apparently rachel mitchell doesn't know that. the republican prosecutor's memo is a public document written for and addressed to, quote, all republican senators. it is an attempt by mitch mcconnell to convince all republican senators to use the criminal trial standard for a confirmation hearing, something that has never been done before. nominees have dropped out of consideration or been defeated in the past because of reasonable suspicions of behavior and activities that are unacceptable in a government official and most unacceptable in a lifetime appointment to the united states supreme court. the republican prosecutor's memo does not say one word about brett kavanaugh's testimony, not one word about his instantly provable perjury about the drinking age in maryland when he was in high school. in a moment we'll be joined by lisa graves, former senate judiciary counsel on her reaction to this unprecedented memo that has the kind of thing that's never occurred in a confirmation hearing before and former federal prosecutor barbara

rachel mitchell says, quote, i do not think a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on evidencemmittee. when critic says that is absurd based on what mitchell taught him as a prosecutor. is part of the power panel, kevin prock, lisa boosts and former colleague of rachel mitchell matthew long. i went to read what you said publicly. early analysis should have been the process you have given me, the information we have is in for sufficient. rachel mitchell's failure to have any analysis of brett kavanaugh reveals her political bias. >> i stand by that considering the questions that should be asked, who is paying for ms. mitchell? how much? the same criticisms miss mitchell posts to doctor ford out to be signed on her as well given her history of demand and particularly stringent protocol and investigation integrity but not seeking those in this context and it is troubling given her role as a prosecutor and her position in the past including positions she takes on current cases active in her office. >> they did pay her outside. and they paid standard fees that they hire. we can keep

my name is rachel mitchell. i am here mostly for twitter, and although everyone will constantly be referring to me as female prosecutor, you can really just call me straight up prosecutor, okay? of good start packaging. we distribute environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet? billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart. bringing criminal charges really just call me straight up bringing criminal charges really just call me stra

and i also just find interesting that rachel mitchell has come forward, making a statement -- >> racheln the senate judiciary had come in and she was the one who questioned for the first half of the hearing, questioned dr. ford. you were in the room. you know, but then didn't with the -- >> yeah, exactly. and i think her statement is extremely political, not prosecutorial. she's saying -- >> go ahead. you explain that. >> you -- >> no, no. she says a, quote, reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case against brett kavanaugh based on ford's sexual assault allegation, which, you know, you can say provides cover for republicans. you know, she's been working in this space for a long time. why would she come forward and say that? >> because as a prosecutor, she has to conduct an investigation with the proper law enforcement agency. she can't be dismissive of some of these allegations. she said this is a he said/she said case, which i agree with her, and those cases are more challenging to prosecute, to find evidence on, but they're brought all the time. every day. and they're brought to co

linda and roger who for years conducted prosecutor training with rachel mitchell.credibly difficult to prove, but this case even weaker than that. do you agree? >> first of all, i always train insistence there's no such thing as a he said, she said. it's your job as a prosecutor, as an investigator to find a solution that supports one or the other. there's so much more information that everybody has especially dr. ford than was listed in this very choppy five mipt, five minute hearing. and i i think you need to sit down with her. maybe her lawyers have. certainly ms. mitchell was not a prosecutor in her role last week. but to find out how long she knew brett kavanaugh. so when she says i have 100% certainty about recognizing him, it's because she was with him on one, two, three, four, five other times. how about mark judge?3 how about the other guys in the room? so much more to take this than the other bits we saw the other day. >> and roger, you said the bits in the memo are not from a reasonable proscurecutor. >> let me clear, when she says a reasonable prosecuto

i haven't seen anyone criticize rachel mitchell's laying out of the facts.republicans. if you have a dispute with the facts, that is one thing. people are way too focused on emotion and not enough on evidence. >> john: for some reason something can forward that is that disqualified kavanaugh or forced them to withdraw, is there any way the president could get a backup nominee through before the end of the year? >> i don't think so. >> john: what if they hold the senate? >> maybe they could do it in a lame duck but no, not before the midterms. that is a whole other question. >> john: aim at the end of the year. >> i think they could do it in a lame duck of the republicans held the senate but if they didn't come i don't think so. >> john: panel, thank you so much. when we come back, courage under fire. ♪ this is actually under your budget. it's great. mm-hmm. yeah, and when you move in, geico could help you save on renters' insurance! man 1: (behind wall) yep, geico helped me with renters insurance, too! um... the walls seem a bit thin... man 2: (behind wall)

where an unproven accusation is enough to deny somebody confirmation in the senate and in fact as rachel mitchell pointed out, the confirmation was alleged that never happened that's what's happened so far but in a way that it should never have turned out intconducted a spectacle ths primarily because the ranking member sat on the accusation of july 30 creating the circumstance we have now but what we are seeing is one excuse after another to continue to delay and delay. make no mistake about it that democrats have one goal and that is to delay, do anything they can to push this and next year and then to be able to stop any nominee from being put on the supreme court, so i would echo what the leader said in terms of a schedule i think it's important that we get the fbi report and move forward with the vote. it's time for people to be on record. we are continuing in the senate to put up bipartisan accomplishments. we will vote on a reauthorization bill which is a five year piece of legislation working with both republicans and democrats in the house and senate on legislation that would put in plac

rachel mitchell, the prosecutor hired by the senate judiciary committee to question brett kavanaugh and his accuser, christine blasey-ford last week hasn't produced a report. her findings are fascinating and speak to dr. ford's credibility. her overall appraisal, she finds the assault allegations against kavanaugh to be weak, and in the legal context, here is her bottom line. she writes "he said-she said case is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event, and they either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. for the reasons discussed below, i do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case, based on the evidence before the committee. nor do i believe that the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard." that's a lower standard. mitchell then offers a nine-point critique of ford's account based on the evidence at hand. she writes "dr. ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened." in her july 6th text, she said it

in her memo, expert rachel mitchell says "i do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring thisased on the evidence before the committee." that is absurd based on what mitchell herself taught him as a prosecutor. he is part of tonight's power panel, let's bring them in. former fbi assistant, kevin brock. fox news contributor, lisa boone and former colleague of rachel mitchell, matthew long. welcome all of you. i want to read part of what you said publicly, her only analysis should buy the process that she is given media and it is insufficient. you say that rachel michelle's failure to to include any accounts brett kavanaugh reveals her applicable bias. matthew. >> i stand by that. especially considering some questions that should be asked which is who is paying for mess mitchell? how much? who paid for her to get there? the same criticism that she has posed to dr. ford ought to be the same light shined on her as well. especially given her history of demanding particularly stringent protocol and investigation integrity for the investigations that she seeks, but is not seeking tho

and when we approach rachel mitchell after that hearing today, she would not take any questions. so it is just interesting, and i think important to keep in mind for context that she did not actually spend the same amount of time questioning both blasey ford and kavanaugh. >> i've got to go. quick, 15 seconds? >> yeah, with the thing with rachel mitchell, too, she was skirting around the things that really mattered and she was focused on her fear of flying, her, you know, credibility things. who paid for the polygraph, you know, how did she find her lawyer. because i think the defense there, essentially, was that this is a big conspiracy by the democrats. and so -- >> yeah. she didn't get to finish her job, and that's what so many people are wondering what the heck were going on when we were all sitting there watching that hearing. ladies, thank you so much. i appreciate that analysis. let's roll on to the top of the show. >>> here we go. moments from now, president trump is set to hold a medal of honor spokceremony at the white house. so we'll take that live as soon as we see hi

they're pointing to the work of the prosecutor, rachel mitchell, who they brought in. the president said i grew up in a country where it's innocent until proven guilty. because it's -- the idea is in that hearing that the judiciary committee had, did christine ford create enough doubt about brett kavanaugh? >> well, let me make something clear. could you convict brett kavanaugh of perjury? could you even convict him of the sexual assault now based on the information we have available to us? the answer is probably no. but that does not mean he should be on the supreme court. we -- just because the reasonable doubt standard could not be met, you could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, even perjury, because there's some of these statements, including the ones over when he learned about the reporting in the "new yorker" and so on, they're somewhat hard to prove. the question becomes are we exercising judgment to give someone a position on the supreme court. given now the number, i believe it's 29 times he was found to have given misleading or unclear or prevaricat

political operatives acting as disinterested voyeurs with their best wishes at heart we've heard from rachel mitchell investigative council from arizona and judge kavanaugh i appreciate the professionalism and it isn't one many wouldhe have sought because they would be thrust with a huge national debate and the circus -like atmosphere the judiciary committee had become. and to have a public service. but she chose to do so. and as a t sex crime and then with victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault and have expertise and wisdom with these type of cases. with that expertise and knowledge the way she had respectful and trepidation from doctor ford. her analysis contains crucialon points the fbi investigation and it isn't a case of he said she said she said they said every witness alleged to be present by doctor ford while he was 17 years old all of those people said they have no memory of such an event. and in one case her close friend says she does not even remember meeting brett kavanaugh. but certainly patrick smith or mark judge they say the event never happened it isn't just allegations but it is

ford's timeline for the assault, and it seemed prosecutor rachel mitchell was at least somewhat interestedeast on thursday. >> judge, do you still have your calendar -- calendars there? >> i do. >> i would like you to look at the july 1st entry. >> yes. >> the entry says, and i quote, go to timmy's for skis with judge, tom, pj, bernie and squi? >> squi. it's a nickname. >> did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar? >> yes. it certainly appears that way that's what i was doing in the summer of 1982. and you can see that reflected on several of the -- several of the entries. >> if a gathering like dr. ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that? >> yes, because i documented everything, those kinds of events, even small get toss. >> so on thursday, rachel mitchell was moving in on that july 1st timeline, and then judge kavanaugh steered away toward another date, and the prosecutor never got another turn. for some reason she was sidelined for the rest of the hearing. and in her assessment of dr

hearing from rachel mitchell the council from arizona interviewing doctor ford and , i appreciateh the professionalism which how she approached the job not many one would have sought because she knew she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national debate and the circus atmosphere the judiciary had become and to do a public service and was not pressured in any way to prevent -an - present her own analysis but chose to do so. so what she said based on her experience with the sex crimes prosecutor to routinely deal with sexual abuse andvi sexual assault and she has developed a lot of expertise and wisdom when it comes to approaching these kinds of cases to be the beneficiary of the expertise and knowledge the way she has her careful interrogation of doctor ford. and with those crucial points with that background investigation but first this he said / sheof said but it was she said / they said in other words every witness alleged to be present at the time that doctor ford and physically assaulted her those that they identified that they have no memory with no knowledge of such an

. >> rachel mitchell, the prosecutor hired to question blasey ford said no prosecutor would bring charges based off of this evidence but also conceives that a senate confirmation is not a trial. abc news, washington. >>> don't miss any new developments on the supreme court nomination. you can be the first to know about them with our abc 7 news app. >>> back to president trump. he is crediting his trade policies for bringing about a revised trade agreement with mexico and canada. mr. trump calls it the united states/mexico/canada with the most advanced protections for developed. >> the deal includes increased labor protections and greater access to the cadian dairy market. the deal must be ratified by mexico and canada and also approved byo our other big locay today is rain in the forecast. we haven't seen this in many months. >> yes. we'll get light showers working through here early tomorrow morning. live doppler 7 kind of an app pfiz -- appetizer for what's to come. we are leaning closer to the treat level. you can see an isolated pop-up. i wouldn't be surprised if you're watching us ri

. >> the sex crimes prosecutor rachel mitchell said in her eight page document that there is no corroboratingoctor ford's testimony was inconsistent, had major gaps in it and the like and the senate judiciary committee bent over backwards to hear doctor ford. you have a right to be believed, there was no corroborating evidence of what doctor ford was testifying in addition to the questionable us of her own testimony and rachel mitchell said it best, and the senate judiciary committee recognizing this as they should vote to confirm brett kavanaugh. there is nothing more to be said. democrats won in the sense they got the extra week for more support, to encourage republican senators to defect. at this point what more is left to do. jillian: the democrats say this was limited in scope, they should have questioned brett kavanaugh. >> grassley has written several letters saying we need the information that support your polygraph test. and my understanding, what is the point, and testified under oath, what could be gained by an fbi agent. >> they would give that information to the fbi should they q

this past sunday we heard from rachel mitchell, an investigative counsel who interviewed dr. ford and judge kavanaugh at the hearing. i appreciation the professionalism that she approached this judge not one that many would have sought because she knew and we all knew that she would be thrust into the vortex of this huge national debate and the circus-like atmosphere unfortunately that the judiciary committee had become, but she did, i think, do a public service. she was not pressured in any way to present her own analysis following the hearing, but she chose to do so. and what she said based on her experience as a sex crimes prosecutor, somebody that routinely deals with victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault and she has developed a lot of expertise and wisdom when it comes to approaching these kinds of cases and i think we were the britishry, the country was the beneficiary of her expertise and knowledge and the way she connected her careful, but respectful interrogation of dr. ford. and her conclusion that the fbi's background investigation may flesh out this week even

that's certainly something that rachel mitchell seized on. i'm curious what you thought about rachel mitchell's conclusion and what you think as a prosecutor generally about dr. ford's story three, four days after the testimony. >> yeah, the issue isn't so much rachel mitchell's conclusion as it is to the question and the premise. there is either an unintentional or a deliberate effort to frame this as a criminal prosecution when, in fact, it is not. it is much more akin to a job interview. in a criminal prosecution the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and a presumption of innocence. by that standard she's right, you could not prove a case here. others have said you couldn't get a warrant because there is no probable cause here. that may be true, but that's not the issue. the issue is is this the person that you want to put on our u.s. supreme court. if these allegations had come up earlier, before he had been nominated, i am certain he never would have been nominated because you would say, even if this isn't true, if it's just a c

the only people that asked real questions was rachel mitchell. the democrats just repeated the same phrase over and over again. you are a hero. you are a hero. bravo, bravo. they didn't ask the right questions. they had their chance. dianne feinstein is the last person on the planet to accuse anyone of constraining. she sat on that letter so long, you could see the donna karan imprint on it. [laughter] let's not forget the media. i hope they share some introspection on this because first you tried rape, then you tried boozing, then ice throwing, then the devils triangle. whenever you tried to accuse somebody of something, it was couched in safety language. i didn't see it happen but i heard about it from somebody else. then when the fbi chases it down, there's absolutely nothing there. like flimsy structures in a really bad country, they fall apart at the strongest wind. the other lesson, you have to ask why some people kept their heads down during this, even of the claims became more ludicrous. why didn't anybody share the risk? i include republ

ford put forward. >> which rachel mitchell mentioned in the last two or three minutes of the day. >>e are too harsh talking about the job she was selected to do, that job was invented by chuck grassley. that committee is run by chuck grassley. he nearly ran the republican party in the ditch. an abysmal performance. don't you think? >> from the point of view of the prosecutor role it's unsatisfactory to be interrupted every five minutes by campaign speeches of the democrats. >> lou: interrupted every ten days for a hearing instead of having expeditious process. >> of course. and judge kavanaugh drove the point home he wanted a hearing right away and mitchell exposed that looking harsh the plane myth. she got out who paid for the polygraph issue and she scored points in a way without leaving marks on the witness. a lot of us lawyers are like that with was not a great followup. >> lou: what do you think of the job grassley did? >> i would haven't chosen the methodology that was chosen and that is not the best choice in hindsight. there are many great lawyers among republican senators on

rachel mitchell, to remember her?he question both professor ford and judge kavanaugh, she has already released her report to the senate committee and these findings. they are devastated. this is what she said, a he said, she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event at those witnesses either refuted her allegations were failed to cooperate them. for the reasons discussed below i do not think any reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee. the prosecutor went on to list multiple issues were professor ford's allegations including no consistent account and when the alleged assault actually happened, a failure to progress identify judge kavanaugh as he is salient. a failure to member key details including who remembered him to the party, how she got to the party and where the party even took place. how she got home from the party. she does however remember unrelated details like the consump

documento de cinco pÁginas al fbi la mujer que fue la que interrogÓ a christine blesey ford, rachel mitchelr a cabo. borja: veremos lo que sucede. vamos a hablar de este otro tema. miles de menores que habÍan sido separados de sus familias en la frontera estarÍan siendo reubicados en un campamento en el desierto de texas. ebro, vamos contigo. pedro: las reacciones son mÚltiples. hemos comenzado a conversar con el cÓnsul de guatemala en la regiÓn y nos ha dicho que prÁcticamente están sorprendidos. hicieron una visita a mediados de verano a este centro de detenciÓn y les dijeron que este lugar habrÍa de ser cerrado en agosto pero han decidido traer a muchos mÁs menores permanecen en otros albergues. el departamento de salud tiene los albergues en los estados de la naciÓn: han decidido reubicar a todos los menores en un lugar. se dice que hay mÁs de 13,000 menores que llegaron a la frontera sin acompaÑantes en custodia del gobierno federal y se especula que cientos de ellos y por quÉ no miles podrÍan estar llegando en horas de la noche o durante el dÍa siguiente procedentes del resto de los a

my name is rachel mitchell. i'm here mostly for twitter. although everyone will constantly be referring to me as female prosecutor, you can really just call me straight up prosecutor, okay? now, before we begin -- >> your time is up. >> already regretting this. thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> that was amy bryant. she was dead on. so was matt damon. i wondered how "saturday night live" would do this and try to find some humor because we all know it's certainly not funny. but they managed to hit on some things that made you think, okay, that was pretty good. >> we needed a laugh. >> we did. >>> welcome back to "cbs this morning." here are three things you should know this morning. country music will go silent today to mark the one-year anniversary of the las vegas mass shooting, the deadliest in modern u.s. history. country radio stations, record labels and other groups nati wl pause 58 the 5 the rou festival. mourners have started to gather at memorials along the las vegas strip. the iconic stretch is set to go dark tonight to honor the

. >> the outside counsel hired by republicans, rachel mitchell, was her name. he wrote a memo saying she wouldn't press charges if this allegation was brought to her. she wrote, a, he said/she said case is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that. tell me what you make of that assessment. >> well, i would really be happy to know that rachel mitchell would wait to press charges until she did a full investigation. you expect the prosecutor to listen to the statements and corroborate or not corroborate or look for other witnesses in this case. and i think actually the point about kavanaugh not being honest is a very critical aspect because there is a aspect of the case where a witness who is materially false in one area can be distrusted in every area. then that becomes relevant to the investigation. so, to think that ms. mitchell knows how she would handle the filing of a case without a shred of other evidence is ridiculous. >> thank you all. i appreciate it. >>> so, if you thought kanye's rant was nuts, by the way, i was there. i'll

they conducted prosecutor training with rachel mitchell. >> mitchell says in her memo he said, she saidncredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. do you agree? >> i always trained there's no such thing as a he said, she said. it's your job as an investigator, as a prosecutor to find the information that supports one side or the other. there's so much more information that everybody has especially dr. ford then was listed at this very choppy five minute hearing. i think you need to sit down with her. when she says i have 100% certainty about recognizing him it's because she was with him on one, two, three, four, five. how about mark judge or the other guys in the room. >> you say mitchell conclusion in the memo are not the reasonable views of the prosecutor. can you explain why you have that opinion? >> i think when she says a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case as a criminal matter, i think she's right. i don't think the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. i don't think the interest of the justice would demand bringing it forward in that for

they blacked out about the rachel mitchell memo. we are covering it.he only reason we are covering it, because no one else's because they blacked out. these are huge things that the media cannot remember because they don't want to remember it. it's disgusting. >> juan: you listen to the president today, the president is now engaging in just the kind of angry bullying behavior. cory booker. >> greg: [laughs] >> juan: richard blumenthal is a liar come all these democrats, they are not angels over there. >> greg: isn't that great? >> juan: we are talking about a supreme court nominee. totally denigrating the whole process. >> greg: uncorroborated accusations. destroying a person's life. and uncorroborated accusation. >> juan: you are focusing as if this is just about kavanaugh. >> greg: this is all it's about. you are willing to destroy somebody over a seat. you can have the seat. >> juan: i have bullets and me from trying to defend someone when i thought they were being unfairly maligned. i will tell you when you look at kavanaugh, you just said you thin

u rachel mitchell, the independent prosecutor hired by the senate judiciary committee to question bothrofessor ford and judge kavanaugh, she's already released a report to the senated judiciary committee. in these findings, they are devastating, that is what she says. he said-she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. dr. ford identified other witnesses to the event and filledwi goes witnesses either refuted her allegations are failed to cooperate them. for the reasons discussed below, i do not think any reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee. then theco prosecutor went on to listue multiple issues where professor ford's accusations, including no consistent account of when the alleged assault actually happened, a failure to previously identified judge kavanaugh as the assailant, inconsistent descriptions of the alleged assault, a failure to remember key details including who invited ford to the party, how she got to the party, where the party took place, and how she got home from the party. she

. >> let's start with what we're hearing from rachel mitchell.l mitchell conducted the questioning for republicans during the hearing of brett kavanaugh and in a memorandum to republican senators, she says a, quote, reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case against brett kavanaugh based on christine blasey ford's sexual assault allegation given the evidence presented to the judiciary committee. again, she also questioned blasey ford as well. given her thoughts here, what's your assessment? >> well, you have to understand who she is in relation to this case, which is to say that she was hired by the republican majority on the senate judiciary committee for the purpose of conducting inquiry on their behalf. so she is essentially not an independent neutral, but a hired gun for the republicans. so one would expect that. that said, her assessment may be correct in that most of these cases look for some form of corroborative evidence. that's what the fbi are going to start looking for now that they have been granted permission to go forward in that

prosecutor rachel mitchell will ask for questions for republicans.achel mitchell said she would never advise you to case against brett kavanaugh because the evidence is just not there. >> i'm very concerned about this. the white house should not be allowed to micromanage an fbi investigation. >> kellyanne said they're not. >> i know. seven days is bad enough, but then to limit the fbi as to the scope and who they're going to question. that really -- i want to use the word fires, but that's not the kind of investigation that all of us were expecting the fbi to conduct. elizabeth: democrats weighed in on not. senator orrin hatch off this way made. republicans said okay let's have a hearing. democrats cried bully in the hearing to shame. we need an fbi investigation. republicans that will have an fbi investigation. democrats at the first. let's bring in former fbi assistant director attorney chris wicker. great to see you, chris. your take on this ugly, ugly battle. >> unfortunately the fbi caught in another political firestorm. the only way to get thro

he could be brought up on perjury charges. >> that was the flaw on rachel mitchell's report, that she basically opining that she never talked about kavanaugh's testimony, she never spoke separately to ford. so we will see if any of these stories hold up or not. >> tucker: maybe we should throw him in prison. and, if you feel in your heart that's true, i'm here till the end. i'm not asking you to go into the deep dark past but do you think hillary should apologize for directing the smear campaign against her husband's former girlfriend? which she did. >> i think there were people in the clinton white house that hung on to the notion that monica lewinsky was making things out. i've never heard hillary clinton say that publicly and everyone who has kind of a public defender of bill clinton never said that. all i'm saying is, brett kavanaugh -- >> tucker: i know that stuff, i covered it. i was there for of it. >> tucker: but never publicly. >> so this was being directed by hillary. no debate about it, lots of books written on this. i'm not saying she should go to hell for it or go to pris

that was the flaw in rachel mitchell's report, that she was basically opiningmi she never talked aboutanaugh's testimony, she never spoke openly to ford separately, so let's let the fbi kind of get the facts out and then we'll see whether any of these stories hold up orwi not. what the president said last night was despicable. >> tucker: maybe we should throw to mark judge in prison because his former girlfriend's that he said something ugly. i think that's the standard now. if you feel it in your heart it's true because america actually has gone crazy. i only have u.s. passport so i'm here until the end, i'm going to keep fighting against this but a lot of other people are going to leave. really quickly, do you think -- and i hate going into the deep dark past, not 37 years ago but like 20 years ago but do you think hillary should apologize for directing the smear campaign against her husband's former girlfriend, which she did? >> i think there were people in the clinton white house who hung onto the notion that monica lewinsky was making things up. i never hurt hillary clinton saidsk

president was stating the facts and, frankly, facts that were included in special prosecutor rachel mitchell's report. >> reporter: michelle dover launched the enough is enough voter project, a political action committee committed to making violence against women a voting issue. >> this is cheerily going to stop other victims from coming forward, so i think it's shameful and i think as an absolutely unforgivable abuse of power by the president. >> reporter: as for that local rally, it will be held in palo alto tomorrow night at 7:00 at the corner of el camino real and embarcadero road. we're live in palo alto tonight. i'm chris nguyen, abc 7 news. >>> city officials may have to eliminate some firefighters. we went from the peninsula in palo alto to santa rosa where we're talking about the elimination of firefighters jobs because of a budget deficit. the city council needs to cut $7 million and that means 50 jobs are on the line including six for firefighters. the budget took a hit when they had to fight the tubbs fire. >>> calling for a new investigation. why the cause of the cracked window in

>> reporter: reggie, over the weekend a memo came out that rachel mitchell, the special prosecutor to question christine blasey ford, a memo five pages long detailing why she would not recommend charges against brett kavanaugh based on what christine blasey ford said. she outlined several reasons why, lists things like inconsistencies in her story, and gaps in blasey ford's memory that she says, you know, make this not even a he said/she said case in rachel mitch will el's view. this is even weaker than that. the democrats, of course, are coming back already and expecting to say this was not about christine blasey ford being on trial. instead, it was about brett kavanaugh interviewing for a job. >> that has been the confusion in the whole process. emily rau, thank you very much. there are new developments every day. you can be the first to know about them with our abc 7 news app. be sure to enable push alerts and you get them sent right to your phone or mobile device. >>> a former berkeley professor is awarded the nobel prize in medicine for discovering a new cancer treatment. this is

. >> reporter: arizona sex crimes prosecutor rachel mitchell who questioned christine ford released a memo today saying case against kevin on his greek. this comes as the fbi gets the green light to expand its probe and a college classmate of l stepped forward week.>> reporte: republicans reminded the nation expect no delay in kavanaugh's supreme court nominations vote. >> i want them to do a comprehensive investigation.>> reporter: the president says this should pursue always provided it is done within one week. the question is whether this will be enough to satisfy any senators left without after doctor christine ford's testimony last week capitol has assaulted her. >> there is still a lot of doubt which is why it is important for the investigation -- that fbi to do more investigating.>> reporter: there is a list of some two dozen people that democrats believe should be interviewed. mark judge attorney confirmed he is being interviewed. >> the republicans want to frame this as a criminal investigation where judge kavanaugh is innocent until pr >> reporter: david levine says that thi

>> well, arizona prosecutor rachel mitchell who questioned blasey ford on behalf of the republicans hasssessed ford's allegations. what does it say? >> bottom line it's a he said/she said case and no prosecutor would bring it to a criminal trial. nor a civil trial. that's because mitchell says the people ford named as witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. anne-marie? >> laura podesta, thank you so much. >>> well, ahead on "cbs this morning," we'll hear from one of the women who gave a passionate plea to senator jeff flake about the kavanaugh nomination in an elevator. we will ask her about the confrontation and if she believes she influenced flake's decision to call for an fbi investigation. >>> this is the first monday in october when the supreme court begins its new term. the new session begins with just eight justices instead of nine following the retirement of justice anthony kennedy. on the docket this session, the court will hear arguments and cases on age discrimination, endangered species and if a state can execute a prisoner whose mental disabi

in a new memo obtained overnight by nbc news, rachel mitchell, the prosecutor republicans hired, called sexual assault allegations against judge brett kavanaugh weak and says, "i don't think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this cas" that evidence could be growing. a source familiar with the investigation tells nbc the fbi has interviewed deborah ramirez, the woman who claims kavanaugh exposed himself to her in college. our source says she provided a list of people who can back up her story. the fbi will also reportedly interview kavanaugh's high school friend, mark judge. dr. christine blasey ford testified judge was there during her alleged assault. but sources tell us no interview is scheduled for the third accuser, julie swetnick. >> the allegation that she makes is outrageous. not one democrat mentioned it. >> reporter: democrats say the white house is handicapping this investigation from the start by limiting witnesses. >> i wanted to use the word farce, but that's not the kind of investigation that all of us are expecting the fbi to conduct. >> reporter: president trump t

dr christine blasey ford was questioned not by an all—white male judiciary committee, but by rachel mitchellat the optics were important, i think there was a recognition on the democratic side as well. one of the differences that i noticed between what happened with anita hill and dr blasey ford was that the democrats in this instance were very clear that they saw the allegations as credible, they saw her as credible, and they wanted to affirm her. that is not what happened with anita hill, even the democrats more or less, as i said, left hanging to dry. so there is a recognition that these are very important issues and is they cannot be dismissed. on the other hand, the endgame is pretty much the same. and as i look at what we learned two weeks ago, is that a woman still has to run the gauntlet of credibility, she still has to show an appropriate level of trauma, she has to be truthful, she can't be overly resentful or angry, it and dr blasey ford was able to do that. so most of the commentators, even on fox tv, that leans to supporting president trump, everybody was saying this is a very,

rachel mitchell's memo is a microcosm of the problems we're seeing with this cavanaugh nomination.mply evaluated in i think a very slanted way dr. fords's testimony. this whole dynamic was set up falsely as a he said/she said. and i say falsely because there was no investigation done prior to the hearing. and as a prosecutor, she should know better that you cannot assess a case unless you do an investigation unless in the unusual case we have here there is a third person alleged to be there and you don't interview that person. what is even worse is that her memo, which is set up as a he said/she said does not even evaluate the he or what he said. and i think what we are seeing now is it is still not a complete investigation. i feel bad for my former colleagues at the the fbi because i am certain that they would like to do a real investigation where they follow leads, they look for documentary evidence, they speak to all wednesday who may have information about this and they can do that in a short period of time. it may well be that this investigation doesn't support dr. ford's alle

sanders: the president was stating the facts, frankly, facts included an rachel mitchell's report. he was stating facts given during dr. ford's testimony. the senate has to make a decision based on this fact and whether or not they the judge kavanaugh to be qualified to hold a position on the supreme court. every single word judge kavanaugh has said has been picked apart, every single word, second by second of his testimony picked apart. but if anybody says anything about the accusations that have been thrown against them some a is totally off-limits and outrageous. this entire process has been a disgrace, and the only reason it has been that way is because senate democrats did not do this the way it should of been done, and they circumvented the entire system. they have undermined our entire judicial branch by the way they have acted. >> pointing out and in testimony is one thing, but the tone in which the president did it last night clearly has an effect on two key swing votes for his nomination. is the president concerned that he may have to dispose in danger by doing what he di

kavanaugh repeated under questions from amy klobuchar and independent counsel rachel mitchell said, yesally know what too many beers necessarily is, you tell me what the definition, no, i have never blabd ocked out, pd out or woke up somewhere different than where i started. there are a lot of people who he went to high school and college with who suggest this is not accurate. and then we found out about this incident in a bar after a ub-40 concert in which chris dudley, yale student, friend of kavanaugh's are went on to are a center in the nba, he was arrested for this fight kavanaugh allegedly threw ice but wouldn't explain why he threw ice. so this all goes to temperament. does brett kavanaugh have the temperament, is any of this stuff a big enough deal if you can show and i don't know if it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt, if you can show that he didn't tell the truth here and especially i think here, is that enough? and remember, not whether he's guilty or not guilty. is it enough store jeff flake, susan collins, lisa murkowski to vote yes or no. throw in joe manchin and heidi

. >> the president was stating facts that were included in prosecutor rachel mitchell's report. the senate has to make a decision based on those facts whether they see judge kavanaugh to be qualified to hold the position on the supreme court. kennedy: three people who are not buying that explanation, senators collins, flake and murkowski. could the president's comments hurt the confirmation process? bre peyton is on deck along with harlan hill, and richard fowler is here, host of the richard fowler show. he's also a fox news contributor. >> i have got to say, we are literally watching a reality show in front of us as we await the fbi to happened or the report to the white house. and there will be one copy. in congress you have amok. kennedy: do you think the president was inappropriately mocking christine ford at that rally? >> if you say something and the crowd laughs, that sounds like mocking to me. it make it harder for the three senators who are the key in this, and it also is the reason a lot of women don't come forward because they are mocked. kennedy: i think there are a