mr. ramirez to testify.till despite the lack of evidence, the left of course rushing to judgment as they have in so many prior occasions, smearing judge kavanaugh, not even wanting to hear his side of it. and rushing to judgment and saying, i believe one person. this is dangerous for anyone in society, we should all believe it would be political. we should believe in the presumption of innocence but many don't. watch this. >> this is a monumental defining moment this week when you have someone like him going to prison and in the same breath, kavanaugh possibly going to the highest court in the land. >> we want america to believe that the only thing he did until well into his college years was effectively kiss or wrench kiss a woman. is that what he wants america to believe? >> and to be honest that's very much a white male republican defense. >> if they go through a senate hearing, and it becomes a seat, circus, they push it through and it passes, there will be as we said last week an asterisk that is there

mrs. ramirez's allegations against you? >>. >> and the ranking member ask you about ms. ramirez? >> no. >> when was the first time when any colleagues or their staff. >> i think it is a disgrace. >> so today's hearing is those serious allegations but you forgot your credibility. you found that your answers although vigorously defended that role of law takes yallegations seriously that brings no joy to question on theseat topics that are worthy of your attention. so return to a line of questioning whether you have ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening afterdr drinking? >> i have already answered the second one as far as the first, the answer to that is basically no. i don't know what you mean by that. what are you talking about? i don't mean it that way but no is the basic answer. >> the reason i am asking there is a very brief period of time to weigh evidence to say i wish we had more evidence do you remember liz swisher a college classmate from yale? >> first the point about the outside evidence all four witnesses. >> all of those witnesses at the event d

mrs. ramirez and mrs. is that correct? >> yes. >> all three of these women have asked the fbi to investigate their claims. i listened carefully to what you said. your concern is evident and clear. if you're very confident of your position and you appear to be, why aren't you also asking the fbi to investigate these claims? >> senator, i'll do whatever the committee wants. i wanted a hearing the day after the allegation came up. i wanted to be here that day. instead, ten days passed where all of this nonsense is coming out, you know, that i'm in gangs, i'm on boats in rhode island. i'm in colorado. i'm cited all over the place. these things and printed and run by cable news breathlessly. i wanted a hearing the next day. my family has been destroyed by this, senator. destroyed. >> and i'm -- >> whoever wants -- whatever the committee decides. i'm all in. >> the question is -- >> immediately. all in immediately. >> the terrible and hard part of this is, when we get an allegation, we're not in a position to prove it or disprov

mr. ramirez said. and kathy, i will throw this to you. not one person that either professor ford or miss ramirez bring up as these witnesses in this case. say a single thing that corroborates their story, not one. >> they are completely uncorroborated allegations, and brett has unequivocally denied them and i believe him because it's inconsistent with everything we know about him as a person. i've known him for over 20 years, in the professional context in the white house, and also as a close, personal friend. nothing about this gels with the person that we know and that is why you have had such an outpouring of support from women who know him, throughout every stage of his life. >> sean: you've known him for over two decades. when you look at the 11th hour of all of this and the fact that in the case of professor ford, they have this back in july and only today returned over the original letter to the republicans, it's shocking to me that people -- that so wrong. as senator collins said it, it's not fair to anybody to hold something like

mr. ramirez -- mrs. ramirez. she refused to talk to the committee. they're going to ask mark judge did you ever see judge kavanaugh drug women or engage in gang rape. i think that will be the focus of it. >> these are serious allegations. we've been calling for an fbi investigation for what seems like months. these are not normal times. under normal times in a situation like this there would be an fbi report. >> reporter: here's the question, how long does this probe ultimately run? the white house is telling us based on what the senate laid out, the probe should be over by week's end. i'll believe that at the end of the week. back to you. leland: so much as changed so quickly on this one. kevin cork at the white house, thank you. eboni's got more. eboni: the white house said it's not micro managing the fbi investigation into judge kavanaugh. doug mche'l mcelway has the lat. >> reporter: president trump dispaged an fbi report claiming the fbi was called only to investigate the allegations of dr. ford and deborah ramirez, not those represented by mich

mrs. ramirez are wrong. >> that is emphatically what i am saying. emphatically. the last one is a joke and it is a farce. >> would you like to say more about it? >> no. >> with senator feinstein on the judiciary committee and maria is next. >> i don't know how the people can retell the story and the story can change. but they told the story about being shot in the helicopter. when they shared higher than their psychologist. telling yourself over andye over again who those characters were and who they were. it was completely fictitious i do not doubt she was assaulted by someone. >> she did sayva 100 percent certain it was brett kavanaugh and those were his words. >> so was brian williams when he was shot at at the helicopter. he was telling what his brain had10 remembered. it is a psychological fact. but they can retell themselves a story. because it is re- told and retold but they actually believe it. >> good evening in south carolina. >>caller. i don't have any doubt that something happened to her but nobody can say they were there i do think what has happened

mrs. ramirez's story that she told in the new yorker.ending potentially away to a hardening of positioning for republicans, but it still -- we're only a couple hours into this still and it's a real question in my mind if this is something that's going to ultimately pull republicans together, harden them, make them want to fight for brett kavanaugh or if this could be the beginning of the end of his confirmation. >> well, you know, mika, certainly i would think that its hardened the position of democrats who were considering supporting brett kavanaugh. i think that's -- that's one take away. i don't think we will see the four, five, six democrats that were considering crossing over doing that now. >> no. >> they're most likely hard nosed. this really does bring it down to jeff flake, susan collins and lisa murkowski. and now, of course, another accusation coming out last night from the new yorker. >> yeah, let's go there. supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh issued a stern denial last night to a second allegation of sexual misconduct. th

and what you're saying, if i understand it, is that the allegations by dr ford, mr meares —— miss ramirezt is emphatically what i'm saying. emphatically. that is a farce. would you like to say more about it? no. that's it. thank you, mr chairman. dr ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. did you consume alcohol during her high school years? yes, we consume alcohol during her high schoolyears? yes, we drink beer. my friends and i, boys and girls. yes, we drink beer, liked beer in still liked beer. we drink beer. the seniors were legal. senior year in high school, people were legal to drink. yeah, we drink beerand i said, sometimes, probably had too many beers and other times, other people had too many beers. we drink beer. we liked beer. what do you consider to be too many beers?|j don't know. you know, whatever the chart says. on blood—alcohol chart. when you talked to fox news the other night, you said that there we re other night, you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. does that include you? sure. have you ev

mrs. ramirez and mrs. swetnick are false?h, doi. >> if you have anything nog hide, would agree to an independent investigation into the allegations? >> asked and answered. i wanted a hearing the next day, the next day. >> okay. that in no way answers my question. would you agree to an fbi investigation? >> you want a real investigation? then just look at my calendar. [ laughter ] and you're going to see that every night i was lifting weights with p.j. and squee and hank, gang bang greg. which the liberal media is going to find some way to spin. >> oh, boy. so shall we discuss? host of reliable sources, brian stelter is with us. a lot has been said about "snl" parodies and the impact they have on political careers when you think of chevy chase and sarah palin and this last one with melissa mccarthy, sean spicer. how do you think that impression of frat boy kavanaugh is going to go down. >> the "snl" writers and producers are trying to cement an impression of this nominee as being an angry man, someone not suited for the job. i

mr. ramirez. >> tucker: so even those of you that are absolutely dead certain that brett kavanaugh is guiltybecause you saw it on cnn, would have to admit this does put him in a tough spot. brett kavanaugh no longer has that protection so it's up to him to clear his own name. he has to figure out how he can prove that christine ford's foggy 36-year-old memories are wrong or his daughters cannot grow up learning about how their data as a sex offender, that's his choice. and, democrats are demanding that kavanaugh called down yet another but democrats want another. the only way he can show he's innocent of these charges, various and dumb people on television agree with this and nod their heads in unison. but what that really work? is that the purpose of fbi investigations? joe biden doesn't think so. keep in mind that biden is both an attorney and former chairman of the senate judiciary committee. watch this. >> the next person that refers to an fbi report as being worth anything doesn't understand anything obviously. fbi explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. peri

mr. ramirez. >> here's what chris is saying. and i like chris.to me that you were not at a party 35 years ago and didn't sexually assault somebody at that party, but i can't tell you where it was or when it was. he said i've never sexually assaulted anyone at any time, but under this construct he will have to prove 35 years ago he wasn't at a party. >> martha: it's interesting because joe biden in 1991 said this about the presumption of innocence. >> judge, with me from the beginning, and at this moment until the end, the presumption is with you. >> anything trump, fair game, they knew about this in july and i've never been more upset than i have now. i voted for kagan and sodium ir. everything about judge kavanaugh screens this is not true. he is not bill cosby. he's not weinstein. he's lived a good life and this is an allegation 35 years old unverified and i'm not going to ruin his life based on that. show me something credible that has yet to do it. >> martha: let's play joe biden also in 1991 talking about the rule of an fbi investigation, wa

mr. ramirez. >> number one, to the democrats, they knew about this since july 30th. they chose to do nothing about it. for them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire. the allegations against judge kavanaugh are collapsing. this has been the worst low point in the senate for me and that is saying a lot. i never thought it would get this bad. we will have a hearing thursday and i look forward. to supporting this good man. when it comes to donald trump, there are no boundaries or no rules. what ever you need to do to destroy he and his agenda, there are no rules. >> that's very sad. >> we have a serious allegation, and i know -- a month ago the girlfriend of keith ellison, number two at the dnc, was running for attorney general in minnesota. repeated physical and emotional abuse. the reason i say this is selected moral outrage, they haven't uttered a word. so it's only guilt by accusation if you are a conservative or republican or appointed by republican. >> democrats are willing to believe anything about a trunk nominee. they didn't

ramirez, and others. and mr.anaugh will have an opportunity to speak to the fbi, and he is going to have an opportunity to provide his version of events, but it is not something that you just rush through. you are talking about a lifetime ap a pointment -- lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land and it has to be done correctly and thoughtfully and done in a fair manner. >> now a statement from raj shah of the white house on behalf of judge kavanaugh, and the statement from judge kavanaugh is that this is ridiculous a friend the "twilight zone" and i don't know who this is and this has never happened. can you respond to that? >> that is probably coming from the same brett kavanaugh who expects the american people to believe that when he was in high school, he was being, trying to be a good friend to all of the boys and the girls and, you know, i laughed when i saw this interview on ofox news the other night. andrea, how stupid does he think that the american people really are. you cannot reconcile wh

mr. ramirez. >> so julie swetnick will not be interviewed by the fbi?k the accusations she names are outrageous. >> allegations looked into by the fbi investigation. republican strategist susan del persio and legal analyst. you're not at home today. you look in a different place altogether. >> on the road. >> how are you interpreting all this, howard? >> graham is trying the thing in the press, which he should know better than that. it's a train wreck. it's a train wreck for the supreme court. 70% of the public thought the supreme court was nothing but a political body, and this is going to drive that number higher. i don't think it's going to look too great for the republicans, either, in the upcoming elections. it sounds like the fbi investigation may be compromised by the president. so it's a huge mess and it's not going to get better in the foreseeable future. >> do you, susan, think that democrats will have a valid reason to cast out on the entire investigation if swetnick is not interviewed? >> no, i think senator graham is right, the allegations

and mrs ramirez's allegations about you true? those are not. —— are.i would not characterise it, but calling classmates last week and it seemed very, i willjust stop there. it is not true. it is not true. and this week nick's allegations about you true? those are not true. that know who she is. never met her. there is a letter released within two hours of that breaking yesterday of 60 people who knew me, men and women, who in their words, said it was nonsense. the whole thing, totally ridiculous. none of these allegations are true? correct. no doubt in your mind? zero. 100% certain. not even a scintilla? you zero. 100% certain. not even a scintilla ? you swear to zero. 100% certain. not even a scintilla? you swear to god?” zero. 100% certain. not even a scintilla? you swear to god? i swear to god. that is all i have, judge. judge kavanagh, thank you very much. hearing adjourned. studio: there you go, testimony has been heard from supreme court nominee justice brett kavanaugh, been heard from supreme court nomineejustice brett kavanaugh, and christine b

mrs. ramirez. have people who are telling me stories about what happened to them and credibly accusing judge kavanaugh of violent behavior,, sexual assault, of behavior that is disqualifying. >> tucker: that was harvey weinstein's personal friend, senator kirsten gillibrand in new york. seth baron has covered her, watch very closely, associate editor of "city journal. seth, when you see senator gillibrand position herself as a defender of all women everywhere, what is your response to that? >> well, i don't know how it is that she has heard the two accusers and agrees with them because have they really said anything at? she is over very long history of embracing whatever is expedient and dispensing with whatever is no longer experienced expedien. she was elected in 2006 as a conservative democrat. out the motto was her mentor afr hillary clinton became secretary of state in 2009. she was a conservative, she had a letter a rating from the nra. she had been a philip morris attorney. then when she bec

mrs. ramirez seems believable.will become a very different question. >> speaking of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, he was speaking at the values voter summit on friday and had high praise for brett kavanaugh and assured the crowd that he will be on the supreme court. >> you're all following the current supreme court fight. and you will watch it unfold. in the course of the next week. president trump has nominated a stunningly successful individual. you've watched the fight. you've watched the tactics, in the ver knew future, very near future, judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. >> back in july, "the new york times" reported that according to republican officials, senator mcconnell had been pushing for two other nominees. reportedly telling the president, judges rammond kethledge and thomas hardiman presented the fewest obstacles to be confirmed to replace justice kennedy to the supreme court. and judge brett kavanaugh would pose difficulties for his confirmation. and betsy this figh

mrs. ramirez, who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations. >> this shameful, shameful smear campaign has hit a new low. this is what the so-called resistance has become. >> mcconnell is usually pretty mild-mannered. but he was furious today charging someone democrats have orchestrated all of this, all of these allegations, and he's upset about it. >> shannon: that's about as fired up as we see him get braids because he's a little busted up. >> shannon: more from him coming up. thank you very much. judge brett kavanaugh vows to fight on denying all allegations tonight he is breaking his silence exclusively with fox news host martha maccallum,d his wife also talk about how the allegations are affecting their family. >> this process is incredibly difficult. harder than we imagined, and we imagined it might be hard. but at the end of the day, our faith is strong, and we know that we are on the right path. we will just stick to it. >> let's get into some of these allegations because he responded to them and statements. you haven't had a chance to respond to them in a fuller way, and chris

mrs. ramirez seems believable.t will become a very different question. >> speaking of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, he was speaking at the values voter summit on friday and had high praise for brett kavanaugh and assured the crowd that he will be on the supreme court. >> you're all following the current supreme court fight. and you will watch it unfold. in the course of the next week. president trump has nominated a stunningly successful individual. you've watched the fight. you've watched the tactics, in the ver knew future, very near future, judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. >> back in july, "the new york times" reported that according to republican officials, senator mcconnell had been pushing for two other nominees. reportedly telling the president, judges rammond kethledge and thomas hardiman presented the fewest obstacles to be confirmed to replace justice kennedy to the supreme court. and judge brett kavanaugh would pose difficulties for his confirmation. and betsy this fi

mrs. ramirez and six requests for evidence for attorneys for miss swetnick. neither attorney has made their clients available for interview. the committee can't do an investigation if attorney are stone walling. i hope you all understand that we have attempted to seek additional information as we do a lot of times when there are holes in what we call the b.i. reports. additionally all the witnesses should know by when i say all the witnesses i mean dr. ford and i mean judge kavanaugh. all the witnesses show know they have the right under senate rule 26.5 to ask that the committee go into closed session if a question requires an answer that is a clear invasion of their right to privacy. it's either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh feel that senate rule 26.5 ought to be involved they should simply say so. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i will make just a brief comment on your references to me. yes i did receive a letter from dr. ford. it was conveyed to me by a member of congress on issue. the next day, i called dr. ford, we spoke on the pho

ramirez's home county. so he was the perfect fit. and for anybody who knows mr. garnett, there is no way he would play politics with some sort of information like this. he cares about victims of sexual violence and wouldn't put forth information that was not accurate. >> and just so i'm clear you're saying you would not have asked your client whether or not "the new york times" reporting was correct that she called up former yale classmates and to some expressed she wasn't sure if kavanaugh was involved? >> i haven't asked her about the information in the "new york times" article, no. >> if that in fact was true -- sorry. go ahead. >> yeah. i mean, if that's true, it would be more evidence of the fact that she wanted to be very, very deliberate about what was being put forth. she is probably the most careful and conscientious client that i've ever represented. she is very adamant that she's not going to put forward information that she doesn't actually recall and doesn't think it's something she can rely on. and to the extent she was looking for any additional in

mr. ramirez is allegations, i acted immediately to investigate them. unlike her democratic colleagues, some of who sat on her story and apparently conducted their own private investigation rather than share it with the chairman. i first learned of her allegations when they became public in the article new yorker, published late sunday evening, september 23. my staff immediately contacted her counsel asking when she was available for an interview with committee investigators. next afternoon monday september 24 her counsel responded that ms. ramirez quote as accurately relayed what she recalls to the new yorker. end of quote. her counsel added, however, that quote she would do welcome an investigation by the fbi into this investigation and would cooperate with such on appropriate terms she would also agreed to be interviewed in person, and the court. over the 24th and the 25th of this month my staff repeatedly asked ms. ramirez counsel to questions before setting up a call to discuss her allegations. so that such a call could actually be meaningful and u

miss are me ramirez's or the cl mr. avenatti's. i don't know if they were embarrassed -- the ranking member omitted his client's most scandalous allegations, you as a criminal mastermind. omitted those from her statement. this hearing has focused, rightly so, on the allegations dr. ford presented. and let me say, i think the committee did the right thing in giving dr. ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. and the committee treated her with respect, as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would then look to, what else do we know when you have conflicted testimony? well, we know that dr. ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred, all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record under penalty of perjury that they do not recall what she is alleging happened. they have

the judge is accused of exposing himself to deborah ramirez when they were students in the 1980s. mrng. it comes days after dr christine blasey ford testified to a senate panel, and president donald trump ordered a investigation by the fbi. he isa he is a very high—quality person. i would expect it is going to turn out very well for thejudge. there has never been anybody that has been looked at likejudge never been anybody that has been looked at like judge kavanaugh never been anybody that has been looked at likejudge kavanaugh are. i think that it is going to work out very well but the fbi, i believe, is doing a really greatjob. they have been all over it already. the billionaire entrepreneur elon musk has agreed to step down as chairman of the tesla electric car company over a misleading tweet that said he was ready to take the firm private. he's been fined £15 million, as has the company. he'll remain tesla's chief executive, as lebo diseko now reports. he is known for pushing boundaries when it comes to tech innovation, leading the way on electric cars and space exploration. but

the judge is accused of exposing himself to deborah ramirez when they were students in the 1980s. mrany wrongdoing. it comes days after dr christine blasey ford testified to a senate panel, and president donald trump ordered a investigation by the fbi. the billionaire entrepreneur, elon musk, has agreed to step down as chairman of the tesla electric car company, over a misleading tweet that said he was ready to take the firm private. he's been fined £15 million, as has the company. he'll remain tesla's chief executive as lebo diseko now reports. he's known for pushing boundaries when it comes to tech innovation, leading the way on electric cars and space exploration. but now, it seems elon musk has pushed too far. in august, he tweeted, saying he would take tesla back into private ownership at a price of $420 a share. and, crucially, he said he had the funding secured. the stock market regulator said that was false and misleading and so they charged him. we allege that musk had arrived at the price of $420 by assuming a 20% premium of what tesla's then—existing share price, and then

ramirez allegations he met today. >> i think it's a disgrace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, today's hearing is about doctor ford serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally denied those claims, but we are here today to assess her credibility and yours. in our previous, vigorous exchanges in the previous hearing rounds, i found that your answers vigorously defended but other times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues credit against that backdrop that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. :ac : : that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today, but i do think they're serious and i think they are worthy of our attention. so, let me, if i can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before. which was about whether you've ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after >> with the first basically no i don't know what you mean by t

miss ramirez' allegations and the allegations of mr. avenatti. not a single democrat. i don't know if they were too embarrassed? mr. avenatti's allegations were so scandalous, the ranking member omitted those scandalous accusations from her statement. this hearing has focused rightly so on the allegations dr. ford presented. i think the committee did the right thing in giving dr. ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. the committee treated her with respect as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and her testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would look to what else do we know when we have conflicting effort money. dr. ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred. all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record under penalty of perjury that they do not recall what she is alleging happened. they have not only not corroborated her charges, they have expl

joining us now is the attorney who represents deborah ramirez in this matter, john clune. mr. clune, thank you very much for joining us this evening. i appreciate you making time for us. >> thank you, rachel. >> so you said publicly today that you have reached out to the senate judiciary committee, that there was an effort made to discuss how best to bring him this information that has been put forward by your client. can you tell us the status of those discussions or those negotiations? >> sure. so we've had a number of e-mail communications back and forth, and every time we try to set up a phone call with them, they end up pushing the phone call back. and then since i sent out that tweet about two hours ago, we had a phone call scheduled, and we called in for the phone call, and only the minority party showed for the phone call. >> so you received communication from the chairman or the chairman's staff, from the majority committee staff, but only democrats were on the call? >> that's correct. >> what do you make of that? that seems odd. >> you know, it's disturbing. they kee

mrs. ford. steve: sounds like we are going to hear from somebody else too. in addition to dr. ford who is going to testify on thursday and then second woman ms. ramirezchael avenatti stormy daniels lawyer says he has credible information about mr. kavanaugh and mark judge who he was classmates back in high school. some of the allegations are in the paper today and they are disgusting. brian: brett kavanaugh also said, by the way if this helps i will release my schedule 1928 between the canks i was after the and what i was doing with college visits. i don't know if i even had time to go to a party like this. we look forward to hearing from him. james roach was a roommate with kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident and now the ceo of a software company says debby and i became close friends shortly after we became toll yale. she stood out at kind and gentle i can't imagine her making it up. other people saying it didn't happen. doesn't sound like her to make it up. is this enough? you wonder why if this meant so much and was so damaging allegedly it has been why wouldn't it come out earlier? why at this point? why would fou dems know about it. th

ramirez's allegations? >> today. >> i think it is a disgrace. >> senator kuntz. >> tnk you, mr. chairman.avanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious sexualions about assault. you have unequivocally denied but we are he today to assess her credibly and yours. in our previous rigorous exchanges in the previous confirmation rounds, i found that your answers were at times vigorously defended, but at other times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues. it is based on that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that the rule of law means taking allegations seriously, and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today, but i d think they are serious worthy of our attention. so let me if i can return to a li ofuestioning my colleague was on before, which wasut a whether you have ever gotten aggressive while drinking, or forgotten an evening after drinking? >> those are two different questions. i have artie answered the second one. i think therst, answer to that is basically no. iat don't really know ou mean by that

mr. chairman. >> joining me now is attorney for deborah ramirez, who was a freshman at the same time brett kavanaugh a freshman at yale university. first of all, i just want to get your reaction to what you just heard the judge say. >> about denying -- no surprise that he's going to deny what has been accused against him. but i don't think we were expecting anything else. i'm surprised he didn't want to give any more information about ms. swetnick. >> the judge was repeatedly asked whether he would ask for an fbi investigation. he declined to do so. is deborah ramirez's position that she wants an fbi investigation into her allegation? >> that's her position, and it's only been strengthened by watching what happened today and some of the other dealings we've had with the senate judiciary committee. he's not going to do anything like this political theater we saw without an fbi investigation. >> the judge called this process a circus, saying that allegations against him were a political hit. i mean, is there any truth to that? what is your response to that? >> you know, i mean, i heard you talking abo

miss ramirez herself contacted former gail classmates asking if they recall the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain mrcavanagh was the one who exposed himself. now one of the authors of the deborah ramirez stories said she didn't contact congress, it was the other way around. >> sheep came forward because senate democrats began looking at this campaign. this came to the attention of people on the hill independently and it's really cornered her into an awkward position. >> democratic senator joe manchin says the accusers and kavanaugh should all be heard. >> there has to be something more than just an allegation, and i think the first is very serious, the second one seems very, very serious. >> orrin hatch senses a dirty trick. >> it's amazing to me that these allegations come out of nowhere at the last minute and it's not untypical for our friends on the other side to pull that. >> no matter how tough the next few days are, kavanaugh insists he won't cave. >> my life long record of promoting dignity and equality for women, starting with the women who knew me when i was 14 years old. i'm not going anyw

miss ramirez' allegations, and the allegations of the client of mr. avenatti. not a singledemocrat. i don't know if they were just too embarrassed -- mr. avenatti's allegations are so scandalous that they h omitted most scandalous allegations of you as a criminal mastermind. omitted them from the statement. this hearing has focused rightly on the allegations dr. ford presented. and i think the hearing did the right they know in giving her a full and fai opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do. the committee treated herith respect, as we should. i do not believe senate democrats treated with you respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would look to what else do we know when you have conflicting testimony? we know dr. ford identifiedth e fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred. all three of those fact witnesses have stayed on the record, under penalty of perjury, that the do no recall what she is alleging happen. they have not only not corroborated her charges. they have expl

mr. kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself. but within a span of six days and after consulting with classmates and democrats, ramirez magically recovered her hidden memories. here's ronan farrow. >> why did you come forward? >> she came forward because senate democrats began looking at this claim. >> >> laura: aha! now i know why the whole crew was so desperately wanting to put off those kavanaugh-ford hearings, which was originally scheduled for today. they needed their piles in the media to have additional time to jump on what they were investigating, the democrats, and find someone, anyone, who knew kavanaugh and could level a salacious, outrageous charge against them. who is deborah ramirez? we don't know all that much about her. she's a registered democrat who "the new yorker" says works on behalf of "social justice and social change." of course, right on cue, feinstein is now demanding that thursday's hearing be postponed to the third week of... never. kavanaugh is himself defiant, standing his ground as he told martha maccallum tonight. >> the truth is, i've never sexually assaulted anyone. in high school or otherwise. i am not

ramirez herself contacted former yale classmates and she asked if they recalled if the incident ever happened and told some of them that she herself could not be certain that mr. kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself. but within the span of six days and after consulting with classmates and democrats, ramirez recovered her hidden memories. >> why did she come forward? >> she came forward because senate democrats began looking at this claim. >> now we know why feinstein and the whole crew were wanting to put off the hearing which republicans had originally scheduled for today. they needed their pals in the media to have additional time to jump on what they were investigating and find someone,, anyone, who knew kavanaugh and could level a charge against him. who is debra ramirez, who works on social justice and social change, close quote. right on cue, feinstein is demanding that thursday's hearing be postponed to theto third week of never. kavanaugh is himself defiant, standing his ground as he told martha tonight. >> the truth is, i have never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or otherwise. i'm not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps dr

miss ramirez's allegations and the allegations of the client of mr. michael avenatti. not a single democrat -- i don't know if they were too embarrassed -- his allegations were so scandalous that the ranking member admitted his client's most scandalous accusations of you as a criminal mastermind essentially, omitted those scandalous accusations from her statement. this hearing has focused rightly so on the allegations dr. ford presented. and let me say, i think the committee did the right thing and giving doctor for a a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. the committee treated her with respect, as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respect. what do we know? we know that your testimony in her testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would look to, what else do we know when we have conflicting testimony? what do we know when there are three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred and all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the r

ramirez' allegations? >> da >> i think it is a disgrace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge vanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally died thos claims. but we're here today on assess her credibility and yours. in ours previ vigorous exchanges, i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at other times it struck me as evasive on key issues. it against that back drop that i'm s to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. it brings me no joy to question out these topics today but i think they are serious and worthy of our tention. so let me return to a line of questioning that my colleague o was before. which was about whether you've ever gotten aggresse while drinking or forgotten an evening afterdrinking. >> throws twoifferent questions. i've ld answered the second one. the first, i don't know what you that.by what are you talking abou i don't mean that it way but no the basic answer unless you're talking about something

ramirez's allegations and the allegations of the client of mr. michael avenatti. i don't know if they were just too embarrassed. mr. avenatti's allegations were so scannal louse that the ranking memo submitted his client's most scandalous accusations as a criminal mastermind essentially, omitted those scandalous accusations from her statement. this hearing has focused rightly so on the allegations dr. ford presented. and let me say i think the committee did the right thing in giving dr. ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. and the committee treat had hadder with respect as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would then look to what else do we know when you have conflicting testimony? we know that dr. ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred, all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record und

miss ramirez' allegations and the allegations of the client of mr. avenatti. not a single democrat. i don't know if they were just too embarrassed. mr. avenatti's allegations were so scandalous that the ranking member omitted his client's most scandalous accusations of you as a criminal mastermind, essentially. omitted those scandalous accusations from her statement. this hearing has focused, rightly so, on the allegations dr. ford presented. let me say i think the committee did the right thing in giving dr. ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story. that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public. and the committee treated her with respect, as we should. i do not believe senate democrats have treated you with respe respect. what do we know? we know that her testimony and your testimony are in conflict. a fair-minded assessor of facts would look to what else do we know when you have conflicting testimony. well, we know that dr. ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred. all three of those fact witnesses have stated on the reco

mr. trump's comments seem to run counter to press second subsidiaries' openness to hearing ramirez testify next to christine blasey ford at a hearing set for thursday. >> are certainly, we would be open to that and that process could take place on thursday. >> i'm not going to let false accusations drivoe us out of ths process. and, you know, we're looking for a fair process. >> reporter: the white house is firmly behind kavanaugh, whose personal life has been exposed in full detail. >> i've never sexually assaulted anyone. i did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. and the girls from the schools i went to and i were friends. >> reporter: the kavanaugh saga has temporarily overshadowed the other white house mellow drama over whether the president will fire deputy attorney general rod rosenstein after he allegedly offered to secretly record mr. trump. >> i'm meeting with rod rosenstein on thursday. today i'm doing other things. as you probably know. >> reporter: at the u.n., there was a clear signal of how some part

ramirez's allegations? >> today. >> i think it's a disgrace. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally denied those claims. but we're here today to assess her credibility and yours. and in our previous vigorous exchanges and previous confirmation hearing rounds i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at other times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues. it is against that backdrop that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today but i think they are serious and i think they are worthy of our attention. so let me, if i can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before. which was about whether you have ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking. >> those are two different questions. i already answered the second one. as to the first, i

ramirez pretty far away. what do you make of this dr. jekyll and mr. hyde description of the guy's roommate, judge kavanaugh? >> yeah, well, you know, i think it's part of the mix of -- we've got people who say, no, i -- we've got people who say, no, this isn't the way he behaved. >> it's his roomy. >> it's his roommate. that is a pretty close associate. >> by the way, you would have a little room -- i would think in the interest of justice i'd try to tell the truth in courts and would but you would feel a little bit hesitant to trash the guy you were a roommate with when he has one chance to become supreme court justice and you know that your testimony publicly like this may kill him. >> it runs the same risk these women have stepping forward, that you'll be the target of attack. this is the first thing they'll know about you when they google your name. >> i don't think republicans are misjudging the women, they're making a calculated decision that it is so important to so e solidify a conservative that they are willing to take the political hit in no

. >> another woman, deborah ramirez, said kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were both in college. mr. trump on stage accused democrats of railroading kavanaugh and he mocked the senate judiciary committee's ranking democrat, ridiculing her for saying that she did not leak a letter from christine ford. let's listen. >> remember dianne feinstein. did you leak -- remember her answer. did you leak the document? what? no, no, i didn't leak -- well, wait one minute. did we leak -- no, no, we didn't leak it. >> let's chase that with the facts. we understand dianne feinstein's office indicated and she herself indicated she did not leak that tip. and we understand from the reporter from the intercept that the tip did not come from feinstein's office. >> of course it is not about the leak. it is about getting to the truth, of course. at a rally saturday, president trump also tied kavanaugh's nomination to a battle against the democratic party itself. for more about that, here is cnn's boris sanchez in west virginia. >> reporter: here at a rally in wheeling, west virginia, president trump calli

ramirez's allegations? >> today. >> i think it's a disgrace -- >> senator coons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have unequivocally denied those claims. but we're here today to assess her credibility and yours. and in our previous vigorous exchanges in the previous confirmation hearing rounds, i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at times struck me as evasive or not credible on key issues, and it's against that backdrop that i'm seeking to assess your credibility today. you said in your opening that rule of law means taking allegations seriously. and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today but i do think they are serious and they are worthy of our attention. so let me, if i can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before. which was about whether you've ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking. >> those are two different questions. i've already answered the second one. as for the first, i t

ramirez's allegations? >> today. >> i think it's a disgrace. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's hearing is about dr. ford's serious allegations about sexual assault. you have up equivocally denied those claims, but we're here today to assess her credibility and yours. and in our previous vigorous exchanges in the previous confirmation hearing rounds, i found that your answers at times vigorously defended but at times struck me as evasive or nod credible on key issues and it's on that backdrop i seek to address your credibility today. you said in your opening means rule of law means taking allegations seriously and i agree with that. it brings me no joy to question you on these topics today, but i do think they are serious, and i think they are worthy of our attention. so let me, if i can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before which is about whether you've ever gotten aggressive about drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking? >> those are two different questions. i've already answered the second one. as to the first, i think the answer to that