ms. ramirez allegations. or two women that contacted authorities with evidence that judge kavanaugh tried to head-off ms. ramirez story before it became public. that was an apparent contradiction. total contradiction. with his testimony before the judiciary committee. in fact, i search for the truth we've allowed the fbi t to at least speak with jue swetnick, a third accuser. or a search for the truth would have thallowed the fbi to speak with mark judge's ex-girlfriend. edcall that mr. judge told her ashamedly about his sexual incident. both dr. ford's and allegations. there's no mistaking, this investigation was rigged by the white house and senate republicans. instead of calling on the fbi to take these basic investigatatory steps inexpolicably the republican judiciary committee has slowly tried to discredit these women. the committee released this statement from a former acquaintance of mrs. swetnick. this individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident, but described the alleged sexual interest of mr

ms. ramirez's story. when asked by senator hatch when he first heard of ramirez's allegations, he answered, quote, in "the new yorker" story. based on the nbc reports, if they're correct, that was not truthful. and it would be one thing if thatat were one isolated incide. habut again, there are far too many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many misexacterrizations. he pled ignorance to many bush era controversies only for e-mails to be released showing he was aware of them all and played a role in many. he offered explanation for high school yearbook quotes. and it's not the quotes themselves or what they indicated, it's his explanations sort of defy belief. and, of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college classmates, he has grossly mischaracterized his relationship withri alcohol. the common thread? judge kavanaugh repeatedly tiptoes around the truth. doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to the paint his nomination in a favorable light. we want a supreme

ms. ramirez and dr. ford have testified contrary to the way ms. ramirez and dr. ford have alleged. and so the witnesses they have identified, saying they were present at the event, have all refuted their allegations. so i think that ought to settle it. reporter: on a slightly different note. one thing that was noticeable at the committee hearing was when christine blasey ford said it was not clear the committee would go to california to interview her. i'm curious, you've already referred to charges to the d.o.j. regarding uncould be rated allegations. i'm wondering, will the committee take any kind of action against the attorneys or dr. ford? will you refer them to the a.d.a.? mr. grassley: right now i'd say i don't know and don't know there's any reason to. i think that -- what i'd like to do when we get all done, because this is almost rock bottom, i would like to have the future mending things so we can do things in a collegial way, that the united states senate ought to do. and particularly when it comes to supreme court nominations. and you folks can have something to do with

ms. ramirez, news, the third person who came forward, ms. swetnick, he portrayed those as revenge on behalf of the clintons. frankly, judge kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for fox news that the confirmation hearing to be on the nice state supreme court. but that is in charge with judge kavanaugh's long history of working for the most partisan legal causes, ten start, bush v gore, all the myriad controversies of the bush era -- ken starr. it would be the judge have discarded his feelings once he donned the black robes of the jews. unfortunately he's been on the bench for many years and two thursday soon revealed that is bitter partisan resentments still lurk right below the surface. it should give us all pause to consider what means to elevate such a partisan worldview to the supreme court, with the democratic or republican partisan view. where buildings must be made on the legal merits, not, not on the side of the aisle which most benefits. and then the greatest issue against judge kavanaugh, the one that really bothers most people,

ms. ramirez allegations was in the new yorker magazine. he wasn't honest about the period when he was nominated for the board of appeals. what he said about his drinking and getting what he said about his high school yearbook all of which defy common sense and objective truth americans have good reason to doubt this man's credibility and has nothing to do with what he did when he was 15 or 18. he's not telling the truth about so many people today. you say how can we be sure we don't want a supreme court whose credibility is endowed when there are so many issues they are not sure if they are telling the truth. we don't want a supreme court nominee like that. so let me say there are a few things that should happen. first, in light of the conflicting statements, that is the reason by the way we need a full fbi investigation background check that is unfettered because there is such doubts about the credibility. it's no wonder they want is limited. they've asked for the return directive. the republican staff of the committee told them what they

ms. ramirez and dr. ford have testified contrary to the way ms. ramirez and dr. ford have alleged. and so the witnesses they have identified saying they were present at the event have all refuted their allegations. so i think that ought to settle it. >> on a slightly different note, would one thing when dr. blasey ford said that it was not clear that the committee would go to california to interview her, i'm curious, chairman grassley, you've alreadycorroborated alle. i'm wondering where the committee take any action against the attorneys for blasey ford. >> we don't prosecute -- >> or will you refer them. >> right now i don't know and i don't know that there is any reason to. i think that -- what i'd like to do when we get all done, because this is almost rock bottom, i would like to have the future mending things so we can do things in a collegial way that the united states senate ought to do and particularly when it comes to the supreme court nominations. and you folks can have something to do with this. i would never use the word fake news. i consider you folks policemen for ou

ms. ramirez's story before it became public. that was in clear contradiction with his testimony before the judiciary committee. a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to at least speak for july swetnick, a third accuser. as vermonters said to me last weekend when i was home, if they have nothing to hide, why the rush? if they have nothing to hide, why don't they take the time to find the whole truth? but instead of calling on the f.b.i. to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably the republican-controlled judiciary committee has solely tried to discredit these women. the committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of ms. swetnick. this individual had no knowledge of the alleged incident, but instead wanted to describe the alleged sexual preferences of ms. swetnick. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, one of the most nonpartisan and respected voices on capitol hill, this shameless attempt to smear a victim violates the rape shield law. look what happened.

ms. ramirez and they have their own experiences to share. they should be heard but republican leader should allow a thorough investigation because in the end despite what some republicans try to claim, this is not a trial we do not weigh evidence our job as senators is to weigh what we know and what we hear and learn and use her own judgment to the term and if a nominee gets a promotion to the highest court in the land and based on everything that i know what those allegations against judge kavanaugh he should not be confirmed or be in a position to be on the supreme court that impacts women and families on the future of our country. my second point he has a serious credibility issue i won't go through all the detail again that i did yesterday but between the initial hearing and into the second hearing judge kavanaugh made it clear he has serious issues with the truth. he testified under oath directly to senators and claimed disbelief on issues making claims that were contradictory e-mails were uncovered or others that were compelled to come

ms. ramirez there were many witnesses they wish to be interviewed and they said they were not interviewed. what limits were placed on the fbi so that they couldn't give a full and thorough investigation. the word is that it was the white house. the white house has two choices. they can admit it or if they deny, they showed at a minimum make the directive they sent to the fbi public. if the white hous white house dd what they do when they do one of these checks it seems they did l give him the limited number of witnesses. let them see whether it was limited or not and what else should be made public as these documents. the idea that this should be full and fair over and over open, available by the pettiness of the republican site in the white house is only one document to see in the course of the day, that is hard to do and there's a lot of documents. it's just a pattern of limiting access to facts, limiting access to truth and access to the american people ought to know so i would create rick mcauliffe receiving the briefing of the documents contained, but they would be made public. there

ms. ramirez's allegations for two women who contacted authorities and evidence that judge kavanaugh tried to head off miss ramirez's story before a became public. that was an apparent contradiction, total contradiction with his testimony before the judiciary committee. in fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the fbi to at least speak with julia swetnick, a third accuser. it would have allowed the fbi to speak with mark judge's ex-girlfriend who recalled that mr. judge told her ashamedly about his sexual incident that eerily mirrors dr. ford's and miss swetnick's allegations. you know, there's no mistaking this investigation was rigged by the white house and senate republicans. instead of calling on the fbi to take the basic investigatory steps, inexpicably, the judiciary committee tried to discredit these women. the committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of miss swetnick that they had no knowledge of the incident and described the alleged sexual incident of miss swetnick. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. one of the mos

ms. ramirez and the third person who came forward, forward, he portrayed those as revenge. frankly, judge kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for fox news they had a confirmation hearing for the united states supreme court. but that's in character with his history working through the most partisan process can star or bush v-letter gore or those controversies of the bush era. it would be one thing if judge kavanaugh discarded his feelings once he got on the black robes but unfortunately he has been on the bench for many years and at thursday's hearing with his bitter partisan resentment were right below the surface it should give us pause to consider if we should elevate such a partisan worldview to the supreme court. where rulings must be made on the legal merits not on the side of the aisle. and then the greatest issue against judge kavanaugh that really bothers most people of his credibility is he telling the truth? there will be some who say what happens in high school should not count many years later but what i think what happened to doctor ford she seems credible

ms. ramirez, debbie ramirez. she had corroborating information from the suitemate of brett kavanaugh. but we here in this senate, we rigged the system so that information cannot be considered. that's what this woman's talking about, why she didn't come forward. it would be her word against a man's. the system would be rigged and would find for the man. that's what's so disturbing to women all over this country, a rigged system that we couldn't find in our collective judgment, in our collective process, the ability to rise against partisanship and give fair treatment a fair process to the individuals who came forward. it may not have changed the course of events in the final vote, but at least women would know we have come from where we were. we may not have been entirely fair to anita hill, but we have learned and we have come further. instead, we did worse. that is a regrettable, powerful consequence of what has happened. another constituent wrote to say that although he was not a direct victim of assault, both of his brothers were repeatedly sexually abused by a catholic priest who

ms. ramirez themselves said were eyewitnesses or persons with relevant knowledge. i'm talking about folks like mark judge and others. so opponents are trying to have it both ways -- demand an investigation but then badmouth it when it doesn't reveal what they hoped it would. politics should not have and didn't dictate the terms of this supplemental background investigation. the f.b.i. knows how to do its work, and now opponents of this nomination should accept its findings. but, mr. president, this has never been a search for the truth by senators who had already announced their opposition to this nomination. some of them even before judge kavanaugh was named. rather, it has become a matter of delay, defeat, and destroy. i do believe the senator from arizona and others who join in his request did us a great favor by insisting on the f.b.i. supplemental background investigation. the american people can feel better that leads have been followed and exhausted for those still interested in a search for the facts. the american people now know that we took it upon oursel

ms. ramirez allegations as when he read about them in the press. though we have now heard from people who seem text messages showing judge kavanaugh personally working to coordinate an offense against before the story was ever published. she never blackedm out or have memory lapses from drinking when we know from so many people have fnow come forward to share stories of his high school and college days that his version simply doesn't align with reality. one friend of his said he was a frequent o drinker and heavy drinker and another classmate of his in college said he was a sloppy drunk and i know because i drank with him. and, quote, it isn't credible for him to say he's had no memory lapses in the nights he drank to excess. another classmate said, quote, there's no doubt in my mind while at yale he was a big part here and drink in excess, and there have to be a number of nights he doesn't remember. i could go on and on. i have numerous other stories from classmates that you can find for yourself in the "washington post." mr. president, it is not

ms. ramirez. it's because people are tired of being ignored and silenced. judge kavanaugh and his republican sponsors don't want to talk about the facts in this case so let's talk about a few other facts. over 80% ofnd women and 40% have been experienced sexual harassment or assault. seven out of ten sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows. the vast majority, of two out of three, are never reported to the police. and why? survivors fear retaliation and believe that the police won't or can'tt' do anything to help or they think that it's a personal matter where they can't fight in someone or believe that it's not serious enough to report or they don't want to get the perpetrator in trouble. last week, as doctor ford testified before congress, the national sexual assault hotline saw a 147% increase in calls from people seeking help. we have a problem of sexual-harassment and sexual violence in america. the problem is that too many victims are coming forward with fabricated stories to destroy someone's life. it's that too many survivors are af

ms. ramirez has refused to talk to us.ns wouldn't be printed by the new york times for a good reason. we'll vote this coming week. the fbi supplemental investigation should be done early this week. we'll have a final passage vote later in the week. i'm highly confident he'll be conif confirmed. he's a good man. he's the best choice president trump could have made. i'll tell you what will happen next if you will allow. >> please. >> okay, this is what's going to happen. i'll ask senator grassily about how this hearing process was hijacked beyond ethical aspects. the slash and burn aspects of it and abuse dr. ford's trust. we'll start with the following concept. dr. ford said at the hearing she didn't know the committee would come to california and take her testimony in a private setting. this is what she said. i just appreciate you did offer that. i wasn't clear on what the offer was. if you would have come out to see me i would have happily hosted you and spoke with you out there. it wasn't clear to me that that was the ca

ms. ramirez. i had hoped they would be permitted to do the job we know they can do, the job former director james comey said they could do. instead as we now know, they were only allowed to do the bare minimum. as we know from news reports, there are dozens of people with relevant information, some of whom say they have corroborating evidence who need to be interviewed, but they were not. it is simply impossible after seeing the results of the f.b.i. supplemental work -- and i hes tate to call it -- hesitate to call it an investigation, that anybody could think it was in any way shape, or form the comprehensive investigation the president promised. this so-called investigation is a sham. it is a fig leaf for the republicans to hide behind. it is a talking point for their continued criticism of democrats. they said, see, you wanted an f.b.i. investigation, you got one, and now it isn't good enough for you. who are they kidding? this is a sham investigation. well, this so-called investigation wasn't

ms. ramirez's story is not credible. >> we know she has been interviewed. we do know she has been interviewed. they are conducting more interviews. we don't know -- we don't know the extent of how many interviews are being done. when it comes to the fbi they are not talking as much as you would think everybody else is about this. on this moment, the evolution of the president's approach to christine blasey ford and the other accusers, but especially on ford, it has to show something. does it show that the president is more confident or that he is more concerned right now about kavanaugh's nomination? >> i'm not going to play psycho analyst to the president. >> you -- >> whatever the president was trying to accomplish last night it did not help. i was up in the senate earlier today and ran into a group of senators. even his strongest supporters were like i can't believe he said that. this is not helpful. you have an audience of ultimately three people and those three people are not going to be impressed -- having said all that, i think those three people wil

ms. ramirez had corroborating information. so this was simply done to talk to a few individuals who they knew had no new information. it really is -- this is not the fbi's fault. the fooishbi followed instructi from the white house. the white house gave instructions that made it so limited that the fbi could got follow up on those leads. that is a travesty. the word competerehensive, how could that word be used. >> and two of your republican colleagues who are still undecided, they did say this report from the fbi was very thorough. they haven't had how they will finally vote, but they were upbeat about their as and he is smt. why do you think they away with a different impression than you did? >> we were not briefed by the fbi, we were briefed by democratic staff members. and i assume it was republican staff members that briefed the republicans. so i don't think that we had anything close to an unbiased presentation. maybe in either caucus. this is information that the senate should all consider together and have a dialogue a

ms. ramirez back in the day? >> i had not. i should say -- i knew deb -- she went by deb, and i knew brett. a lot of close mutual friends. i liked both of them. i didn't always hang out with the crowd that either of them were in, but was definitely friendly. yale's a pretty intimate environment. we have a great residential college system. people know each other. i knew all the people well, but i did not have information of that when we were freshmen. >> you came forward, and my final question, did you reach out to them? because my assumption is, based on my research on you, you saided to speak to the fbi. >> yeah. so last saturday, one week ago to right now, it hit me like a brick in the face. i was bothered by the information i was told on a phone and in a text, that brett had reached out to try to control the narrative around a story that was coming out. it bothered me. lath saturday i woke up and there was information that the fbi had kickstarted the investigation and there would be a probably short window, and honestly i f

ms. ramirez offered to speak to the fbi. z submitted evidence to support their allegations. including naming over two dozen witnesses each. unfortunately, the limited investigation that was conducted by the fbi failed to interview any one of the witnesses these two women identified who could support her account. let me say that again. they refused to investigate, to talk with any of the 24 witnesses that could have supported their accounts. mr. president, i think it's important to remember why we're here today. we're here to determine whether judge kavanaugh has demonstrated the impartiality, the temperament, the even handedness that's needed to serve on this great high court of o

ms. ramirez's account. so a nominee who in the past advocated slash-and-burn tactics as part of the starr investigation, reveals that he attempts to shrug off serious claims of sexual assault as a conspiracy connected to outside left-wing groups, he reveals a temperament that would be very dangerous if added to the supreme court. that is why retired justice john paul stevens has now come out as urge ago no vote. there is a solution to this. there is a solution. we need not settle for a nominee burdened by questions regarding sexual assault allegations or excessive partisanship. there are numerous jurists who could meet the standards of a republican president and a republican senate majority who do not have these issues. why approve a nominee whose approval would send a hostile message to sexual assault survivors? why approve a nominee whose nomination and arizona approval would send a message. we can find a nominee who will not cause sexual assault survivors litigants or lawyers to fear how they will be tre

ms. ramirez allegations against him was when he read about them in the press. though we have now heard from people who quit seeing text messages showing judge kavanaugh personally working to coordinate a defense against the allegation before that story was ever published. to his denials over and over in different ways, that he drank two extreme excess in high school and college, that he never court blacked out or at memory lapses from drinking, when we know from so many people who have now come forward to share stories of his high school and college days at his version simply doesn't align with reality. the "washington post" laid this out yesterday and i want to read a few of the quotes from the reporting. one friend of his from college said judge kavanaugh was quote a frequent drinker and a heavy drinker. another class that is in college said quote, it was a sloppy drunk and i know because i drank with him. and cold, it's that credible for him to say he's had no memory lapses in the nights he drank to excess. another classmate says there is, quote, no doubt in

ms. ramirez, and we'll see what the fbi finds. >> sean: is now been expanded out.he president said -- >> no, it's not. this is a request by the senate. nobody -- >> sean: swetnick. >> no, nobody asked for that. not one democrat asked for that. the senators and questions do not feel that was necessary. it's an accusation that makes no sense. so let me go over it again. the doctor ford witnesses, mark judge, leland, and pj. mr. mraz. that is at. do it within a week. report back to the senate, and we'll move forward. >> sean: nbc news ran this interview. not only was one person -- the other person said they never heard of her. she literally changed the story. she was saying there they were systematically almost every weekend, those were her words -- >> i can take care of this in 30 seconds. what reasonable person would go to a party, witness drugging and women, gang raping of women and go back nine more times and never tell anybody. >> sean: she said tonight, i didn't see that he put the drugs in the punch but he was near the punch. why does nbc run this? >> nbc -- th

ms. ramirez's torn presented to them -- attorney presented to them because counsel mcgahn or donald trump has said don't do it, we ought to know that. certainly not just we ought to know that. the senators who requested the f.b.i. investigation ought to know that. second, leader mcconnell should arrange an all-senators briefing from the agent in charge of the investigation before the vote. we should know what he did and what he didn't do and why. and, third, the findings of the f.b.i. investigation upon completion should be released publicly, with any personal information redacted. this is not the usual practice but it's been done in the past when it's needed, and it's sure needed now. the f.b.i. should do it. these three steps would go a long way to ensure the public's faith that the investigation has been conducted fairly, fully, and properly. this debate, this nomination, mr. president, is about whether judge brett kavanaugh has the character, the credibility, the impartiality to serve on the nation's highest court. in order to be an effective judge at any level you need to be impartia

ms. ramirez's story. when asked by senator hatch when he first heard of ramirez's allegations, he answered, quote, in "the new yorker" story, first heard based on the nbc reports, if they're correct, that was not truthful. and it would be one thing if that were one isolated incident. but again, there are fortoo many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many mischaracterizations. he pled ignorance to many bush era controversies only for e-mails to be released showing he was aware of them all. and played a role in many. he offered explanation for high school yearbook quotes, and it's not the quotes themselves or what they indicated. it's his explanations sort of defy belief. and, of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college classmates, he's grossly mischaracterized his relationship with alcohol. a common thread, judge kavanaugh repeatedly tip-toes around the truth, doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to paint his nomination in a favorable light. we want a supre

ms. ramirez to the "new yorker." to which kavanaugh replied no. brett kavanaugh's friend sent a text message before the "new yorker" article was published saying kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. the same report says two other messages show communication between kavanaugh's team and former classmates ahead of the story's publication. nbc news national political correspondent heidi przybyla co-wrote the report. put this into context for us, please. >> the question is whether the fbi is going to look at this additional information at a time when so many feel that they are not being heard by the fbi. these are text messages from fellow classmates, between two fellow classmates. one is actually the wife of one of the men who debra ramirez puts in the room as having witnessed the incident potentially. as you see in these text messages, clearly brett himself, that's how she refers to him, as well as brett's team, brett's guy were in outreach to them prior to the publication of this article. and so the reason why carrie birchham, th

ms. ramirez or only talk to the people, names she's given them? >> i'm sure they're talking to all of them. that would be the logical steps. i'm sure they're doing that. but even pointing out what the fbi does, one of the specific things they do look for is they asked the people from every range in life, including college, including law school, the same periods we're talking about saying is this someone who's had a substance abuse problems, have you seen them drink too heavily? i've answered these questions for people. six different times he passed. higher than top secret level. if he had some crazy history of alcoholism back there, by goodness sake, the fbi would have found out. >> but to our knowledge the fbi didn't find out that a police report with his name on it was at the new haven police department. >> well, now they do. and i think it didn't shed too much light on it. his friend hit his friend with a cup -- >> a glass. >> that doesn't actually shed a lot of light on -- they aren't doing fbi background investigations of all of his friends.

ms. ramirez's charges. but this notion of drinking, et cetera, i don't think was part of their purview. >> everybody stay with us. we're coming to you next. i've got to get in a quick break. we continue to await this news conference with republican leaders talking about judge kavanaugh's nomination. we will bring that to you live as well. we are also monitoring anti-kavanaugh protests right now. this is outside the supreme court in d.c. we have a live report straight ahead. ♪ ♪ the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise th

ms. ramirez. mazie hirono said judge kavanaugh doesn't preserve the presuppings 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. and they've destroyed judge kavanaugh's reputation, undermined dr. ford's privacy and tried to upend our -- tried to upend our traditions of innocence until proven guilty in the process. it's a complete and total disgrace. we'll receive and update the background on his nominate to the senate. judge kavanaugh deserves a prompt vote and we expect him to get one. with that, i'll take your question. >> the three people most important in this process are senators mruczkowski, collins an flake. two of those senators, flake and collins, were extremelyup set about how the president described christine blasey ford in that rally in mississippi. knowing how sensitive this issue is and how important it would be if the f.b.i. shows no other compelling tode keep judge kavanaugh from the court, these people need to be comfortable voting for him, why did

ms. ramirez's allegations? >> today. "the this comes as washington post" reports the slightly expanded investigation will look into allegations by a third kavanaugh accuser, julie swetnick, who said she observed kavanaugh at high school parties in the 1980's joining efforts to inebriate girls so they could be gang raped. recently resurfaced 1983 yearbooks from georgetown prep show students bragging about the use of "killer q's" during beach week -- a possible reference to quaaludes, the sedative bill cosby used to drug women in order to rape them. amy: now a group of alumni from brett kavanaugh's all-male school high school has issued a call for fellow graduates to come forward if they have information about any sexual assaults possibly committed by the supreme court nominee, saying in a petition -- "please do not remain silent, even if speaking out comes at some personal cost." in a minute, we will be joined by one of those alumni, but first i want to turn to comments of judge kavanaugh made about georgetown prep. he wa

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

ms. 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 constra

ms. ramirez's allegations." >> we allowed the fbi to do exactly what they do best. we haven't micromanaged this process. >> reporter: and today, a former supreme court justice is weighing in. john paul stevens, 98, a lifelong republican, nominated to the court by gerald ford, had praised kavanaugh in the past, but today, stevens said kavanaugh disqualified himself with the confrontational and partisan tone of his confirmation hearing. >> so, you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened? >> you're asking about blackout. i don't know, have you? >> could you answer the question, judge? just -- so, you -- that's not happened? is that your answer? >> yeah, and i'm curious if you have. >> i have no drinking problem, judge. >> reporter: today, stevens said kavanaugh does not belong on the supreme court. >> i think that his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. >> reporter: kavanaugh himself has spoken about the importance of nonpartisanship and tempera

ms. ramirez's allegations. or two women who contacted authorities with evidence that judge kavanaugh tried to head off ms. ramirez's story before it became public. that was an apparent contradiction, total contradiction with his testimony before the judiciary committee. in fact, a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to at least speak with julie swetnick, a third accuser. or a search for the truth would have allowed the f.b.i. to speak with mark judge's ex-girlfriend who recalled that mr. judge told her ashamedly about a sexual incident that early mirrors both dr. ford's and miss swetnick's allegations. you know, there is no mistaking. this investigation was rigged by the white house and senate republicans. instead of calling on the f.b.i. to take these basic investigatory steps, inexplicably the republican-controlled judiciary committee solely tried to discredit these women. the committee released a statement from a former acquaintance of miss swetnick. this individual had no knowledge of the all

ms. ramirez's story. senator hatch when he first heard of ramirez's allegations he answered, quote, in the new yorker story, first heard, based on the nbc reports, if they're correct, that was not truthful. and it would be one thing if that were one isolated incident. but again, there are far too many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many mischaracterizations. he pled ignorance to any bush-era controversies only for emails to be released showing he was aware of them all. and played a role in many. he offered explanation for high school year book quotes. it's not the quotes or what they indicated themselves, it is his explanations sort of defy belief. and, of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college classmates he has grossly mischaracterized his relationship with alcohol. a common thread, judge kavanaugh repeatedly tiptoes around the truth, doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to paint his nomination in a favorable light. we want supreme court nominee, wh

ms. ramirez' allegations against you? >> in the last, in the period since then, in "the new yorker" story. >> reporter: jamie roach was kavanaugh's roommate at yale and now a bay area ceo and friends with debra ramirez. do you believe debbie? >> yes, i believe debbie. >> reporter: roach says he believes the fbi will reach out to limb him as well. >> i saw a list yesterday that was produced and my name was on the list. >> reporter: today trump again defended kavanaugh and suggested men in general are being treated unfairly. and tonight a stunning update. two sources tell nbc news that the fbi could wrap up its investigation as early as tonight. marianne favro, nbc bay area news. >> well, a surprising announcement came out of san francisco tonight. district attorney george gascon says he is not running for reelection in 2019. he assumed the office after now senator harris left. he says his mother's weakening health was a determining factor not to run for a third term. before that he had served as police chief. >>> a bay area

ms. ramirez's accounts were not contacted and questioned despite their contacts and names being handed to f.b.i. agents and despite the efforts of many offices in the senate to forward their information. i fear that with the confirms of judge kavanaugh to the -- confirmation of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court today, we when look back on this moment not only as a moment of raucous turmoil for the senate, but as a moment where the norms and traditions of blind justice and a justice blind to partisanship will have slipped away. the court is critical to the rule of law in our country and i'm deeply concerned that its legitimacy is harmed with the addition of an explicitly partisan justice. the supreme court plays a pivotal role in defining the scope of the president's power and determining whether the president is above the law. the supreme court impacts essential rights enshrined in our constitution, the rights to privacy, intimacy, marriage, contraception, abortion, freedom to worship as we choose, the ability to participate in our democracy as full and equal citizens, the promise of e

ms. ramirez had falsely made ann ak dispaition ananaccusation anr that ms.d's testimony was corroborated and once ms. swetnick's statement was schmitted, the committee has to make a referral of all three people to the justice department and ask for a criminal investigation because that is the way you deter people from making false allegations during confirmation processes. these people were all seeking -- ford was seeking a psychological repose. the problem with her story, it doesn't fit together at all. lou: and there are so many questions. and questions that weren't asked by the republicans or the democrats. the democrats of kavanaugh, the republicans of ford. it's just the most bizarre set of hearings that i could imagine for the supreme court. >> and lou we don't stop with those, just those three. we also have to refer the lawyers. because according to ms. ford, her two lawyers didn't tell murtha grassley offered to talk to her anytime anywhere. that was a violation of the professional rules of responsibility. and i think he ought to be referred, don't y

ms. ramirez she has been interviewed by the fbi. she has given individuals who she said can cooperate that information i think that's where you can a sea of vulnerability of judge cavanagh if there is in fact one. also the allegation just stating that you can easily say a college but to run through in strict. it would also make up for what her allegation is. you're very susceptible as this gets spider lace. >> what about the other side of the coin and we talked about this a little bit? will democrats investigate who leaked dr. ford's letter to the media to begin with. and should they. >> absolutely they should. i have no faith. that they will call for an investigation of this. they had used dr. ford as her political arrow and quiver. they had shot it and now it's time to move on. i think this is the second chance to play. now he can play his i am hillary moment. at this point in time what difference does it make. i think that's what they will go to. they don't want the truth they don't want to look into the facts of how she was expo

ms. ramirez because we need a nominee who will not cover up a lie about torture because i irow the american people deserve the truth for those who actually care about honesty and the truth. brett kavanaugh cannot even clear that hurdle. and with that i yield the floor and suggests the absence of a quorum. >> coming to the senate floor for the first time to support president trump's nomination brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and influentialun judges excuse me in the entire country. it has adopted the positions in his opinions. he has authored multiple dissents that have prevailed in the supreme court. he has taught coursers at harvard law school and yale law school and georgetown and as liberal and conservative alike have hired his former clerks that shows the respect he has against the ideological spectrum surely mister president m, there is no one more qualified to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh. a lot has transpired in the last three months we have received more documents than any other supreme court nomi

ms. ramirez who were never even contacted by the fbi.ng. >> is there anything that democrats could have done this differently to make this a less painful process? >> i think we went out of her way to bend to her wishes. when she first came forward she branded her letter confidential and made it clear she didn't want her identity disclosed. senator feinstein respected that request, didn't want to victimize her another time so time passed and that's been used against senator feinstein unfairly. >> >> but there is no one that corroborates dr. ford's account and there's some testimony by lee la lay la leland keyser that she felt pressured to say what she said. >> well, there could have been at least eight people that were suggested that could have been interviewed. i think mark judge should have been brought in and asked questions. there were elements of his statement that i can't disclose but they certainly raise questions that should have been pursued? >> what is your feeling about his op-ed? he admit he is got too emotional but he says he