ms. ramirez. he was referring to, of course, dr. christine blasey ford, who did tell her story to the committee under oath on a nationally televised hearing. the reporters say ms. ramirez's legal team gave the fbi a list of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence but the bureau in itself subpoena mental background investigation interviewed none of them, though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to reach the fbi on their own, two fbi agents interviewed ms. ramirez telling her they found her credible, but the republican-controlled senate had imposed strict limits on the investigation. we have to wait to get authorization to do anything else. one of ms. ramirez's lawyers recalled saying the call was apologetic. the book contained a new revelation about another story that came to the attention of some of the members of the judiciary committee at the time, but it was never made public during the confirmation process. this story occupies less than one page of the book, and only one paragraph

ms. ramirez and declined to report with nothing but one year of time and another interview with ramirezthpe hersf who thought those claims were printed. no more collaboration or verification only days before the release of the author's boo book. i cannot help but wonder if timing had something to do with the story. or maybe sell more books. and now wet commentators are calling, let me be clear this is not an allegation. umit is a third hand rumor these writers did not even speak to the man they claimed originally recounted this rumor. there are layers and layers of decades-old hearsay no longer verification and most importantly nothing from the person that was allegedly involved. the most shameful part for the editors to intervene and added to the story last night that the female student declined to be interviewed that she does not recall the incident. i will quote again she does not recall the incident. that is the alleged victim that is the opposite of corroboration and verification. in the legal world it is called skull to tori information. when they provide greater context it has a seri

ms. ramirez's allegations. >> or ms. ramirez's allegations bout you true? brett: those are not.one of the witnesses in the room support that. if that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm. "the new york times" reported as recently as last week she was calling other classmates -- i'm not going to characterize it but calling classmates last week and seems very -- i'll just stop there. but it's not true. it's not true. host: "the new york times" report seven people including ms. ramirez's mother heard about the yale incident long before mr. cave gnaw was federal judge and two were classmates and heard about it before the party occurred and suggested it was among students at the time and "the new york times" recovered a previously reported story about mr. kavanaugh's year and another saw him with his pants down at a different party where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. max stier notified senators and the f.b.i. about this account and the f.b.i. did not investigate and mr. stier has declined to discuss it publicly. we c

ms. ramirez's allegations about you true? >> those are not. she -- none of the witnesses in the room support that. the -- if that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm. >> the claim by deborah ramirez referenced there by senator kennedy was first reported during kavanaugh's confirmation in an article in "the new yorker" magazine by jane mayer and ronan farrow. deborah ramirez says brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party, pushed his exposed genitals at her, causing her to touch them. kavanaugh, as you heard, denied that happened. pogrebin and kelly report is this, "ramirez's story could be more fully corroborated. during his senate testimony, kavanaugh said if the incident ms. ramirez described had occurred, it would have been the talk of campus. our reporting suggests that it was. at least seven people including ms. ramirez's mother heard about the yale incident long before kavanaugh was a federal judge. two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, sugg

ms. ramirez saying they found her credible and the republican controlled senate imposed strict limits onestigation. we have to wait to get authorization to do anything else. one of the attorneys recalled the agent saying, it was almost a little apologetic. what does this mean to you? >> here's something i learned in the time as prosecutor. if you're specifically not looking for evidence in corroboration you will not find evidence and corroboration. this tells me that the investigation that was done was for show. it was for political cover. it was not the way that any prosecutor or the fbi would ever run a real investigation where what you do is you follow every lead. whenever it takes you often unexpected directions. i have cases that started here and ended up way different. it's becoming apparent and clear that was not done in the original supplemental investigation. >> thank you so much. really preernlt it. i'm going to be sitting down with the authors of this new book, we're discussing about justice kavanaugh, the confirmation hearings and the debate erupted since the excerpts were re

ms. ramirez. but "the wall street journal" points out this morning that the fbi interviewed ms. ramirez and two alleged witnesses, and a friend of ramirez from college. they turned up no substantiating evidence. a third eye witness declined to be interviewed. this woman who made the other allegation, she doesn't remember it. her friend says she doesn't want to go on record. and stier himself would not be interviewed by these authors, either. i just want to get that out there. >> harris: before we go to you, kennedy, i want to call for what we know senator coons explain about his letter, that max stier sent to the fbi. calling the kavanaugh investigation a sham. let's watch. >> i simply passed on his contact information to the director of the fbi. i got a confirmation from the fbi they had received it, but to the best of my knowledge they never questioned or even contacted him. the fbi investigation was deeply disappointing and traveling. the question we don't have answer to, is given that investigation was a sham, at whose direction did that happen?" >> harris: this max stier app

ms. ramirez's attorneys gave over a dozen names at least to the fbi who were not contacted or followed up on. that's my understanding or my recollection, and mr. steyer was one of them. >> yeah. >> and then several days later he reached out to me to say i am trying to be helpful here. i'm trying to offer some testimony, and so i simply passed on his contact information to the director of the fbi. i got a confirmation from the fbi they had received it, but to the best of my knowledge they never questioned or even contacted him. >> do you know if senator chuck grassley received that letter? because he says he didn't. >> i know that the judiciary committee, his counsel according to my counsel, that's a fancy word for attorney, got it, but i expect we'll probably be debating that in the press today. >> basically here's the bottom line, senator, they didn't interview the people who came forward, as you know, the fbi didn't do a fulsome interview. they didn't interview people you're talking about, they didn't interview people who were calling their hot line. do you believe the fbi investigation

ms. ramirez's legal team gave the f.b.i.t of at least 25 individuals who may have had corroborating evidence but the pure to interviewed none of them. >> trevor: the story keeps getting more and more strange. the f.b.i. ignored 25 normer yale students who could give evidence? i didn't know police also ignored white people. crazy. yale and the bronx? who would have known! in the f.b.i.'s defense, the reason they didn't interview the potential witnesses was because the white house reportedly told the f.b.i. that when it came to kavanaugh and the accusations, they were only allowed to interview eleven specific people and no wilson. yeah. it's not something you do when you're confident in someone's innocence. you're just, like, interview anyone -- no, just them. like jeffrey epstein saying, i have nothing to hide -- don't look there, but anywhere else! ( laughter ) if these stories weren't true, why was kavanaugh constantly whipping his dick out at parties? ( laughter ) at every single story, he's doing at high school parties, c

ms. ramirez's allegations about you true? >> those are not. she -- no, none of the witnesses in the room support that. the, if that -- that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm. >> reporter: ramirez and dr. christine blasey-ford, two of the women who stepped forward during kavanaugh's heated confirmation proceedings questioning his fitness to serhe on thebiheanoratio allegations." the justice denied all claims of sexual assault. but this new report prompting democratic candidates for president to call for kavanaugh's impeachment. senator kamala harris, who serves on the senate judiciary committee, tweeting, "he was put on the court through a sham process and his place on the court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice." republicans saying democrats need to move on. >> there's nobody they don't want to impeach, and at some point, they just have to let the anger go. >> kyra, any indication the house judiciary committee will open an investigation? and what's the fbi saying tonight? >> reporter: it'

ms. ramirez's mother heard about the yale incident long before mr. kavanaugh was a federal judge. two were classmates who learned of it days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time. "the new york times" reported on another allegation that kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate during his time at jail, and a witness notified senators and the fbi about his account but the fbi did not investigate and mr. stier has declined to talk about it publicly. the times said the female student involved in the claim declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode. kavanaugh has repeatedly denied the allegations from ford and ramirez and had declined to comment on the new allegations. trump has been vigorously defending kavanaugh on social media. meanwhile, six of the democratic presidential candidates have called for kavanaugh's impeachment and trump responded just in the last hour. >> look at what they're doing today to justice kavanaugh. they're calling for his resignation. they're calling for his impeachment. th

ms. ramirez. >> to those who i hear say over and over this isn't fair to judge kavanaugh.e is entitled to due process. what about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? he is not entitled to those because we are not actually seeking to convict him. >> tucker: we're not trying to convict him. we are trying to destroy him and his family. no due process or presumption of innocence, fairness, irrelevant. whatever they tell you, don't let them tell that you justice has any role in this, of course. this is a pure power grab. the left feels entitled to run the country truly entitled to it and they feel entitled to control the supreme court. they don't, and it drives them crazy. kavanaugh frustrates their political hopes so any smear against him is acceptable no matter what it is. but don't kid yourself. it's not just about destroying brett kavanaugh. he is ancillary. it's about destroying the entire legitimacy of our third branch of government the judiciary. plenty on the left are using the kavanugh saga packing the court, adding more justices to make it reliably left

ms. ramirez michael avenatti bursting on the scene with julie swetnick and several others. we took all of these allegations seriously, and we documented what we did in that 414 page report. >> shannon: so we have congresswoman plaskett lee, ayanna pressley, today introduced a resolution in the house that would kick off impeachment proceedings, essentially, or start the ball rolling with respect to justice kavanaugh. we also have a letter from senator kamala harris, part of the senate judiciary committee and the questioning, her letter to the house judiciary chairman jerry nadler saying we must protect the integrity of our justice system, it's imperative we pursue a legitimate search for the truth, for the benefit of the american people. it's a year later, it seems like it's day one for a lot of folks on this issue. where do we go from here? >> i say a couple of things. the democrats lost the presidential election in 2016, in big part because of a supreme court fight. it democrats four senate incumbents in 2018, largely because if a supreme court figh. if the democrats want

ms. ramirez's allegations about you true? >> those are not. she -- none of the witnesses in the room support that. if that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshmen dorm. >> this new reporting states the former classmates say they were talking about it back then and that many of those people they say they were also ready to then tell the fbi about the recollection. that detail matters because you know if you follow the news misleading the fbi is a crime. so those are at least some yale alumni who are suggesting they were ready to take on personal liability, personal risk to tell their stories therks accouy ies. this book is having huge political repercussions. six 2020 candidates calling for kavanaugh's impeachment, while kavanaugh's defenders, including the president who appointed him saying not only are these allegations denied, but parts of the book reporting were released by "the new york times." i want to turn to nancy erika smith, a leading civil rights lawyer who has represented women in sexual harassment sui

ms. ramirez's allegations about you true? >> those are not.- none of the witnesses in the room support that. the -- if that had happened that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm. >> reporter: kavanaugh also denied claims of sexual assault made by dr. christine blasey ford who testified during kavanaugh's heated confirmation hearing that he held her down and groped her. >> i believed he was going to rape me. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. >> reporter: while the fbi investigated blasey ford and ramirez's stories last year, and found no corroboration of the allegations, "the new york times" reports that the bureau did not investigate max stier's story even though he notified the fbi and members of the senate. democrats say kavanaugh should never have been confirmed. >> my concern here is that the process was a sham. >> reporter: the woman at the center of these most recent allegations spoke briefly to abc news outside her home in boston. the woman who abc news is not naming

ms. ramirez's allegations about you true? >> those are not.s of the room support that. if that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our fresh themen dorm. >> and castro and harris suggest that he should be impeached. should the focus be on why the fbi didn't follow up on two dozen or so leads? >> well, as a historical point of fact, it is interesting to note that president clinton was impeached for a lot less than what is being asserted here. i think that most serious among all of this is the prospect that the department of justice did not do their job and did not commit the -- perform the investigation that they were obligated to during the confirmation process which clearly was a bit after a sham. and that in and of itself bears investigation. but look, the truth of the matter is there were considerable credible allegations against mr. kavanaugh during the confirmation process, not as many as have been made against president trump nor as con te contemporaneo contemporaneous, but a significant number of credible allegation

ms. unnamed friends and we never received an allegation about brett kavanaugh the one referenced in the report over this weekend. after interviewing eight people related to the ramirez allegations not once was mr. stiers name mentioned. i had -- had my staff received a substantive allegations or had he approach me or my staff we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him. but the alleged victim, who also did not speak to these writers, apparently does not recall the incident. that's a point that "the new york times" failed to include in its initial coverage. now, it happens for accountability there's that is the cornerstone of democracy. i welcome scrutiny of my work and i frequently refer to reporters and journalists as the police of our democratic system. but today i am reminded of a very old adage, who will watch the watchmen? this week sends report includes embarrassing irresponsible missteps. mistakes that weren't serious self reflection. one year ago after the interviews with dozens of people the new york times cannot even cooperate the allegations laid out byou this ramirez and declid to report on it. with nothing but a year of time and anothe