a big problem let me get a final thought from you i mean the u.s. supreme court has a huge impact on american political life so what's likely to be the political and legal fallout from this and could it seriously impact on the u.s. mid-terms. i think americans are outraged over the way they saw the democrats behaved throughout this whole

the f.b.i. in her interview. so the f.b.i. here may not get any more details than what we've already heard. >> glor: great details from nancy, ed, weijia, and nancy. thanks to all of you tonight. and, jan, also now tonight, a military jet crashed today, not far from its base in south carolina. smoke could be seen rising from the crash site in the woods. the marine pilot did eject safely. it's a brand-new f-35-b. that model flew its first combat mission yesterday in afghanistan. the state department said today it is closing the u.s. consulate in basra in southern iraq and evacuating diplomats stationed there. there has been plenty of unrest in basra, including rocket attacks that came close to the consulate. the state department says there are credible threats against the u.s. from iran and militias backed by iran. facebook today reported a major security breach that exposed the personal information of nearly 50 million users. nick thompson is here with more on this. nick, we have been talking about this all day. how big a deal

the f.b.i. would be doing such things if the f.b.i. was investigating then why didn't you mention the f.b.i. to this hearing opened with statements from the chair of the judiciary committee chuck grassley followed by dianne feinstein the ranking member of the ranking democrat member. said grassley made much of the fact that the judge has been investigated by the f.b.i. something like six times in order to get this far into career absolutely and one knows there are. areas you know in the high school this was a very closed group. so that it's quite possible that the f.b.i. in its back this was not for something national security is what the the launch codes i think there are different levels of seriousness when they're doing the background checks you know looking for the chris obvious criminal activity if it sounds like it's private parties i could imagine. that would have been enough oh yeah there was while i had beer when i was a boy he could have told them that that probably somewhere in the f.b.i. record and it wasn't pursued further well that the hearing is continuing as we speak so if you

percent so it really doesn't matter from their standpoint that's why when john asked about the f.b.i. if the f.b.i. did the most their own investigation in the history of the f.b.i. and they found him be one hundred percent perfect he would lose every single vote now if the republicans win tomorrow i think you're going to get some votes from the democrats you know why because we all know why because it's called politics then you'll probably get some votes and ok let's go it's one more question i used to follow just as if i'd like to ask about three questions it's not really fair to everyone else between should i let her ask another question a lot. go ahead say follow up on a question asked as well about the benefit of the doubt that you have given to people like more and more to roger ailes to bill o'reilly to brett kavanaugh they're all men why is that it's not a benefit of their doubt but i'd instance when given the best i've known them all hit have i've known them for a long time and a lot of these people a lot of people and some i've been disappointed with i happen disappointed with some other

the f.b.i., mr. strzok and the top f.b.i. within that department, that agency, when i worked there you didn't wear your political stripes. it was a badge of honor to be non-political. i've never seen this kind of politicalization of the f.b.i. and the department. that's why i think in this case -- the fact that they used political opposition research as evidence to get a warrant to spy on an american citizen is so extraordinary. i think these are extraordinary times and i think it calls for transparency. sunlight is the best disinfectant here. i think the american people deserve to know what happened. >> sandra: at the end of all of it, perhaps it can be good for morale and the lack of trust, perhaps, that we have seen discussed when it comes to our intelligence communities in the wake of all this. what do you think? >> i think so, too. i think once this is cleaned up, the american people will know there was a few bad apples at the top and rank and file members of the f.b.i. and the intelligence community are good patriots wor

the f.b.i. and the f.b.i. doesn't even have jurisdiction to investigate ms forward's claim if anything it would have been investigated years ago but there's no corroboration for it so even if she had reported what she claimed at the time no prosecutor would have prosecuted anybody for it there were no clothes removed she in fact i find it difficult to even describe it as a sexual assault if you take the names out of it and think of it as a fifteen year old girl and a seventeen year old boy who'd had a beer or two or at a party it really didn't amount to any more than a fumbled attempt to make out and that's what teenagers tend to go to parties to do start saying that we've got a big problem let me get a final thought from you i mean the u.s. supreme court has a huge impact on american political life so what's likely to be the political and legal fallout from this and could it seriously impact on the u.s. midterm.

the f.b.i. has helped unearth for them the f.b.i. needs to go around in interview or potential witnesses it could be that mark judge who was the person who we know witnessed these events according to christine ford's version of events would talk to an f.b.i. investigator that was not willing to testify in public before the senate after that the senate would be well equipped to interview a both parties involved and there may be others who come out at that point and all witnesses should be heard. and at that at that point it is for the senate to make a judgment not about whether or not it's unfair to brett kavanaugh to hold this events these allegations again against him if in fact they are true. but whether or not he is the best person to serve as the next supreme court justice that's a question that has nothing to do with fairness or responsibility it has to do with a judgment of his character and of his qualifications. this was supposed to be a an easier wind for the republicans until dr ford stepped out with her story what do you th

the f.b.i. india a.j. related to ongoing investigations so what's the documentation well we've got messages from peter strock former f.b.i. special agent to his mistress lisa page an f.b.i. attorney who just happened to be working on the bob muller investigation peter strong actually lost his job after messages you sent to lisa page were made public those messages were politically charged and revealed that the couple wasn't exactly fond of donald trump trump's not ever going to become president right right no no he won't stop it now here's some glaring examples from those messages that were included in meadows letter to the d.o.j. peta stroke contacts lisa page to discuss the media leaks strategy specifically to take says i had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you i want to talk to you about media leaks strategy with d.o.j. before you. congratulations page on a job well referring to the rogue trio it's about costs a page in the text stroke patients who are schools are coming out one which is worse than the other about lisa's namesake stroke i did well done page a media strategy interesting now the attorneys

the f.b.i. can do. i have a lot of confidence that the f.b.i. will do its job and answer those very serious and urgent questions. the answers are all the more oppressing after the extraordinary hearing that we held yesterday at the judiciary committee. the entire nation watched as two people told their stories. two very, very different stories, and also told in very, very different ways. but let's be very clear, the roles of these individuals and their responsibilities were also very different. judge brett kavanaugh came before us for a job interview. he has no right to be on the united states supreme court. it is a privilege of extraordinary magnitude and significance. the position is one of the most important in our country, a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. our responsibility on the judiciary committee is not to approve just anyone for that job we should be seeking the best person, a person of intellect and integrity and temperament who will be fair and impartial, objective, and considerate. i concluded well before the h

so the committee already has the statements iess think that they would be getting from the f.b.i. if the f.b.i. were the ones taking the statements instead. >> woodruff: i think... i hear what you're saying. i also hear others say when the f.b.i. is out there doing the investigation, asking the questions, that it's... that people feel more compelled to come forward with the whol c story and yold apply that to these second set of accusations now that have come from the woman who says that judge kavanaugh, when he was a freshman yale, exposed himself to her. >> well, as to the sond allegation, judy, i think what's important for viewers to remember is that this is a story that "the new york times" itself refused to run. there is not a single eyewitness to corroborate this story, and that's after both "the new yorker" and "the new york times" reported th each outlet had spoken to dozen, dozens of judge kavaugh's classmates and contemporaries without finding anyone to corroborate it, and there are stateon the record from people who knew him at the time who say tthat t is not only out of character f

the f.b.i. to investigate claims made against you? >> tucker: an f.b.i. investigation sounds reasonable. would be the seventh f.b.i. investigation that has looked deeply into brett kavanaugh's personal conduct. he was once staff secretary to president of the united states and had the highest level of security clearance this country gives. one that gave him access to america's nuclear codes. he got that clearance becauseme the f.b.i. spoke at length to a cross section of everyone he had every met, going back to high school and earlier and there were no hints of sexual assaults. none. there is nothing left to investigate here.. everyone knows that. this is a political tactic and it's disingenuous. why are they doing it? simple. democrats know if the vote on brett kavanaugh is held soon, he will be confirmed. if it's delayed by pointless f.b.i. investigations demanded by demagogues in bad faith, he will not be confirmed because the accusations will never end. the incentive to make them is too strong. you will see anonymous claims he led gang rapes on sailboats in rhode island or wherever. th

f.b.i. investigation in claims first. of course the u.s.nate, they don't control the f.b.i. or what they choose to investigate. advise and consent. the constitutional role of united states state senate. not the f.b.i. we know the f.b.i. stated publicly the allegation does not involve any federal crime. now the senate can only perform their own probe. unfortunately, they are now tonight being stonewalled. politics is in play. as of tonight, dianne feinstein will not even shownate republicans on the committee the full unredacted leter that professor ford sent to democrats when she first made her allegations in july. now according to the judiciary committee chairman. charles chuck grassley. the letter to ford's attorneys the committee, they are having a hard time reaching ford. "committee staff has attempted to contact you directly by phone, e-mail several times to schedule a call at a convenient time for you and your client. we thus far have not heard back from you with regard to that request." grassley's letter reiterated the invitation to appear before congress. "you have stated repeatedly that dr. ford wants to tell her story. i sincerely hope that dr. ford will accept my enviation to the so eith

the f.b.i. today, he said if that request comes in, there's nothing off limits the f.b.i. can look into any of the allegations a they see fit. what exactly sit democrats want to get frothe f.b.i. investigation? >> they're asking something new of the f.b.i. in jusa few minutes. senator patrick leahi says he nts the f.b. to investigate crimes against dr. blasey ford including hacking of her emai and death threats against her. there is an ivestigation into what's happening to her the democrats are requesting. democrats in particular would like the f.b.i. to interview mark judge, the other person professor ford says was there and they think he needs to be under oath and accountable for what he says. >> woodruff: that's the other ys wase have of who she sa at the party at that home that night. william, how long does it tae, do we know, to conduct this kind of investigation? >> as with any of the investigation, it depends on the complexity of the investigation. a lot of the democrats pointed out at anita hill's investigations in the early '90s against clarence thoma were also inv

the f.b.i. into judge kavanaugh. the latest push for that to happen, an f.b.i. is coming from kristin ford's attorney saying she will not appear before the senate judiciary committee unless there is an f.b.i. investigation. something that the f.b.i. would not normally do according to president trump and for the first time today as he was leaving for north carolina he publicly indicated that he believes kavanaugh's side of the story. listen here. >> president trump: the f.b.i. has been very involved with respect to justice kavanaugh. they know him very well. they've investigated him i guess six times and investigated him for this hearing. look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we'll have to make a decision. but i can only say this, he is such an outstanding man, very hard for me to imagine that anything happened. >> it's unclear whether ford will attend the hearing scheduled for monday in the senate judiciary committee. in a statement her attorney said her worst fears have materialized and been the target of vicious h

the f.b.i. finishes this investigation." even though the f.b.i. had completed its background information. when we followed up with judge kavanaugh after we received dr. ford's allegations, the ranking member staff didn't join us, even though these calls are usually done on a bipartisan basis. they joined other calls with a judge, but they didn't participate or ask any questions. would you please rise, sir. >> yes. >> do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> yeah. and like we offered to senator or to dr. ford, you can take whatever time you want now for your opening statement. then we'll go to questions. proceed. mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein, and members of the committee, thank you for alouing me to make my statement. i wrote it myself yesterday afternoon or evening. no one has seen a draft or it except for one of my former law clerks. less than two weeks ago dr. ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were b

the f.b.i. all three women have said they would like the f.b.i. to investigate please do so all three have said they have other witnesses and evidence to corroborate their accounts and yet republicans continue to blindly push forward so today we're moving forward with a hearing and being asked to assess the credibility of brett kavanaugh he's made several statements about how his focus was on school basketball service projects and going to church he declared that he quote never and quote drank so much he couldn't remember what happened and he has quote always treated women with dignity and respect and quote and while he is. made these declarations more and more people have come forward challenging his characterization of events and behaviors james roche his freshman roommate yale stated kavanagh was and i quote again frequently incoherently drunk and quote and that was when quote he became aggressive and belligerent and when he was drunk liz swisher a friend of his from yale said and i quote there's no medical way i can say that he was blacked out

the f.b.i. have to do with it? >> the f.b.i. s conducted an extensive background investigation in to brett kavanaugh. >> tucker: not a criminal investigation. >> correct. but it's probably best means by which to expand the investigation. >> tucker: last question. i'm told we are out of time. do you think she should participate in the f.b.i. or investigation or has she said enough to the therapist? we are in crazy town now. does she have an obligation? >> that is up to her. she has done more -- >> tucker: no it's. no you can't allege a felony and not explain herself. that is not up to her. i have tried to be sensitive. every american citizen who alleges a crime has an obligation against him or herself. >> she is trying to shed light on her experience with this man. it's one view. >> tucker: you are a rapist. just one view. thank youment -- thank you. what does a law enforcement official think about the allegation against kavanaugh? we will speak to one after the break. will it feel like the wheend of a journey?p working, or the be

the f.b.i. to be investigating keg parties is out what the f.b.i. is supposed to be doing. and i don't think anyone said anything about the f.b.i. here but i know that i think it would be good if we could at least respect the rule of law and not ridicule when someone like brian says you know hey maybe if you're a girl you shouldn't be out doing this you know if nothing justifies any kind of sexual assault i think with really very careful they're green but we're not even talking about sexual assault this woman what is known as largely white house and you were neither can the other woman and by the way and by the way i'm a woman and that doesn't give me any more credibility to talk about this than it does any of the three of you and by the way i have daughters and i have sons and i'm not just concerned about my daughter's not you know being stuck in some bad situation someday i'm worried about my sons being accused of everything they did very good point and losing the right you know her jumping that's what's wrong i have to jump in here we have to go to a hard break after our