tv New Day With Alisyn Camerota and John Berman CNN October 2, 2018 4:00am-5:01am PDT
enormous power. >> so the $64,000 question is this, is judge kavanaugh credible? >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> you're ready. >> i'm ready. >> i can tell. >> i've been paying attention. good morning and welcome to your "new day." two major unresolved questions this morning, just what is the scope of the fbi investigation into brett kavanaugh and how much should ub40 be a part of it. >> wow. >> we will have more on that in a second. the white house claims that fbi agents are free to talk to anyone they please this their investigation of brett kavanaugh, no limits. no limits except that majority leader mitch mcconnell has promised that a vote will take place this week no matter what. >> there's also new information about kavanaugh's drinking in college and his honesty about that. a 1985 police report obtained by cnn reveals that kavanaugh was questioned by police after allegedly starting a bar fight
after a ub40 concert. >> i told you it was part of it. >> i know. we have been playing some ub40 music during this. stick around for that. kavanaugh was not arrested about you within of his friends with him that night says that that hair trigger temper was typical of kavanaugh. joining us now we have cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey to obin. >> i'm research ub40 and trying to see which of their songs is my favorite. >> "red, red wine." >> basically like a one hit bonder >> neil diamond wrote it. >> joe lockhart has a lot of thoughts on this as well. he was press secretary for the clinton white house and anita mcbribe chief of staff to first lady laura bush and long time friend of brett kavanaugh. we will get her thoughts on ub40 shortly. >> jeffrey, let's talk about where we are today. new information comes out every day. chad ludington is friend of brett kavanaugh's from a yale also testifies that he had a hair trigger machismo which was
pathetic, he was aggressive and belligerent after drinking. it was kind of brett's shtick. so not a one time, he was known for this. >> correct. >> most importantly he had memory lapses where he couldn't remember things, quote, many times. >> yeah, you know, there's sort of two categories of inquiry here and i don't know which -- you know, how this all plays out, but the sexual assault issues are obviously the most important and if there is proof of that that is, i think everybody agrees, disqualifying. the other question is did he lie, mislead about his drinking during his testimony. those are related questions but they are actually separate. the stuff that came out yesterday is much more related to the drinking, certainly ludington's comments, the mysterious ub40 incident i think in and of itself is not terribly significant. >> it's not mysterious. there is a police report. somebody was arrested. there was an actual fight.
it's no longer alleged. there was a police report. police came to the incident. >> chris dudley was taken in for questioning, i don't think there were any arrests and certainly kavanaugh was arrested but there was questioning. >> fair enough. there is documentation about this. my point is that this is part and parcel of the same thing. if you are a mean and aggressive drunk, if you have repeated memory lapses, that does play into whether or not you can be trusted about these sexual assault that a woman says she remembers 100%. >> right. i think that is -- as i say, these questions are related, but it is not direct proof that the sexual assaults took place. >> fair. >> i don't think you can really say that because of what chad ludington say he is more likely to be guilty. >> i just think that it's relevant information. >> i would agree with that. >> the other side of that is what i've been hearing all night from supporters of brett kavanaugh and, anita, i don't know if you want to weigh in on this, but they say almost verbatim if throwing ice in someone's face in a bar after a
ub40 concert where there was no arrest, if that's the best you have then you have nothing. >> this goes back to what we were saying yesterday about our kids and teenage drinking and college antics. these things can come back to haunt you and, you know, in the broader scope of things, are they indicative of the full totality of your life? and i agree with jeffrey on this, the serious issue that we really want the fbi to get to the bottom of and the best that they can is the sexual allegations, sexual assault allegations, which are serious. you know, this other -- i'm starting to -- you know, we get to think a little bit like mcconnell, the goal post is going to keep moving and, you know, we just want the fbi to do their job. >> so that brings us, jeff, to what will happen on friday. so the fbi is busy doing their job, we assume, right now, they are interviewing as many people
i suppose as they can. we don't know exactly what the parameters unfortunately of this fbi probe is, but when they come back with these various anecdotes and stories, then what? what will the white house do with that? >> it's not clear at this point whether the fbi has been given free rein. there is a lot of reporting out there coming from the fbi saying that the white house while the president is saying publicly one thing, don mcgahn is saying something very different and don mcgahn and mitch mcconnell are working to limit this. that's wrong. i think it goes to a mistake kavanaugh made, an important political mistake. he should have weeks ago said, i want the fbi to look at this. i want my name to be cleared. >> how would that have changed anything? >> it would have certainly opened this up and people would have confidence at the end of this period and if they started two weeks ago we probably would know by friday. mcconnell's entire strategy is we are not going to go on friday. so what it means is you've got these three senators that it
hangs in the balance. they're going to have to decide and we're going to find out was this week that jeff flake generated and chris coons was this a fig leaf for them or was this a serious effort on their part. >> look, they have the power. if those three senators say we are not ready yet, we want more, they can say that and then they will delay it another week. i doubt that will happen. jeff flake seems pretty clear that he wants this to be a week and susan collins and louis is a murkowski seem clear that they want a finite period of time here. they are the ones with the ho power. >> i think mcconnell is asserting -- >> they haven't fought back and said, listen, leader -- >> listen, i think the other point to be made is we get caught up in a lot of the legalities here. this is a political decision pure and simple. everyone is playing politics. i think what the country is struggling with is, you know, a lot of this stuff if it came from a politician, this sort of looseness with the truth, this sort of shading the truth, they
would say he's just a politician. with err not talking about a politician who faces the voters every two or six years, we are talking about a supreme court justice and a lifetime appointment and i think the standard should be much higher and if we go forward with this vote on friday without the fbi being able to look into these things -- >> but they are looking into them. anita is saying they're moving the goal post. >> we don't know this. we don't know -- there's certainly information out there that most of these people who say they have information have not been talked to. >> the ramirez's lawyer gave the fbi a dozen names that they think are corroborative of her story. >> where he allegedly exposed himself to her when she was intoxicated and he was at yale. >> at yale, correct. and that -- in a thorough investigation you would talk to all 12 people if you can find them. these things take a certain amount of time.
the insanity of an artificial one week deadline for something of this magnitude is just profound. now, you know, it is true that you could increment lies this into forever, that, you know -- >> moving the goal posts. >> the investigation could continue forever, but for a political party that kept a supreme court seat vacant for a year, the idea that a one-week deadline is absolute and in violet seems preposterous. >> i have two questions for you. number one, you have a really good point i want you to articulate it if you can last hour about the conflicting witnesses to these accounts and people say i never saw brett kavanaugh do that, but -- >> well, i mean, look, anita, here is my point. when you are trying to figure out if someone did something, you don't ask the 100 people who weren't there who never saw that person do the crime, you ask the witnesses. so the idea that i never saw brett kavanaugh belligerent, i
never saw brett kavanaugh do anything -- be staggeringly drunk, you are not relevant. the people who are relevant are the people who did see you act belligerent and get into a bar fight and be staggeringly drunk. >> people are personalities and they have characters and the presumption is you by and charge act in accord with your character. if a bunch of people who know you well say he is a teetotaler, he is a great guy, he respects women, i think that's relevant. >> but if you weren't at the bar fight, don't you want to talk to the guy who saw you throw ice in somebody's face. >> and all the members of ub40. >> not just like one. >> you couldn't name one member of ub40. >> i could not. >> the third point is that is there some connection, this is my argument, is there some connection about the
belligerence at the bar and the belligerence we saw last week. >> that is my point, anita. if you are known as a mean-spirited belligerent staggering drunk, doesn't that lend credence to christine blasey ford's depiction of you? >> i think the point that was made just a few moments ago is really taking into full account the reports of everybody that knows you, both those that may have been witness to these alleged incidences and those that have known you over the full scope of your life. and to be able to paint a full picture of a person who as you say is going into a lifetime appointment. i think -- i honestly have been thinking about this in the last few days and i think all of us could say to have the full weight of the u.s. government and the fbi, you know, looking into every aspect of your life, you know, how any of us would handle this. the punching back and the
fighting last week, i know that was hard for me to see. that was not the brett kavanaugh i had known for 17 years. and i really have to think, wow, if my family was threatened, if everything i've built in my life was being completely upended, you know, how would i respond? actually, being on your show yesterday my tweets were burning up with horrible things about me. i'm a moron, my questioning -- questioning me as a mother, the people that i worked for. holy cow, our whole country is burning up. but, again, jeff, i know you rolled your eyes at me yesterday. i do want to feel like we can move forward from this. i'm not sure what we're going to come out fully on the other end, but we have to be better than this. >> do you know what you should do and i -- this is the one piece of advice, turn off your mentions on twitter. i'm telling you, your life will improve so much. >> i did. >> what was the other point you were going to make?
>> as a political point i think it's important that the white house with brett kavanaugh went out and go back to the fox interview, they presented him as an alter boy, as someone who had led a perfect life -- >> joe, he has said in college i did get drunk and sometimes i don't remember things and i'm sorry about that and i behaved boar i wishly but i don't do that anymore, would that have sunk his nomination or helped? >> i think that would have shown a moment of honesty. we're measuring his temperament and his honesty and what we're finding out is his temperament is not what we're looking for in a supreme court justice and he is no the honest. it sounds trivial that he lied about his yearbook, things in his yearbook, but it's provable that he knew what these phrases meant and he stood in front of the senate under oath and said something that's not the truth. >> which bring up something else which is a trend now i think going beyond brett kavanaugh and it's an argument being made by
republicans. there is a request he about whether it's true but there is a "washington post" article this morning where the title is "male fury and fear rises in gop in defense of kavanaugh." and the motion is that men are somehow being threatened in a larger sense by what's happening. >> and that they are as energized now. if brett kavanaugh is an avatar of how white men are being victimized and besieged by this me too movement are they as energized as women are. >> i want to play donald trump jr. in this interview who made this case. >> who are you scared post for, your sons or daughters? >> right now i would say my sons. when the other sides weapon niezs against men 40 years later we can bring it up and you did something in high school that nobody remembers, it dim she is the real claims. >> that's text and subtext there. >> every night i cry myself to
sleep over the fate of white men in america. white men have no power, white men -- i mean, it's such garbage. >> you are not listening to right wing media where there is a talking point that has gone on like wildfire. >> i understand that. if you sexually assault sw unin high school your life should be ruined. your life should be pursued. the idea that this is somehow unjust -- remember, this all started with accusations of sexual assault. how about the lives of the women who were sexual assaulted in high school, how about 15-year-old ms. blasey, she wasn't ms. blasey ford in those days, how about her life? all this whining about the poor plight of white men is ridiculous. >> can i share one thing here because the case is being made in the republican party that there is this rising and it could have an impact in the polls. well, we have a poll from quinnipiac which shows perhaps something different. it gets to the idea of support for brett kavanaugh and support for brett kavanaugh has dropped
substantially over the last week. 48% now oppose his confirmation, it was 42 in this quinnipiac poll on september 10th. you can see the opposition growing. we don't have the poll out here but the male numbers actually haven't changed. men are not supporting or opposing this confirmation in any greater numbers. women, however, are opposing this confirmation in much greater numbers. 55% oppose the confirmation, anita. so if there is energy, republicans making the case that angry white men are going to change the fray, maybe it's not the angry white men, maybe it's the angry women. >> well, i think, you know, listen, women have a voice in this country and they need to and they do exercise it. we see this, too, in record numbers of women that are running for office this time. that's a good thing, i think women bring great sensitivity and clarity to a lot of big
issues in our country. with the clip that you showed from don jr., you know, maybe not the best messenger for this issue of what i take from that really is an issue of fairness for both men and women, to be treated appropriately fairly, you know, for all their voices to be heard. maybe he's not the best messenger for it, but as a mother of a son and a daughter i worry about both of them. >> me, too. i understand. >> i think we can all agree that don jr. is -- if you are in the war room for brett kavanaugh and you saw that, you would cringe and say that's a set back for us. >> i think we can agree with anita if there is a silver lining this is a teachable moment for our sons and daughters. >> but the teaching has to be done by the men at this point. women have made their point and jeffrey made an important point yesterday -- >> you mean --
>> women keep coming forward and the train keeps running them over. >> we have to do it together. >> men have to take the lead on teaching our sons what's right and -- because otherwise if the white male who jeffrey is crying himself to sleep every night sits back and says this doesn't impact me, then women's voices will not make change. men have to make the change. >> can i add just one thing. i think, you know rk, judge kavanaugh in his defense of raising two really terrific little girls and also has been a terrific mentor to women in the legal system and the law clerks who have worked for him would tell you that. it's a good experience. so, again, in the full measure and breadth of someone's life, let's look at all of it and as a woman i want to say that fairly in his defense in this case. >> jeffrey, anita, joe, i will say this if you keep coming on and having interesting conversations like this you are doomed to come back. >> this is earlier, though.
now we're earlier. >> we will move it earlier still. we have another hour on before this, anita. thank you all. i really do appreciate it. the white house says there is no limit to the fbi investigation into brett kavanaugh, but what are the limits? what will the fbi be allowed to ask? what can they find out about the drinking and the memory loss? we will speak to two former fbi agents next.
how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein.
but mania, such as unusualrder can rchanges in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms,... and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar.
a white house official tells cnn the fbi has been told its agts are not limited in their expanded background check of supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. so far we know the fbi has interviewed these four people, mark judge, leland keyser, patrick smith and deborah ramirez. what's next in this investigation? joining me now cnn counterterrorism analyst phil mudd and cnn law enforcement analyst josh campbell. josh, we talked about this with alisyn last hour and it's a good question. is there a document which
actually spells out exactly what the fbi has been asked to do? the presidnt was out there yesterday claiming they can go ask whatever they want, our reporting is it's not quite that expansive. so is there a definitive record? >> so there's some kind of directive, we don't know whether that was in the form of a letter or e-mail, but there has been conversations, communications from the white house to the fbi essentially dictating what it is they can look at. we've described this as the white house being the client in this matter. so the fbi serves as the investigative ample, this he do these background checks, hand the records over to the white house they determine suitability. but to your point it's an important one because i think we've seen a little shift, a spin cycle going on. over the weekend our reporting talking to people very familiar with the investigation what we were told is that there were strict parameters on what the fbi could investigate. yesterday the president in a press conference and we have heard through other reporting that now they're saying, no, the fbi can look at whatever they want, but there's an important caveat there. the fbi still has to go back to the white house, request
permission before they expand the aperture. in my opinion and judgment that doesn't really change anything at all. your point is an important one because whether the white house is spinning or there are people who are saying, no, the fbi has free rein we're going to find out. we will get ahold of that document or communication and we will know what the directive was. >> we may not know before friday when the senate votes on this but we will know eventually. those three senators who may be on the fence won't know before friday. >> phil mudd, we know that the fbi has been asked to look into the four witnesses and the specific allegations of sexual assault. we have been told that brett kavanaugh's drinking history is not a focus of the investigation. does that mean that these fbi agents who are doing the questioning won't ask at all about drinking when they talk to these witnesses and perhaps others? >> i could see them asking if it relates to the investigation into sexual assault, but, look, this is not a full background investigation for good reason. for example, issues that i saw come up when we were vetting
employees at the cia, spousal or child abuse, a lot of issues with people who were shoplifters, drug abuse, academic fraud, none of that will be the subject of this investigation. you will go in and say what do you remember about specific incidents that happened 35 years ago. on the drinking issue i personally don't care and i don't think the fbi is investigating whether the judge was a belligerent drunk in high school or college. i don't care. but if someone says, look, i was at those parties and a lot of people aren't going to be able to recollect what happened or the environment at those parties was sort of a free-for-all because of alcohol abuse, i could see alcohol coming in, but only as it relates to the investigation and sexual assault that the fbi is undertaking now. >> josh? >> there is also an important point and that goes to the veracity and truthfulness of the judge in his statements to the senate. so if he's saying that, no, i don't have a drinking problem, that's not me, and you have people that are saying, no, actually he is, let us tell you about this person when he was young, again, that goes to that suitability and character.
it's not a criminal investigation but that's something that the white house, the senate, the american people should look at and obviously take -- >> but it sounds like that is not a target for the fbi as they ask these questions but what phil is saying is it could come up over the course of the conversation. phil, truthfulness does matter or should matter probably to the american people when putting a supreme court justice on the bench. there is a question about brett kavanaugh's truthfulness when it comes to inc. doctoring. he admitted at times he drank too much but denied he ever blacked out or had a memory loss. i don't know what an fbi agent or to whom an fbi agent could ask a request he to find out whether that's true or not. >> timeout here. let's be clear. the senate is trying to shift the responsibility for determining suitability here. the senate -- the senators who were there when brett kavanaugh described his background some of them are irritated or angry that kavanaugh appeared to mist represent who he was in high school and college. it's not for the fbi to determine whether senators should judge that kavanaugh is
suitable or not. let me cut to the chase. i would bet that the fbi is going to give the senate a report and senators are going to say, this is not conclusive. and then senators are going to try to shift the blame for whether kavanaugh is suitable to the fbi. those senators coons, flake, et cetera, look in the mirror. if you don't like what he said, vote him down and go face your voters. it's not for the fbi to make the decision for the senate, it's for the senators. they are going to buck it, john. >> that was my point. there's not a question. you can't go ask a witness did brett kavanaugh forget this. how can a witness get into brett kavanaugh's mind. >> it's going to come down to who you believe. this is the ultimate he said, he said, he said, she said. if we learned anything from 2016 it's that when politics and law enforcement complied the ending is never good. if you look at what these senators are trying to do and i agree with my friend phil mudd completely on this as far as passing the buck, what they're trying to do is whether you're republican or democrat they seem to start with the conclusion, a
place they want the investigation to end in, whether, you know, you want these charges to be true or whether you want him to be cleared no matter what. that's not how law enforcement, that's not how the intelligence business works. you don't start with the conclusion, you start collecting facts. when folks are asking the fbi to put that good housekeeping stamp of approval on this case i think they're basically do a setup as evidenced by this arbitrary timeline, they're trying to rush it through, that's not how you conduct a thorough investigation. >> the fact that no one had gone and asked mark judge any questions about this i do think that that is a valid thing and if it's only a week that is much more than existed already so that i a loan makes this worthwhile. they may not find out anything new but at least someone is asking the questions. phil, you think that the fbi knowing that it might be being used here politically one way or another they may try to frame this in a way to protect them, in other words, provide a cover letter when they're presenting this evidence. what do you mean? >> look, christopher wray the fbi director is going to get grilled on this at some point. he has both his personal
integrity and the reputation of the fbi at stake. there is a fairly limited window in terms of time obviously and there is a limited number of questions they are going to ask. again, they are not asking about things like academic fraud. if i were wrist wray it's a very smart guy, you have to go into the senate with what i would saw a scope note. this was the scope of our investigation, this is what it included, because those senators will come back and try to attack the fbi for limiting the scope of the investigation. tell them up front, chris wray will be asked about this i would expect in a senate hearing at some point and he ought to be able to say, look, we told you what this was and what it wasn't. it's up to you to determine whether you want to vote this guy in or not. >> great discussion. thanks for being here. john, for more than a year as you know president trump has attacked the fbi and the justice department. so what effect will that have when the fbi releases its report into brett kavanaugh? a former director of national intelligence james clapper has a lot to say on that next. why bother mastering something? because when you want to create an entirely new feeling,
the difference between excellence and mastery, is all the difference in the world. introducing the all-new lexus es. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include
upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed? let's say it in a really low voice. carl? lowest price, guaranteed. just stick with badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com
thing. not a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. now, with that being said, i'd like it to go quickly and the reason i'd like it to go quickly, very simple, it's so simple, because it's unfair to him at this point. >> president trump is calling for the fbi to do a, quote, comprehensive investigation into supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh, but that's the very same fbi the president has attacked for almost two years. joining us now is former director of national intelligence james clapper, he is a cnn national security analyst. director clapper, great to see you. you have talked about this and worried about this for more than a year. you've said what happens on the day that americans really need to believe the fbi and need to believe what they're telling us. does that day come on friday? >> i think it does, alisyn. by the way, good day, mate, as they say down here. >> you're enjoying your time in australia as we can tell. >> absolutely.
i might add, by the way, that the atmosphere ricks are a lot less stressful than in the united states. i actually agree with what the president said and i wish he would commit that to a written directive from him to the fbi. that's who the fbi works for, it's in the executive branch, works for the president. so it would be great if he would convert what he said verbally into a written directive to the fbi which could be published and, of course, if it were up to me, which it isn't, i would allow the fbi to conduct a full investigation as expeditiously as they can but with no limits on time or interviewees. i've been the subject of an fbi investigation a couple times as a political appointee and i know them to be thorough, professional and methodical and if anybody can, you know, come
to ground truth to the extent that that can be learned it's the bureau. now, having said that no matter how this turns out it's going to be bad. if in the end the judge is confirmed, as justice on the supreme court, there are going to be a lot of people unhappy about that, and if he isn't there's going to be a lot of people unhappy about it as well and the fbi unfortunately will be caught in the middle, but they know how to handle that, i believe. >> all right. i want to dive into a couple things you said there. the written directive from the president to the fbi, is that customary? because we are trying to figure out exactly what the parameters are for their -- the scope of their investigation. dianne feinstein has asked to understand exactly what the parameters are. is it customary that they would be given some sort of piece of paper that tells them what the guidelines are? >> well, it isn't, you know, the typical thing where a directive is issued for every background
investigation, because there's kind of a standard procedure that they use. i do think this circumstance is unique and special and merits a written directive, particularly in light of what the president himself has said. in the same way that rod rosenstein gave a written directive to special counsel mueller and at least now you have a written documented point of departure rather than speculating about what the parameters or limits are or are not. >> as you well know this is not the first time the fbi has been thrust into the middle of a political battle. everyone remembers the 2016 presidential election, james comey of course was the director of the fbi at that time and he has weighed in with his thoughts on all of this. he wrote an op-ed for "the new york times" on sunday, here is a portion of it. when the week is up one team and maybe both will be angry at the fbi. the president will condemn the bureau for being a corrupt nest
of clinton lovers if they turn up bad facts. maybe democrats will similarly condemn agents as trumpists if they don't. as strange as it sounds, there is freedom in being totally screwed. yeah, i mean, i hear him, i guess there's political freedom in that, but where does that leave the american public in knowing what the truth is about brett kavanaugh? >> well, i think we will be in a better place if not completely enlightened. i'm not sure that a lot of this is knowable or discernible now given the lapse of time, but at least the american people can then be assured that the professional investigatory body has looked at this and has -- and has on behalf of both the president and the senate done its due diligence. in the end the senators are going to have to make a judgment, each one of them, regardless of what the fbi turns
out. so i think, you know, the process belatedly is working, i just wish there weren't the restraints that appear to have been imposed on the fbi and would really be helpful to have a written directive to them. >> well, in terms of making a judgment, james comey has weighed in on that as well. i will read this. agents will summarize every witness encounter in a detailed report called the 302 and then synthesize all the interviews into an executive summary for the white house. although the fbi will not reach conclusions, their granular factual presentation will spotlight the areas of conflict and allow decision-makers to reach their own conclusions. that's the part where it may become unsatisfying for americans or partisans or anyone who feels really invested in this because people are looking for the fbi to tell them the truth, but that's not what's going to happen. they're going to present their findings and then senators who are very partisan and the white
house that obviously has a very vested interest is going to draw their own conclusions. >> i believe, alisyn, that there will be even more heartburn and discontent and discord if the fbi isn't afforded the opportunity to conduct this investigation. it will be worse if it isn't. >> all right. director james clapper, we really appreciate you taking time out of your schedule there in australia. great to talk to you on "new day." >> thanks, alisyn. i've never seen him so happy, i'm afraid he's not coming back. >> he talks about what a nice respite it is to be out of the political maelstrom. >> he could not go further away from the united states. one year after the deadliest shooting in modern u.s. history and a lot of promises, there is no -- there is still no ban on bump stocks. so how did that happen? we will get a reality check next. does this map show the
peninsula trail? you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. we've transformed this home to show the new keurig k-café brewer makes any house a coffee house. just pop that in for a coffee or brew a shot and froth milk for a latte or cappuccino. easy peasy. now she's a barista! it's so frothy. a little piece of heaven. thank you. but how's the coffee?
worst mass shooting in modern u.s. history, the one in las vegas, we heard unanimous calls for bump stocks to be banned, but one year later there is still no law on the books. senior political analyst john avalon joins us now with a cnn reality check. there was a moment of unanimity, john, and what's happened since
then? >> very little, alisyn. last night the lights went down on the las vegas strip in honor of the 58 lives that were stolen from us one year ago, that's when a deranged gunman smashed out the windows of his hotel room and shot into a crowd of concert goers, within seconds the worst mass shooting in modern u.s. history. the tool the gunman used to do it was the bump stock, this inexpensive plastic add-on us uses the rifles own recoil the bump the gun back and forth allowing it to approach the rate of automatic fire, something that's been severely restricted since the 1930s. it allowed him to spray his victims at a rate of 90 butts every ten seconds. afterwards there was a rare moment of consensus, according to one poll 82% of americans supported a ban on bump stocks. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed, president trump said he was open to it and even the nra said bump stocks should be regulated. the nra. now, after all that you would expect that one year later bump stocks would be illegal.
but you would be wrong. a combination of red tape, white house foot dragging and washington gridlock is to blame and here is how it happened. first, donald trump gave the atf the lead in getting rid of bump stocks back in 2010 the agency declared they were a gun accessory, therefore, perfectly legal under existing federal law. a stance they reiterated after the vegas shooting. that's when the publish backlash started. e-mails show the agency wasn't remotely ready. we, the atf are getting hammered with the narrative we approved the bump stock. it's extremely political with the nra and some gop congressmen jumping on us, we are in crisis mode. at the if the atf seemed like a mess that's what you say it was. it had seen its staff cut, budget stagnate and director's seat left vacant for years at a time. with congress calling for immediate legislation trump decided to go with the regulation route instead. he ordered his justice department to enact a ban while
throwing obama under the bus, obama administration legalized bump stocks, bad idea. that tweet is not true. obama's atf came to the same conclusion that trump's did, that a rifle request independent with a bump stock is not a machine gun under federal law. the comment period expired in june and yesterday nearly four months later president trump insisted we're still in the final stages. >> we're knocking out bump stocks. with err in the final two or three weeks and i will be able to write out bump stocks. >> those final two or three weeks should have come a year ago when lawmakers on both sides of the aisles wanted to enact a ban. trump said he didn't oppose and even the nra wasn't going to stop it. even when there are rare moments of consensus on issues like gun, a toxic combination of bureaucracy and lobbyists can conspire to kill common sense. that's your reality check. >> john, it's so remarkable. we were here that morning. i just remember the next morning and i remember everybody just -- the feeling immediately after
the massacre was that there was a quick, easy fix and it made sense across the aisle. i mean, we talked to republicans, the president said it, we talked to democrats and it all made sense and then somehow the commonsensical nature was eroded over the past year. >> one of the things we know about the nra and you can support them or not but one of the things and one of the ways they respond to mass shootings is they remain quiet at first and then they wait because they know time is on their side because one year later the passions don't run quite as high. >> that's exactly right. common sense is -- washington is almost designed to kill it. >> thanks very much. thousands of undocumented children taken to a tent city in west texas. why the conditions there are getting immigration advocates so upset. that's next.
( ♪ ) ready to juvéderm it? correct age-related volume loss in cheeks with juvéderm voluma xc, add fullness to lips with juvéderm ultra xc and smooth moderate to severe lines around the nose and mouth with juéderm xc. tell your doctor if you have a history of scarring or are taking medicines that decrease the body's immune response or that can prolong bleeding. common side effects include injection-site redness, swelling, pain, tenderness, firmness, lumps, bumps, bruising, discoloration or itching. as with all fillers, there is a rare risk
hundreds of migrant children lives in shelters have been taken under cover of night to a tent city in the west texas desert. they are among 13,000 undocumented children. live in el paso, texas with the very latest on this. what have you learned? >> reporter: they have at least 1,600 children in that tent city from the summer. they just sort of built it up right next to a point of entry. when i was touring that facility back in june, there was a quarter of that number of kids. that number has quadrupled in three months. in part it is because this is an overflow facility. they are bringing these children here, 13 to 17, because they are running out of room in permanent shelters. it is different from those permanent shelters. there is no official schooling program. the rest of them have a
curriculum they go through. they have class during the day. it is a self-led program with just work books. when we were touring, they had kids walking around with work books because each kid is at a different level. but they are air-conditioned tents. they live in about 20 kids her tent. this is illustrative of an issue that appears to be getting out of control. they were initially only supposed to be open for 30 days. they now have a contract that goes until the end of the year and they have room for 3,800 kids at that facility. they're not sure whether they will fill up to capacity, but part of the reason why is because they are taking longer to reunite these kids with their sponsors. part of that is due to a more rigorous background check. they're doing fingerprinting. but some of it is fear because there are instances of people that come forward to be sponsors that are arrested due to
immigration status. most of the kids that come forward are already matched up with a sponsor. it is just taking an extraordinary amount of time to reunite them. back in june, the incident commander called the trump administration's zero tolerance policy stupid, dumb decision that was harmful to children because of the separations. well, the washington post obtained an inspector general's report that says this was a flawed process from the start, that it gave poor conditions, poor communications and in some cases, children stayed at the border processing centers where you saw the kids in the cages for much longer than the 72 days they were allowed by law. in one case, 25 days inside one of those border processing facilitie facilities. >> that is so important because more than 800 children still staying there longer than they
say. we have not been able to trust the federal government's accounting of what has happened with these children and there is so much else going on, but we are really glad you have stayed on this story and given us these status reports. video of a high school football game being reviewed after a 16-year-old died. dillon thomas suffered a head injury. cnn joins us live in georgia with more. what have you learned? >> good morning. it is one of the scariest things for any parent to see. an ambulance on the field of their child's game. that's exactly what happened here. some time during the third quarter, dillon thomas complained of numbness in his legs. just before he was expected to go back in, he collapsed on the sidelines. he was rushed to the hospital where he underwent surgery to reduce swelling in his brain. it is not clear exactly what happened and there was a lot of confusion here at a press
conference head. his head ball coach saying it is one of the hardest things his community has ever had to deal with. >> he is one of the finest young men i have ever had in my life. one of the most caring individuals. we're family here and we'll be family through the beginning of time. when family hurts, we all hurt together. >> the coaching staff has reviewed video, but the only thing they could rule out is that thomas was not injured during a tackle. they're trying to figure out how he was injured. there is no official statistics as to how many football players have died because of the game. there were 42 football related deaths in college and in high school 30 of them were high school football players. last year alone, 11 football players died as a result of direct contact in a game or indirect things like heat stroke. we're hoping to get more
information as the medical examer puts out their autopsy report, hopefully some time later today. >> nick, thank you. it is so tragic. i was reminded listening to all this of what happened in my high school. this happened to one of my class mates. he died during the football game with the rival high school. it was halloween weekend, and he had a head injury. and we all went to the hospital to sort of sit vigil, and he died that night. >> this is why parents across the country, including many people who played football, are thinking seriously about whether their children and to what extent their children should be involved in it. >> they should be. we have a lot of new developments, including a new development in stormy daniel's case and the president's involvement with it. so a lot of news. let's get on it. i want them to do a very comprehensive investigation.
whatever that means. >> they want to tell the fbi who should be believed and who should not be believed. >> there is not anything new, i imagine we'll press on. >> i have seen pret drunk to the point he could easily pass out. >> will he be willing to lie? >> this is not supposed to be a fishing expedition. >> it does no good to do an investigation that gives us more cover. we need to find out what we can find out. >> just win at any cost is what this thing has turned into. >> this is "new day". >> welcome to your new day. it is tuesday, october 2nd, 8:00 in the east. so what is the scope of the fbi's investigation of brett kavanaugh? an official tells cnn it has been made clear to agents there are no limits on their background search. no limits except a time limit. the vote on brett kavanaugh's supreme court nomination will
take place this week no matter what the fbi found as senator jeff flake, one of the key republicans, demands a real investigation and not one that he says would just give his party cover. >> new information raises questions about brett kavanaugh's drinking in college and whether he has been honest about it, both to congress and the american people. it was also the first time the band ub-40 has ever been connected to the confirmation process. ♪ red, red wine. one final time here. >> why limit it? >> let me tell you why. according to a 1985 police report, after a ub-40 concert, brett kavanaugh was involved in a bar fight that he allegedly started. he was questioned by officers afterwards, but he was never arrested. so does this even matter? joining us now, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey tubin.