while the fbi will examine the allegations of christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, the fbi has not been permitted by the white house to directly -- directly investigate the claims of julie swetnick who as you know accused kavanaugh of engaging at sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at georgetown prep in the 1980s. instead of investigating, directly investigating swetnick's claims, the white house counsel's office has given the fbi a list of witnesses that they are allowed to interview. this is, again, according to several sources. those same sources, alex, say that these perceived constraints will make it difficult to pursue additional leads. and this limited scope, by the way, seems to be at odds with what some members of the senate judiciary committee seem to expect when they agreed to give the fbi as much as a week to investigate these claims. now, right after this story published yesterday i got the chance to toss some questions to president trump and i asked him will you give the fbi free rein to investigate wherever they see fit? here is what he said. >> i

why don't the fbi go in and investigate that. d to have the president to tell them to do it. there are so many reasons that this unseemingly rush to get brett kavanaugh on the court is just - it is explainable but it is not acceptable. >> senator hirono of hawaii, thank you, i really appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. much more to get to tonight. stay with us. opportunity is everywhere. like here. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. it's doing a lot of kicking down there. meeting the parents. it's gonna be fine. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... go dani, go! opportunity is everywhere. all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call 877-buy-dell today. walking a dog can add thouswalkin

the white house tells the fbi, hey, look into this. that was not the stop the presses moment in the anita hill/clarence thomas controversy. there was not any big fight about this. the white house learned there were new allegations, derogatory information about clarence thomas. since the fbi was in charge of looking into the nominee and documenting potential derogatory information about him the white house, naturally, asked the fbi to look into this new information, too. we actually spoke with c. boyden gray today about that moment in the clarence thomas nomination process. mr. gray confirmed for us today this basic timeline about how this went down, basically confirmed the understanding that we have from looking at the historical record that this was -- this part of it just wasn't a pivotal moment in this controversy. the fbi did reopen its background investigation of clarence thomas to add this matter when the white house asked them to. the fbi, when they received this request from the white house, they went out and interviewed judge t

the fbi has not been notified yet. the white house has to notify the fbi. sident is on board with that. but it hasn't happened. we'll talk to an fbi person about that coming up next. fami. with our service, veterans like us earned the powerful va home loan benefit that lets us borrow up to 100 percent of our home's value. at newday usa, that can mean a lot more money, especially if your home has gone up in value. on average, our veterans take out 54,000 dollars. the newday 100 va loan lets you refinance your mortgage, consolidate your high rate credit card debt, get cash... and lower your payments by over 600 dollars a month. and because newday usa has been granted automatic authority by the va, they can say yes when banks say no. they look at your whole financial picture, not just your credit score. they even do all the va paperwork for you, so your loan could close in as little as 30 days. so if you're a veteran and need money for your family, call newday usa. go to newdayusa.com, or call 1-855-429-4863. call to see if you qualify to enroll in a medicare a

he's the only one who doesn't know it. with this new fbi investigation, is he more dead today or more likely toda come back to life? >> the way a lot of trump allies see it or convinced themselves, this fbi investigation helps them. a lot of swing republican votes they're trying to get, it puts those people at ease. if a this investigation comes bk andck there's no really credibl sort of follow-up after this investigation, they feel like they'll haveat the votes to confirm brett kavanaugh, when on friday, they did not have the votes. >> kevin, president trump called thereev dr ford a fine earn. what do you make of the measured tone since thursday's hearing? >> there wasda the measured ton then and then the tone on his twitter account. i think that the president has taken different tones with regards to dr. ford. i do think, however, the ordering of an fbi investigation is a departure from what we had seen the white house strategy has been for the past several days. i would totally agree with her and add that youy could have a situation on t

the white house now says the president will order such an fbi probe. and a lawyer says kavanaugh's high school friend, mark judge, at the center of these allegations, will cooperate with any law enforcement investigation. i'll speak with senator mazie hirono, and our correspondents, analysts and specialists. they are standing by with full coverage of the day's top stories. let's begin with our senior congressional correspondent, manu raju, in the truly extraordinary developments unfolding up on capitol hill. so manu, where do things stand right now? >> reporter: wolf, republican senators just left a private meeting with senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, to talk about all the day's stunning developments. when they emerge, they made very clear the majority there has agreed to delay a final confirmation vote until after the fbi report into these, quote, credible allegations are -- is completed. now, it's unclear exactly what credible allegations the fbi will investigate. but senators told me, leaving that meeting, that the fbi will determine what it

does the fbi have free rein or is the white house micromanaging? into the scope of brett kavanaugh's scope. the acciarimony is still boilin >> a judge to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote to confirm one of of the most accomplished legal minds of our time. >> even assuming we were unfairly accused, he's still supposed to behave as a judge. he can feel what he wants. >> but you're trying to portray him as a stumbling, bumbling drunk, a gang rapist who during high school and college was bill cosby. >>> plus, the second accuser, the fbi now questioning her about claims against the supreme court nominee. we'll tell you what her lawyer says. >>> but we begin this hour with new reaction from the white house on the scope of the investigation into sexual assault allegations against judge kavanaugh. two people familiar with the matter tell "the new york times," four people will be questioning over the next few days. but top officials are pushing back on reports that this list is part of its effort to limit the scope of the investigation and explaining why it

>> it's not what the fbi does. they're trying to see if there is an allegation that should be investigated by the senate judiciary committee. and the senate judiciary committee has already heard these allegations, already investigated them, have sworn statements that expose all these people to five years in prison if they're lying. i would be very surprised if the fbi covers something else. >> i served as chief investigate for all of these committees and worked with some of the best investigative reporters in the country. for the last two weeks, there have been hundreds of investigative reporters scouring trying to come up with more allegations against brett kavanaugh and they have not been able to come up with everything. >> and when he was working for ken starr, you don't think they would have shredded him? >> they attacking everybody. you name it, they went after them. >> if he survived being with ken starr and looking at clinton's sex life and all that, i'm sorry, that's one other -- hold on. i got to get to thi

the fbi has free rein. what direction has the white house, whether it's white house counsel don mcgann or someone else, given the fbi? what are the contours of this investigation? >> as you know, it will be limited in scope. it's meant to last for one week, i believe, beginning last friday. it's not meant to be a fishing expedition. the fbi is not tasked with doing that here. as joe biden pointed out 27 years ago during the clarence thomas hearings and has many people have pointed out in the last couple of weeks, jake, the fbi does not draw conclusions. it provides information. judge kavanaugh has gone through six thorough vets within the span of his public service career, including one completed this last july. that is on the desk of every single senator to review. >> generally they look at actions that a person has taken after they turn 18, though, and these allegations were when he was 17. has the fbi been told don't look into julie swetnick's allegations? we don't find them credible? >> the white house i

that's the job of the fbi. and if anyone is obstructing it, that should be stopped. >> and why don't i read a little bit of what james comey did say in an op-ed in the "new york times." in part, once they start interviewing, every witness knows the consequences. of course, the bureau won't have subpoena power but most people will speak to them, refusal to do so is its own kind of statement. frank put that together with james comey and what he just said. i'm talking about dianne feinstein's letter there to don mcgann and ray as well. >> yeah, i think we need transparency here. i think the american public and the judiciary committee needs to know exactly what the directives were from the white house to the fbi. what handcuffs have been put on? why are they not being allowed to do what they need to do? and if the fbi comes in and says we want to interview additional people and additional leads, the following accusers have come in, survivors have come into our field offices and reported information. we would like to

he does not object to the fbi reopening his background check. "i've done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate." >> so that is the reaction from judge kavanaugh tonight. terry moran back with us from the supreme court. terry, tonight, mark judge responding to the news that the fbi will now investigate these assault allegations? >> that's right. he sent a letter to the committee saying, i'll cooperate with any law enforcement agency assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations. the fbi conducts confidential investigations. they'll turn it over to the senate. which is less confidential place. david? >> terry moran, i gather you and i will be talking a lot the next week, thank you. >>> overseas now, a series of deadly earthquakes in indonesia, triggering a massive tsunami, sweeping away homes. tonight, the pictures coming in. here's our foreign correspondent james longman. >> reporter: tonight, a tsunami, waves up to ten feet high, surging ashore in indonesia. the wall of water triggered by a magnitude 7.5 quake.

>> you'd have to ask him. >> reporter: now the fbi might do that. mark judge sent a letter to the judiciary committee declaring, "i do not recall the events described by dr. ford in her testimony. i never saw brett act in the manner dr. ford describes." democratic senator sheldon whitehouse, a former prosecutor, declared today that's not good enough. >> letting kavanaugh's alleged accomplice in the assault, the guy in the room with him when it happened, get away with a lawyer's letter and no testimony, no cross-examination. >> reporter: in his testimony, judge kavanaugh repeatedly relied on his old friend's statement, and letters from others who say they don't remember the party in question. but democrats pressed him. does he now want the fbi to investigate? >> i'm going to ask you one last time. are you willing to ask the white house to authorize the fbi to investigate the claims that have been made against you? are you willing to ask the white house to do that? >> i have had six background checks over 26 years -- >> as it relates to recent allegati

the fbi could do this if the white house asked the fbi to do it. >> ken, to that point, who will make that determination? and the president said i have to look into it. he didn't say no but the extension for a week has been asked for. we don't know if it's granted because that's up to mitch mcconnell. what has to happen? the president and the justice department send a memo? >> my sense is the white house will have to work out with the fbi assuming this goes forward. the republicans who want it seem to have the leverage to make it happen. the white house will have to work out the scope of the investigation with the fbi. this would be the fbi reopening the back ground check on brett kavanaugh, and there is precedent for this. this is exactly what happened in the clarence thomas/anita hill matter in 1991. thefy tie did fbi did a three-d and came back with a report inconclusive, ali. i don't know that it's been made public. famously joe biden lamented the fact that it was inconclusive. republicans have been playing that clip of biden saying that in order to suggest that the fbi investigat

the title was this. former fbi agents say there are clues to follow from dramatic kavanaugh hearing. there is plenty of lead value in the testimony that was provided during the confirmation hearing and plenty of living witnessess that can be identified, contacted and interviewed, said james. they can do this very quickly. john. >> the fbi can do this quickly. it's what the fbi does, it's what the fbi is good at. sure, there is tons of leads, there is people you can talk to. but just because there's leads doesn't mean there's going to be evidence that something is going to come back showing that someone engaged in some sort of behavior. the fbi will go out, gather what fact are available and bring them back so the politicians can decide. >> danny, i'm going back to thit language of current credible allegations and what my mind is going to, putting myself in the position of some of the twisted democrats, brett kavanaugh, he drank too much. for instance, they think that's a credible allegation that he didn't refute. h

the fbi is not tasked with doing that here. the president very much respects the independence of the fbi and feels they should be looking at anything they think is credible within this limited scope. >> that's obviously not amy klobuchar, but she was concerned and that it is something she had not seen before at the white house. may try to guide this in a favorable way. press secretary sarah sanders was on a sunday morning talk show and the white house does not want to micromanage the fbi, but openly said she doesn't know if don mcgahn had given a list dictating who they could and could not sbruf. >> lots of different messages. thank you so much. democratic congresswoman jackie spear from california, good to see you. what do you interpret from all of these variations of messages about how the fbi probe will be under way. who is giving the directive and whether don mcgahn is involved or not. free reign or limited. >> i think this investigation is turning into nothing more than a fig leaf so that the republicans can move forward on

they gave statements to the fbi. was not any kind of criminal investigation with the anita hill circumstance. >> we should investigate both. >> they both need to be heard. >> ladies, thank you very much. we enjoy having you. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. plaque psoriasis tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have

the fbi, i actually have, i think others have and i think that the issue is the part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek either corroborating or exculpatory evidence. it's not so much the conclusion that it draws as the breadth of the evidence that is sought out through the investigation. and the difference between what somebody might say to an fbi agent when they are being examined and for instance, mr. judge's lawyer, sent by his -- mr. judge's letter. i believe this is the first background investigation in the history of background investigations it hasn't been reopened when new credible information was raised about the subject, about the nominee. i didn't want to let the point stand without referencing what we have tried to do. >> part of me but i will add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fbi. the fbi assented to the white house with a letter saying the case is closed. we are taking a break now. we are taking a break now. 15 minute break. >> bret: senate judiciary committee, a 15 minute break after what has been a fiery afternoon of questioning

the fbi is going to do their seventh check. it's going on now by the president, who tweeted that out. seventh check. the fbi, there's no forensics they can check. i hate to admit i watch "forensic files" a lot. it's amazing 35 years later they find people because of new technology we have that we can catch killers. there's no place to go look. the only thing the fbi can do is interview the same four people that -- >> dr. ford, sean, hasn't even filed charges in maryland where this took place. >> sean: is that gonna happen this weekend? >> we don't know, do we? now we're asking the fbi to come in. >> sean: is that part of the plan? >> i wonder if that's going to be part of the plan. if the dems are going to push. the american people are not going to be fooled by this political theater. tammy said it best. i was thinking of the exact same term, tammy. collateral damage. the collateral damage is our justice system, our foundation of our country. it's the american people themselves. >> our sons and daughters. >> judge kavanaugh and

of the fbi. now we have a request from the white house, and from everything that we're being told certainly the parameters and where exactly the fbi goes in all of this is in some ways being dictated by the white house. so we shouldn't expect a full-fledged criminal investigation here. they're not going the try to probably look into whether or not this sexual assault or other sexual assaults actually occurred. >> hold on one second. i want to go to mitch mcconnell on the senate floor >>> this morning the judiciary committee reported out judge kavanaugh favorably, all 11 republican members of the judiciary committee voted in favor of reporting him out with a favorable recommendation. number two, we will shortly move to proceed to the kavanaugh nomination, and i'm pleased to announce all 51 republican members of the senate support the motion to proceed to the nomination. 100% of the republican conference supports proceeding to the kavanaugh nomination. now, in committee they reviewed the most pages

the fbi -- the idea that the fbi is not capable of investigating this is ridiculous. ed that the president of the united states who hras been accused of numeros sexual assault doesn't want the fbi doing the investigation, they do all kinds of sex trafficking investigations and they have people that specialize in this type -- if the fbi can't handle a case like this we might as well all go home, and moreover, chuck grassley would do it? let's look at the alternative? the alternative is the senate who does not have investigative experience and now 25 years after anita hill doesn't have a protocol on what to do next. they can't be in charge of the investigation. this should go to a neutral investigative body and the best body to do that in the united states of america is the fbi. >> can the fbi do it on its own or does the president have to authorize eyes it? >> remember, the fbi, their investigation is no longer complete. if they have a background file and they have for everybody seeking a security clearance, and let's remember rob porter and the background information,

role of the fbi is to flagis es. those issues have been flagged. sadly they were flagged but not as they should have been. not in the timing as they should have been. and therefoue, they have preserved a lot more dignity for you and for dr. ford a her family. they were instead held out until the final moment. i consider that most unfortunate. d for that, on behalf of this committee, i extend to you my mostpround sympathies. sympathiet profound to dr. ford and her family as well. >> mr. chairm c, i have the last minute of senatorleahy? judge, within 38 hours in public with you definity we have any private hearings with you? >> yes. >> was tt a f time for you? when senators could ask questions that are awk or uncomfortable about potential alcoholism, pblential gg addiction, credit card debt, if your buddies floated you money guy baseball tickets? diyou enjoy that? >> i am always happy to cooperate with the committee. >> that's charitable. were you ever asked about any sexual allegations when we had you in here alone? >> no did the committee already ha

by the fbi? or some interview by the fbi under oath? >> under penalty of felony he says this kind of event didn't happen and that i never did or would have done something like that. >> as a federal judge you always want the best evidence don't you? >> he has said and all the witnesses present -- look at ms keyser's statement. >> you have testified to this committee this morning and this afternoon, this whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with the parent pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. is it your testimony that the motivation of the courageous woman who sat where you did just a short time ago was revenge on behalf of a left- wing conspiracy or the clintons? >> senator, i said in my opening statement that she preferred confidentiality. or confidentiality was destroyed by the actions of this committee

does the fbi -- should the fbi be investigating? should the president order the fbi to investigate? >> well, the process would include the ability on the part of the president to direct the fbi to reopen the background investigation and run down this new lead and interview any witnesses that might be relevant. the -- this typically happens, as david pointed out, when this has happened in the past, it typically happens before the nomination is normally announced. it hasn't always worked that way, but typically, the idea is to get all of this investigative work as part of the background investigation done before the nomination is actually made public. but the president in this case could direct the fbi to do more work. i think that the republicans and the democrats, though, on the senate judiciary committee need to understand that it may also be better in this circumstance to have committee staff do whatever additional fact finding the committee deems necessary, but i think two things are important. the republicans need to be careful to not appear to be rushing this, despite this new e

on the one hand they avoid this serious way to get at the allegations by the fbi. for some reason both the white house and republicans are blocking the investigation.b for its purpose when we asked the republican friends and president trump if president trump and senate republicans are so certain those allegations are true why aren't they welcoming to the fbi? >> leader mcconnell spent five minutes pointing their fingers at democrats. that shows someone dug in a deep hole. they are part of a despicable smear job. what are you afraid of? >> what are you hiding? >> nobody knows but people who want the truth will find a truth teller and those who don't will run away with those wild and untethered allegations that is what leader mcconnell is doing. do these right wing justices two years from now there is a huge backlash if kavanaugh should get on the court. that is not the search for truth. and then to avoid the truth that should not happen. think about it. the white house is blocking the impartial allegation and chairman grassley is setting arbitrary deadlines and then

yearbook but she wanted to talk about the fbi investigation. i think what was fascinating about the opening statement is you're right. there was all this sort of trump red meat. this is a clinton plot to destroy me and i'm a good man. >> he was suggesting it was revenge because brett kavanaugh worked for ken starr and the whole whilewater investigation, the impeachment process, and all of a sudden in the middle of his opening statement he's secret service agent clintons are seeking revenge of their allies and have created this conspiracy to get me -- to release this information only alternate last minute. >> certainly music to trump's ears, music to the sort of red meat base that trump obviously is allied with, but he also reached out to susan collins, sort of the bush wing of the white house saying he was a press secretary or a staff secretary, with bush, traveled with him, talked about his hiring clerks. he also had this interesting line which i thought was one of the most effective he was speaking i think directly to suburban white women when

the fbi made that clear. i talked to an fbi official last week. said there was no criminal investigation. and the department of justice has also tried to clarify here and released a statement last night saying that the letter from christine blasey ford was put knew the kavanaugh's background file last week. at this point, it's up to the white house to determine whether or not there should be a subsequent investigation. i just want to point to you the department of justice's brief statement they gave last night. they said that this allegation from christine blasey ford "does not involve any potential crime." and the spokesperson for the doj continued on to say that the fbi does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. the people i've spoken with said at this point it's really in the white house's hands. they would have to say whether or not they wanted the fbi to continue with more background investigation. we heard from the president today. he said that the fbi's not interested. i'm not sure that that's the ca

>> alex, it depends now on the fbi investigation. there are many reasons besides president ford's comments that many of us have a lot of problems with judge kavanaugh. i think in regards to the individuals you mentioned, the investigation will be critically important, and we'll see what the facts are. if we see conflicts, and the fbi can resolve some of those conflicts, it will be powerful, i think, in the decision making of these senators. >> you mentioned the nature of the supreme court. how concerned are you, senator, that if brett kavanaugh is confirmed and he gets a seat on the supreme court that he will be able to be impartial in whatever rulings he participates in, given the fact that he was perceived to be quite partisan when he was calling out the clintons and calling about this being a very left wing democratic attack on him? >> i think judge kavanaugh, his responses were outrageous. i think he showed a lack of respect for the supreme court of being nonpartisan. the way he treats the committee, i think, is wrong. he's allowe

what if the fbi isn't involved? i still say yes. why? if this matters to her, her testifying is the only way to advance her cause of truth in this matter. if she doesn't, you have to believe it's over. >>> okay, so, if she does testify, should it be open or closed? again, there are sensitivities involved. the professor reportedly has threats against her and her family. they are living outside the home. she has become part of this political maelstrom. let me tell you, we get a tiast of it here with what we do. maybe she wants it be to closed. you can't judge her for that. however, if it's closed, not only can the full complement of senators not get access to what's said, not only does it become subject to what is an obviously poisoned political environment, but the rest of us, we just won't have a basis of trust. so i believe it's got to be open. we have to hear the accuser. we have to hear the accused get his right to defend himself and confront those accusations and let credibility be the guide because that's all we have. >>> all right.

and they would be normally the first people that the fbi would interview. to get a baseline narrative of both the accuser and the person refuting the allegation, get their versions of events. now, some people have said, well, they testified in front the senate judiciary committee and that should be enough. and the reason that it is not enough is that as you saw from that hearing, not only did each side have particular directed questions, they were cut off after a ter five minutes, so there weren't always followup questions, the judge in particular did not often answer responsibly or, you know, thoroughly the questions. so in an interview what an fbi agent would do would be to go back over all of that, ask those followup questions, try to hone into get an answer on the context of the entire allegation on both sides. and that would actually be a baseline for then testing other witnesses' recollection of events. >> and according to the sources, the people who were on that list were the three other people who were named as having been at the party according to f

so we'll have to wait and see what the fbi turns up. i think it's interesting how senator flake's comments to the atlantic -- and i would imagine that is kind of the sentiments of someone like susan collins as well. they do want to get to a yes. they don't want to be a no on their own party supreme court nominee, a man they think is very qualified to sit on the supreme court. if the fbi turns up nothing and we obviously don't know what they will find, i think this could help even -- could help improve his chances to the court. >> let's listen briefly to the president. again, it is limited in scope. if you listen to the president, he says start small but follow the leads. >> they have free reign. they'll be doing things we never even thought of and, hopefully, at the accusation, everything will be fine. >> everything will be fine. obviously they're trying to put their best spin on this. they fought this for a week plus. >> this is the exact opposite of what they wanted to do, what the president wanted to do, what senate leader mitch mccon

there will be no conclusion or decision by the fbi. what they're going to do is talk to people at the party, "new york times" is reporting they're expanding that scope to some of the other accusers who alleged assault by judge kavanaugh in high school and college and try to understand what they remember, piece together their narrative of the events of the time, and submit these interviews to the white house which will ultimately go to the senate, and it will be up to lawmakers to decide if they believe there is corroboration to christine blasey ford's allegations or if they feel there's not enough there and that it doesn't harm judge kavanaugh's reputation. this is the process. the fbi will go talk to the individuals, they have one week to do it. then it will go to the white house and the senate to decide what they think they've learned out of this one week investigation about judge kavanaugh's character and the allegations leveled by several women. and of course judge kavanaugh denies all of the allegations vehemently. christi, victor.

if you lie to the fbi, that's a criminal -- that's a felony. understandably the republicans, the supporters of brett kavanaugh, some of the witnesses may wind up saying and could have a dramatic effect. that's why they didn't want the fbi involved to begin with. >> i think saying that whatever they say is necessary. >> lisa murkowski just told sunlen serfaty that she is with flake. she went into mcconnell's office and said yes if she supports flake's -- >> that's significant. >> the simple math. >> the pressure is on mitch mcconnell right now, on the president, to let the fbi go ahead, investigate for up to a week and then have a final vote on the senate floor. it just passed the senate judiciary committee. our special coverage continues right after this. rs everywhere meet o, that's good! frozen pizza one third of our classic crust is made with cauliflower but that's not stopping anyone o, that's good! you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prev

the fbi has closed the investigation. there's absolutely nothing for them to investigate and there were others who were arguing forcefully, the other side, and accusations started going back and forth about what democrats were really trying to do, what republicans were really trying to do. >> how did flake take it? >> there were a couple of encouraging moments. you saw the result which was that he came out and stood firm. this really, frankly, is all hanging on his willingness. he voted to move forward with the committee process to show good faith with his caucus. at the end of the day what will keep this week a week is his willingness and several other undecided senators to be clear they're not going to vote for cloture or kavanaugh until we get the report back from the fbi. >> i want to get into the details of it. in terms of your time in there and, look, you'll work but you have a good reputation, you're someone you can work with. we were just sitting shoulder to shoulder 24 hours ago having this conversation and it wa

it is not the appropriate role of the fbi. as further substantiated by the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, chuck grassley. what do you make of this just raw, pure whereby bald politics? >> it's all rhetoric on their part. and the bottom line is this man has had six, six full-scale fbi checks. i've had three with the white houses i've served in. they go back to the first grade you were in and they ask every single question, they know everything about you. it takes months and months to do. i promise you if there was anything anywhere, it would be somewhere in the report. they've seen the reports. six times they did it, six times they found nothing. the bottom line is -- lou: we know that this is pure, as i said, raw politics on their part. but it is such a cynical and toxic atmosphere that they've created. the dems to me are without conscience, they're without principle and someone has got to hold them accountable for this kind of conduct. >> first of all, you read the constitution, in the second article, giving all o

she wants the fbi to investigate her allegations before she testifies publicly. and the president is standing by his mom knee. >> i wou -- by his nominee. >> i would want to see her, and hear what she has to say. if she does not show up, that is unfortunate. i have given her a lot of time, the senate has given her a lot of time and we have held up the whole hearing. >> and now, democratic senator kirsten gillibrand, and fast-moving event, and now we have seen a tweet from senator chuck grassley that the committee staff can investigate, and they don't need the fbi, and the committee investigators are following up on the leads from the allegations, and news stories and there is no outside investigation necessary for the committee to do the investigation and don't know why the dems are refusing, and he is saying that there is no need and i hope that the dems will join me. what say you? >> what the republicans are doing is outrageous. they are creating a false choice can, and bully her into testifying monday before a full fbi check is completed. first, nomination for

because the fbi doesn't reach conclusions. they just provide the 302s. 302s, so i can explain to people who don't know what that is, they just go and do what you're doing. ask questions and then type up a report. they don't reach the bottom line -- >> this morning i asked dr. ford, i asked her about this incident where she ran into mark judge in safeway, and she said, sure, i remember. six or eight weeks after this occurrence. well, someone at the "washington post" went in and took a look at mr. judge's book. and has been able to -- the run that he wrote about his addiction and his alcoholism. they have narrowed it down what they think was a period of time, six or eight weeks after the event. and he would have been working at the safeway at that point. so the point i'm getting to is we at least can connect some dots here and get some information. why would you resist that -- >> there's some dots -- >> -- kind of investigation? why would you resist that kind of investigation? >> senator, i welcome, i wanted the hearing last week

now, as we've heard, the fbi doesn't make the final decision, but what were alex and clint, the two fbid is run out and that report will go back to president and to congress. what worries me as far as a time frame, anything the fbi does in an interview, i don't want to see it go back to congress and say, well, we want to interview that person, too. there's more questions we would have liked to have asked them. this needs to be -- political aside, this needs to be an up or a down vote on the part of senate and then we need to move on. >> i need a quick yes or no. do these findings eventually get public? >> not necessarily, no. a lot of people ask for confidentiality, and then that is going to go with their statement, too. >> clint van zandt, love talking with you always, my friend. thank you. >> and a look at the events that led up to the fbi background check that is now under way. che. ♪ when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue... and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum tum tum tum... smoothies... only

that's important because the fbi does not have free reign. it's acting on behalf of the white house which has to set the official boundaries. so the limits are still the same, the fbi will question a specific witness list this week. a list that does not include kavanaugh's third accuser, julie swetnick, or former classmates who could share details about kavanaugh's college drinking habits and shed potentially some light on alleged sexual references in his high school yearbook. joining us now christina greer, danny staff lows and tim whiner who wrote enemies a history of the fbi and legacy of the ashes, the history of the cia. christina, let's start with that which we know right now. i've laid out what nbc news is reporting. do you think that's fairly significant in terms of the limitations or not at the moment, including julie swetnick, for instance? >> i think that we need to interview or the fbi needs to interview as many people who have come forward. i mean, this is a lifetime appointment. you know, judge kavanaugh's behavior on thursday ma

senator lee: you do not control the fbi. you are a nominee, you're not tasked with the job of deciding how or when to conduct an investigation. when theery moment, fbi has asked questions, you have been attentive. i have colleagues today who have repeatedly asked for an fbi investigation. there is irony in this. at least one of my colleagues had access to this information many weeks before anyone else. to report they facts to the fbi, at which point they would have been investigated by the fbi. that could've been handled in a way that did not turn this into a circus. one that has turned lives upside down. givens most unfortunate, that this was entirely within the control of at least one of my democratic to do this. also, while calling repeatedly for an fbi investigation, over , whileou cannot control calling for the investigation, we're in the middle of a conversation that involves questions to you. so i asked my democratic colleagues, if you have questions, ask him. he is right here. if really what you want is the truth, ask

so if the fbi finds nothing but, kavanaugh would get the backing of some moderate republicans and democratsflake, susan collins, lisa a murkowski, heidi heitkamp, and joe manchin who all said they want this fbi investigation. remember, republican chairman chuck grassley yesterday said that democrat dianne feinstein wasted two months by sitting on that original letter from dr. ford.. remember that tape from 1991 when joe biden said fbi investigations ultimately do not usually come to a conclusion. that it will likely be he said versus she said. people at the white house telling me tonight that's what they're hoping for. if there's nothing new, sean, they think kavanaugh's likely to be confirmed. >> sean: no conclusions, no recommendations. that's what the democrats have planned that has me curious tonight. thank you, ed henry in washington. joining us with reaction chairman of the conservative union, also a friend of judge kavanaugh. matt schlapp. l and florida attorney general pam bondi. pam, let me start with the lawlu and the investigation. no conclusions, noda recommendation. joe biden w

once the fbi investigation was closed. once we were done meeting in public and private this was sprung on you. i want to make sure we have the dates correct? we have 35 plus days from all the time this evidence was in the hands, recommendations were made to an outside lawyer, you could have handled all this in private in a way that didn't, not only do crap to his family -- i yield my time. >> [inaudible] >> to see if he could do math about 35 days, that was a little bit after question. >> thanks, mr. chairman. good afternoon, judge kavanaugh. as a federal judge you're aware of the jury instruction falls in, falsis -- omnulus you're not? you're aware of that jury instruction? >> i am. >> you know what it means. >> you can translate for me, senator. >> false in one thing, false in everything. meaning in jury instructions that we some of us as prosecutors heard many times is told a jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find him to be false in one thing. so, the core of why we're here today really is credibility. let

the fbi takes a closer look at the accusations. the senate will handle that and they will make their decisions i just wanted to work out well for the country. if that happens i'm happy. >> we had talks team coverage legal and well delve more into the investigation and we will also see a former counsel to the judiciary committee for what's going on behind the scenes we begin live on capitol hill. >> good afternoon. and the fate of a judge cavanaugh's nomination rests on this investigation and a handful of senators. some republicans and democrats for more conservative states this is a one-week investigation narrow in scope a number of the senators support this investigation. it took courage to take a stand and call for a one-week fbi investigation to get to the bottom of the allegations against judge cavanaugh. susan collins tweeted i support this sensible agreement. i'm pleased to hear mark judge has indicated he would cooperate with investigators. allegedly part of this assault they he said took place when they were in high school.

we need the fbi investigation. the number of times the fbi has a background check with regard to a nomination can you describe that? what does the fbi do quick. >> i gather statements they don't resolve credibility they gather the information and determination by the ultimate factfinder of the united states senate the committee has gatheredse evidence. >> so it gives that report to the white house and then it transfers to the senate quick. >> that's my understanding. it has been said many times the fbi does not make judgments it gives information so at that point in time in the united states senate the committee has legal authorities if it receives information in the fbi report to further investigate. the senate has legal authority to conduct further investigation. is that correct quick. >> that's my understanding. that is what is referenced here many times how some of these witnesses identified with the late information that we received have made statements that are under penalty ofwe penalty long - - felony that i

christine blasey ford and her lawyers say the fbi has yet to contact them. her senate testimony last week triggering this supplemental fbi investigation. our doug mcelway has more. >> in a late night tweet, president trump disparaged an nbc report that claims the fbi has been directed by the white house to only investigate the allegations of dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez, not those of the accuser represented by stormy daniels lawyer michael avenatti. her name is julie swetnick and she claimed that kavanaugh engaged in several episodes of sexual misconduct at parties when he was at georgetown prep and she at college. >> but they cannot say oh hey only the interview the people in their neighborhood on one side of the street or only interview people from a certain period of their life. you let the men and women of the fbi, the professionals do their job. >> as john kennedy and lindsey graham said, if there's some shocking new -- not accusation, but evidence and proof, then of course i'm open to evaluating that evidence. but i strongly suspect tha

the fbi explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion. they say he said she said they said. so when people waive an fbi report for you or even bring it up now as something prospectively, that wasn't in his quote, understand they do not reach conclusions. they do not make orecommendation recommendations.nc >> mr. chairman may i say for the record that actually we have. asked, you said nobody's asked the fbi or we could ask the fbi, i actually have others have and i think the issue is part of what an fbi report does is to investigate and seek corroborating or investigative and the difference between what family might say to a fbi agent when they're being examined and the letter signed by his lawyer sent in, it'sng just a different thing.dg i believe still this is the first background that hasn't been reopened when it was raised about the subject or the nominee. he met part of me that i will just add to the point you made, the letter was sent to the fbi, the fbi sent it to the white house with the letter saying the case w is closed. we are ta

the fbi background check under way. we're getting mixed messages from the white house. president trump saying they have free rein to investigate whatever they need to. the scope of that investigation will be limited. kavanaugh and the gop, will the supreme court nominee help or hurt republicans come november and what the future of the party may look like if republicans go all in. he hasn't made it to the supreme court. >> i'm here tonight to tell you it was a con job orchestrated by the democrats and hillary clinton. i'm usually an optimist. i'm a keg is half full kind of guy. for what i've seen from the monsters make me want to puke and not from beer. >> president trump saying snl is no longer funny, no talent or charm. every someone a critic. >>> white house official confirms to nbc news that investigators were told to steer clear of kavanaugh accuser julie swetnick. officials telling nbc that fbi has not received new instructions after the white house counsel limited the scope of the inquiry. also off limits, kavanaugh former classmate who is contradict him on storie

the fbi is the right place for this investigation for two reasons, first, the fbi has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way. far better than some staffer talking to professor ford on the phone. you cannot lie to the fbi. that's a crime. the fbi will get to the truth. they almost always do. second, our republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan confirmation process and then immediately insinuated that dr. ford is being untruthful. republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations, they've already said that they're not true. republicans and their staff cannot do this in a respected way because they have run such a partisan investigation thus far. there's no bipartisanship here, none. so to have any credibility, this has to be done by an independent outside body. the fbi is the best one. the vote must become postponed until it will complete. it is an insult, insult to the women of america to rush this through after these serious allegations have been made. it is an insult to the majesty of th

the fbi needs to be unfettered, trump says they are but they're really not. we are not going to get the information we need, this is going to be a check the box investigation and we are not going to be getting any more information this coming friday than we had last week. >> nick, i keep going back to the genesis of this and i talk about the confusion surrounding all of this and i keep thinking back on what happened in the dirksen senate office building last friday before the vote happened. there was confusion in the immediate after matt. senate dianne feinstein wasn't sure what they were voting on. how representative of that is this? in other words, did folks know what they were getting out of this during that vote on capitol hill? >> no. look, the thing is that this was negotiated on the fly by some nervous senators on the republican side for starters who wanted more cover, who felt if they voted for this nomination with the facts at hand it would taint the supreme court and taint the senate. so it was done on the fly in a back room, which is fair given the