tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN October 3, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
good evening. breaking news tonight. senate sources say senators will be able to read the fbi's new report on brett kavanaugh starting 8:00 tomorrow morning. sources say the senate may physically receive the investigation tonight, but reading starts in the morning. we'll have more on that important development. first we begin tonight with an exclusive interview. there are people who believe they have information about kavanaugh's behavior who have not been successful in sharing what they know or say they know with the fbi. that includes some of his former classmates at yale including his freshman year roommate, jamie roche, mentioned in "the new yorker" article, detailing debbie ramirez's allegation that kavanaugh exposed herself to her at a party and came up during the kavanaugh hearing last week. until now, he hasn't spoken publicly. he's avoided it. he's written a piece for slate titled "i was brett kavanaugh's college roommate, he lied under oath about his drinking and terms in his yearbook." i spoke with mr. roche just before airtime. mr. roche, you say judge
kavanaugh lied under oath when he testified before the judiciary committee last week. can you explain how you know that he lied? >> i can. i wasn't able to watch the testimony. i was in an airplane, but i read the testimony the next day and i was struck as i was reading it that, you know, i know debbie. and -- >> debbie ramirez. >> debbie ramirez. and i know from my experience with her that at least from my perspective, there is zero chance that she's making up this story, and i heard dr. blasey ford's testimony. i read some of it later. i believe she's telling the truth. when brett started saying things about his drinking and use of certain words, sexually-oriented words. i knew he was lying because he was my roommate.
you know, we were in a room together. our beds were 10 feet apart for a couple of months. and what struck me as interesting in speaking out about it is not only did i know he wasn't telling the truth is i know he knew he wasn't telling the truth. >> you say he was a heavy drinker even for the time. since this is knowledge you say you specifically have, can you describe what you mean when you say he was a notably heavy drinker? >> sure. this is a time not long after "animal house" was shown, and people drank a lot. he went to parties and drank beer. many, many people did. but there were even within that environment, there were people who were loud drunks, who were sloppy drunks, who were belligerent drunks, but even by those standards, my memory of brett was that he was -- he was
on the far edge of this. he was notably heavier in his drinking than other people. >> do you -- can you -- i don't know if there's any specific examples or can you say how often, was this something on weekends? i read some accounts there was a keg in the main room of the room that you -- the suite of rooms that you had between the three roommates. >> you know, it was an awful long time ago and i can't say he was drunk on this date or not. but i can tell you that my recollection of my experience with him was that he was drunk frequently. that it wasn't drunk to the point of having trouble getting up every month or two. it was frequently. i would say with some confidence it was at least once, maybe twice on the weekends. may have even been during the week. >> you say that he -- actually one of the things he testified to was about how focused on not only academics but also sports he was, in particular, basketball, doing very hard workouts.
and the implication being that that is not an activity that somebody who drank to the degree of which you say he drank would be able to do. >> that's just nonsense. i was a varsity athlete and hung out with a lot of athletes. you know, top athletes, athletes who play at the collegiate level. can drink and work out. i don't think that there's anything that precludes one from the other. >> you say also that he, i'm quoting you, became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. do you have any specific examples? i'm not asking for dates but just anything you remember, how do you mean belligerent and aggressive? >> i've been thinking a lot about that. i want to provide a specific example. i really can. i should be honest about that. when i say belligerent, i mean belligerent in demeanor. yelling loudly. people tell him to be quiet, tell him to shut up. i didn't see him personally ever
hit anybody or ever behave aggressively towards women. when i say aggressive, i'm speaking more in courage than in expression. when i first heard about this, i did call friends that i knew that knew both of us and spent time with brett, both freshman year and after, and i did hear stories about times when he was physically violent. destructive. those are not on the record. they're not my stories to tell, but they made me feel like my memories of brett were accurate. >> those were stories you heard from other students who were at yale. >> that's correct. >> by the way, has the fbi talked to you either in any background investigation of judge kavanaugh ever? because a big deal has been made of the fact he went through five or six background investigations for various appointments over the years. have you as a freshman year roommate of him, have you ever been contacted by the fbi, and obviously in this latest
investigation as well, have you been contacted? >> you know, i've been scratching my head about that. i was listening to the radio, gosh, i want to say a week ago, and they were talking about brett having been interviewed by the fbi, backgrounds done on five or six occasions prior to this. and it struck me that, you know, i was his freshman year roommate and if you wanted to know how somebody behaved in college, which is a time, especially the transition from high school to college, where people are likely to have done something that expressed something that might have been a problem, that they would have contacted me. right? five or six fbi interviews. now, i started talking to friends. i said, well, is this just sloppy work or why would somebody not contact a freshman college roommate? his only freshman college roommate. to try and figure out what this guy was like. and this person was quick to say, you know, listen, the fbi are good, they're good guys. they take it very seriously. they do the work that they're
told to do. you know, if they didn't contact you, it's because whoever was doing the background check wasn't interested in what was going on at that time. >> so just for the record, you've never been contacted either now or in any past investigation. >> i've never been contacted about brett by the fbi ever. >> so you actually, for people who don't know the situation, it was you, brett kavanaugh, and another roommate, in this basically there were two bedrooms, you and brett kavanaugh shared a bedroom. and there was a common room as well. your bed was just as you said feet away from his. did you ever see him black out? he has testified that he was asked about blacking out. he said he didn't. he said maybe sometimes he went to sleep. did you ever see him black out? >> you know, i didn't socialize with brett, but being in the same room where he slept, i saw him when he arrived at home regularly, and i saw him in the morning. and i can tell you that he would come home and he was incoherent.
stumbling. he would sometimes be singing. he occasionally would wear this, i think it was an old leather football helmet. he'd throw up and in the morning have a lot of trouble getting out of bed. you know, i wasn't an angel back then, either. there were times when i did the exact same thing. issue, and so the answer to your question is, yeah, i saw him both what i would consider blackout drunk and also deal with the repercussions of that in the morning. >> and you saw him throwing up? >> yeah. >> on more than one occasion? >> on more than one occasion. >> do you know -- do you have any evidence that he ever had times where he did not remember what had happened the previous night? >> you know, my sense of it is that we did talk about that, but i can't repeat any specific issue. i just -- it's too long ago. >> the judge testified about how much he liked and likes beer.
was it just beer that he was drinking, to your knowledge? >> you know, my memory of it is that he was a beer guy. >> when asked about your motivation to talk, when you talked to "the new yorker," which according -- you said you did it reluctantly. and even now talking, you've been reluctant to give any interviews. judge kavanaugh has said that you and your third roommate hated each other. you got into fights. fistfights during the year. and that you had what he called a very contentious relationship, you didn't like each other. is that true? >> not from my point of view. he referenced an incident where i played a prank on this third guy where we took the furniture out of his room and set it up in the grass quad outside of our dormitory and i set it up just like it was in his room. and waited for him to return as if i was studying in his room outside. you know, it was a prank. i knew it would be irritating to him. i thought he would think it was
funny. he didn't. he was very angry when he got back. he went to our common room where there was a keg of beer and filled up a pitcher and poured it on my bed. i responded and did the same thing back to him. so we were not -- we weren't close. that was a strained incident, but it never really turned into a fight-fight. and i would say if i had to characterize this third person, you know, we just didn't have any relationship. i didn't hang out with him. i didn't spend a lot of time thinking about him. i suspect it was the same for him. >> just so i'm clear, the pouring the beer on the bed, that was the third roommate, i believe his name was dave, or was that kavanaugh pouring the beer? >> yeah, i don't want to get into naming other people that aren't already dragged into this thing. i assume he has a good reason not to be part of it, but it was a third person who was in our suite. there were more than the three of us in our suite. >> okay. >> brett and i were in a single room together. there were a series of other
people in adjoining rooms. yeah, it was a third person who poured the beer. >> okay. >> i got it tell you, i was trying to figure out why this was redacted. it didn't make a lot of sense to me. but i wonder if, you know, maybe the reason was that it forces you to say there was a keg of beer in your room which in retrospect is not very usual. >> i want to ask about that because during his hearing, which you're referencing, judge kavanaugh referred senators to redacted interview. he was asked regarding your statement in support of miss ramirez, "do you have any understanding of why your college roommate would make such an accusation? "i'm not going to speculate, i described the contentious relationship in that room generally and his issues generally." then there's a bit of redaction and judge kavanaugh is asked -- and says, quote, this is question to him, in his his issues you testified being -- and the rest is redacked. the next thing you see is kavanaugh's answer, "that's my understanding."
do you have any idea what he was actually talking about? because that sounds like it's more than just a contentious relationship. it was some sort of issue. >> i don't think so. you know, my issues with brett and with his friends were, you know, sort of social behavior issues. you know, i was -- i was also an athlete but the guys i hung out with were more individual types. we were swimmers and water polo players and all that. we weren't -- we weren't group socializing athletes. and, you know, i just thought that the way the guys acted when they were together, particularly the way they acted toward women, was not -- i didn't think it was cool. so -- >> do you know why that -- do you know why that would have been redacted? because, i mean, he did talk about a contentious relationship. so it seems like he was suggesting something else. usually takes something of pretty sensitive nature for them to redact something. >> you know, i thought a lot about it. i can't think of anything. you know, again, it's a very long time ago.
it's possible that i'm forgetting something, but nothing comes to mind. >> okay. so whatever issues he's talking about, you're not sure. you also said that when judge kavanaugh was asked under oath about certain terms in his yearbook, boofing and devil's triangle, he said those were about flatulence and devil's triangle is a drinking game. you say -- that's been disputed by other people. you say you know that that is not true. can you just explain how you know that and you say you actually heard brett kavanaugh and his friends or at least someone else in the room using those terms in a way that it doesn't mean what he said under oath. >> yeah. i guess i was not alone. i've heard and read a lot of people saying the same kind of thing. so this is -- i don't have any special inside knowledge here, but i was shocked when i heard that because those words were commonly used and they were references to sexual activities. if you think about the context
in which you might hear those words, the way that he described the way they are defined, and the way that they are defined, they're not interchangeable. so i heard them talking about it regularly. i think that contributed to some of my feelings about the fact these guys treated women in a way i didn't like. but i'm not a specialist in language. i wasn't the only person who heard it. i was surprised when i heard him say he meant those things. that's not what they meant. >> some people hearing this might be surprised that 30-some years later you remember particular phrases he used, devil's triangle or boofing and not a particular incident about him being belligerent and the like. you're saying you absolutely remember him using those phrases, meaning sexual terms? >> yeah, you know, it's very difficult in these sorts of situations, but the truth for
me, and i think for others, is that there are things in your past that you remember photographically and things adjacent to it you can't remember at all. we talked about the prank incident earlier. i have a clear picture in my mind of a person with a keg of beer in their hand slowly pouring it onto my pillow and on my mattress. but i can't tell you who the other person was with me setting up and returning the furniture to the room. >> if judge kavanaugh in his testimony is implying you have animus toward him because he was closer to another one of your roommates who you had fistfights, fights with, a contentious relationship with, and that has caused you animus and animus toward judge kavanaugh, you say what? >> i think that's absurd. i didn't really care much about the third person. i had an incident with him which made it so that i wasn't
interested in socializing with him, but, you know, i had my own social circle and things to do. i wasn't spending a lot of time and energy worrying about him even while i was there. we're 30-something years after that now. the idea i would take the sort of social and reputational damage that i'm already taking for this in order to settle a score with a guy 35 years ago who i don't care about, it just make sense. >> more of my exclusive interview with brett kavanaugh's freshman roommate at yale just ahead, speaking out for the first time on television. later, breaking news tonight that senators on the judiciary committee will begin looking at those supplemental fbi interviews first thing tomorrow morning. we'll have the latest on a very busy wednesday night. before nexium 24hr mark could only imagine... a peaceful night sleep without frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?
what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. chloe fall in love with iphone xs on t-mobile, and right now, save $300 dollars.
sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life. i've done all sorts of research,
read earnings reports, looked at chart patterns. i've even built my own historic trading model. and you're still not sure if you want to make the trade? exactly. sounds like a case of analysis paralysis. is there a cure? td ameritrade's trade desk. they can help gut check your strategies and answer all your toughest questions. sounds perfect. see, your stress level was here and i got you down to here, i've done my job. call for a strategy gut check with td ameritrade. ♪ back pain can't win. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long.
that does not include kavanaugh's freshman roommate at yale. i spoke with jamie roche tonight. he says he's never been contacted by the fbi for any of its background investigations into brett kavanaugh. this is part two of our exclusive interview. he spoke about his support for debbie ramirez, former yale student, who told "the new yorker" that kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party. i want to ask you about debbie ramirez's allegations. just to be clear, you said you have no direct knowledge of them, whether or not they did, in fact, happen or not. is that correct? >> when ronan farrow of "the new yorker" called me, and he said somebody reported this incident, they said you might have been there and calling and talking to debbie, she's not sure she wants to talk about it, do you remember anything? what i told him is i have spotty memories of something happening. i remember debbie being upset. i remember talking to her about it, but i do not remember accurately enough to say that
this person thing happened or that brett was involved. >> when you say you have spotty memories of something happening, do you mean spotty memories of hearing about something happening or spotty memories of you witnessing something happening? >> no, i was definitely not in the room. it wasn't my crowd. i know it would have been debbie talking to me about it. >> so you have spotty memories of debbie ramirez at the time talking about it? >> yeah, i want to be crystal clear about this. if i felt confident in my memory of her tell me this happened, i would only be talking about that. this is too long ago and too vague a memory to be part of the conversation. >> can i ask why you are doing an interview now? because it's something you have not done -- your name was in "the new yorker" and you made a statement. you've written an op-ped. why come forward more now? >> you know, i get asked that question by a lot of people. i have decided and then decided not to participate in this thing multiple times.
there's very little upside for me and there's considerable downside for me, but, you know, at the end of the day, it feels like there are not enough people who are willing and can credibly say, you know, i know this girl. and she didn't lie and she wouldn't lie and i can't see any reason why she would. and so it felt to me like somebody had to get up and speak for her. now, other people have and i think that's terrific. but as brett's roommate, i'm in a singular position, at least to the people who are willing to talk, to say, listen, i saw him do this stuff he said under oath that he didn't do. is i saw him use words in a different way than the way he said under oath they were used. you know, if a person isn't truthful about these little things, then, you know, we ought to think very seriously about whether we should tell debbie that she's wrong or crazy and believe him. >> and for someone listening to this who say, well, look, you know, you're talking about a
freshman drinking and whether or not they passed out, whether or not they blacked out, how much they drank, lots of people do that on college campuses. back then certainly. and even now. what you're saying is for you, it's not those activities, per se, because you, yourself, have said you drank. it was -- it's not being honest about it now. >> yeah. i mean, that's the hardest thing for me. you know, i knew people at yale who never drank. right? i knew people at yale who never did anything that they would be worried might come up. unfortunately, i wasn't one of them. i'm in a position to be a witness to some of the things that he's talking about. no, i don't think -- listen, i think it's terrible to drink too much. i think it's dangerous. i think it encourages bad activity. i know when i was in school, many, many, many people did it. and i don't think that's disqualifying. i don't think that means you can't have a strong career and
even be a moral person. i don't think that's condemning. i think it is not taking responsibility for your actions that is condemning. i've had lots of conversations with people over the last week or two, women who said these things happen to me and i didn't speak up because people would attack me. and i'd be double punished. and guys who said, hey, listen, i drank, too. i don't think i did anything, but i'm scared to death somebody's going to come up and say that i did. you know, that's just the fact of now. but i think a guy of high character would get up and say, you know, listen, i drank. a lot of people drank. sometimes i drank too much. i don't think i did anything wrong. i don't think it's in character to do the things that these women are claiming i did. but you know what, if i did, i feel awful about it. you know, i'm sorry and i wish there was something i could do. but, you know, he doesn't say that. >> jamie roche, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. >> with me now, david gergen, kirsten powers, jeffrey toobin and michael caputo.
david, i'm wondering, you know, he's clearly saying based on what he saw his freshman year living in the same room with brett kavanaugh, judge kavanaugh wasn't truthful under oath describing his drinking and the terms he was using. does that matter at this point? >> unfortunately, it may not matter as much as it should. i think one of the -- he was thoughtful and admitted his own weaknesses, which i thought was important. it's very important for our viewers to know that you wouldn't have had him on the air unless cnn had checked him out for his reliability. he didn't randomly walk in here. >> right. >> you had to think about this. >> he was the only direct roommate at that time that brett kavanaugh had. >> right. you know, so you're left with the impression he's pretty credible. are there others out there that we should also be hearing from in order to make a fair judgment about judge kavanaugh? >> but if -- i mean, he has no direct knowledge of debbie
ramirez's allegations or of witnessing anything. maybe he says she said something to him but he's not -- he's not really clear on that. i mean, if it's simply a question of brett kavanaugh not accurately describing his drinking habits 30-something years ago, i think there's a lot of people out there who will say, well, so what? >> let me make the counterargument because i think the pattern of drinking is very, very important for resolving this. first of all, it bears on the question of whether he may be forgetful about a time with miss ford, for example. and he honestly believes he didn't do it because he doesn't know. he has no memory of it. and secondly, there is this -- we keep talking about something happened 35 years ago. he has been testifying under oath just in the last few weeks. this is -- and if he testified under oath and lied to the country about it, which is basically what mr. roche is saying, that's relevant to whether he ought to be on the supreme court.
>> michael? i mean, roche directly saying judge kavanaugh lied under oath with, you know, allegations of heavy drinking, the meaning of those terms. is it problematic to you at all? >> i don't know. i mean, he also spoke about how difficult it is to make, you know, to bring these memories back 30-plus years later. i mean, recovered memories are unreliable in any case. you know, i think it's pretty clear there was a drinking culture at yale. i don't think it's any news to any of us. i remember being at a wedding in 1994 with a bunch of brett kavanaugh's classmates. he wasn't there. the yaleys were passing around a loving cup filled with beer, all of drinking from it, and practically singing boola, boola. this crowd is a drinking crowd at yale. i think it's the same at a lot of other schools.
trying to put together how much somebody drank is pretty difficult when everybody was drinking. i understand what david is saying, it's really about whether or not he lied under oath. but i think all of us also understand that this, talking about his drinking has always been about trying to figure -- you know, trying to get him to say he used to black out so they could nail him with actually, perhaps, maybe, you know, doing something that he doesn't remember in regards to mrs. ford. i don't -- i don't think that's really credible. trying to rebuild memories from 36 years ago to put that together. >> kirsten, do you think mr. roche's memories are important? >> yeah, i do, because i don't think it's as much about the specifics as is it about the general memory about what he was like. certainly i think we're all capable of having general memories about what our roommates were like in college. so i thought it was interesting he talked about how one of the things he didn't like about kavanaugh and his friends was the way they treated women and in particular when you were talking about the use of the phrase, devil's triangle and boofing, which were sexual terms. and he wasn't able to say for
sure, i think, that kavanaugh used them, but what he could say for sure was what those words meant during that time. and that those words were sexual terms. they were not what kavanaugh said they were when he was speaking under oath. so, again, this is not about -- if this came up in a vacuum unrelated to a sexual assault allegation, it wouldn't matter. it wouldn't matter if he used these phrases or if he, you know, was getting really drunk. it only matters because he portrayed himself as a completely different person under oath and while he was testifying and he's being considered for the highest court in the land and we're talking about behavior related to women. so i think -- i think this is very -- very important what we just heard. >> jeff, to michael's point, that if judge kavanaugh had said, you know, the beginning of all this, well, look, yeah, i like many college students, i got really, really drunk, i threw up, i, you know, i cringe thinking about it, i regret it, i passed out sometimes, but i absolutely didn't do this. would that automatically be used
against him? >> not necessarily. i don't think so. i mean, i think, you know, certain amount of candor about being a goofus in college is something that, you know, people understand. it is quite possible to drink too much and behave badly without sexually assaulting anyone. the problem here is the intersection of the drinking and the possible sexual assault. in kavanaugh's defense, you know, i would point out that the two areas where this fellow says kavanaugh lied, one is clearly a lie, if he's accurate in terms of the meaning of these terms. the other one, kavanaugh did testify that there were times that i drank too much and he said i never blacked out. he never said that kavanaugh blacked out. he didn't know for sure. and the difference between, well sometimes i drank too much, and
he often came in and threw up and i can't get the image of him wearing a leather football helmet out of my head. but, i mean, none of that is specifically contradictory to what kavanaugh said. >> i want to continue this discussion. we have a lot more to discuss. we have to take a quick break. we were just talking to judge kavanaugh's college roommate. there's also a new op-ped out tonight with an urgent message from the senate. it's from more than 650 law professors. they all say judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the supreme court. we'll talk about that next as well. ron! soh really? going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95...
i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.
should not confirm kavanaugh. it was signed 650 plus law professors and counting. the letter reads in part, "judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of the judge. as the congressional research service explains, a judge requires a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous, yet firm and dedicated to a process, not a result. the concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding." goes on to say, "we're law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. many of us appear in state and federal court. our work means we'll continue to do so including before the united states supreme court. we regret we feel compelled to write to you, our senators, to provide our views that at the senate hearings on september 27th, judge brett kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land." moments ago, kavanaugh's freshman roommate at yale broke his silence on television about what he saw and heard.
he said judge kavanaugh lied during his testimony last week. he hasn't spoken publicly about this until now. tonight i asked him why. >> i saw him do this stuff he said under oath he didn't do. i saw him use words in a different way than he said under oath they were used. if a person isn't truthful about these little things, we ought to think very seriously about whether we should tell debbie that she's wrong or crazy and believe him. >> back now with david gergen, kirsten powers, jeff toobin, and michael caputo. david, you heard that letter -- does this in the end really just boil down to politics for the senators who have to make this choice? >> it seems to be boiling down to politics. that's exactly the way it shouldn't come down. and i, again, go back to the conversation you've been having with mr. roche tonight. you know, what strikes you is he's got a really credible story, but is it the complete story? isn't it fair to kavanaugh to hear other stories? the fact we're going to tomorrow
morning before the deadline they closed down this so-called investigation and they've never talked to him or 30 to 40 other witnesses that the parties -- mrs. ford and miss ramirez are talking about, have not been consulted. we, the public, have been misled by the -- what's going on in washington, by the president, by his party, that this week would be spent, the entire week, up to the entire week would be spent in a serious inquiry to get to the bottom of things and talk to people who are relevant. obviously, roche is relevant to the question of whether the, you know, kavanaugh's been lying and about whether he blacked out or not. whether he got -- couldn't remember things. and it seems to me we're on the verge of a vote that's going to tear this country apart because there are going to be a lot of people -- if he goes through, there's going to be a lot of people on the losing side who are going to say, wait a minute,
this was a sham investigation. we thought you were, you know, dousing out the fires, instead you poured more fuel on. >> jeff, from, you know -- do you think this was a sham investigation? >> well, it certainly is a meager investigation. i don't think it's a sham in the sense that, you know, it's the fake witnesses and the fbi will not report what they say. but if you are seriously trying to determine whether he sexually assaulted these three women and seriously trying to determine whether he told the truth in his testimony over the past several weeks, three days is not enough. especially when you have identified people who have come forward whose names have been brought forward to the fbi, who are clearly relevant and they're just saying, we're not going to talk to them. that is not a serious investigation. this is a behind-covering exercise by the republicans who run the judiciary committee designed to say to -- to
senators flake, murkowski, and collins, here, you happy? is this enough? let's get on with this. >> michael, should kavanaugh, should dr. ford, have been interviewed by the fbi? >> i'm not -- i don't know. i think that the fbi tends to interview the primary focuses last. it doesn't seem like they're going to do that. i've had enough exposure to the fbi in the last 18 months to know that a team of fbi agents can do more in a week than most american teams can do in a year. i'm completely confident, having my own personal experience, that they're going to do a pretty bang-up job on this investigation. i hope they get it over with and hope we have a vote because i'm really tired of listening to all this stuff. you know, commentary and interviews with people who couldn't get into public universities. my gosh, if we get a letter from the ivy league university association of janitorial professionals next, i think we really reached the end of this. >> kirsten?
>> look, i think that there's one group of people who wants to talk to the fbi, and it's people who want to back up stories, allegations that have been made against judge kavanaugh. and there's one group of people who doesn't want to talk to the fbi, including the one person who was allegedly in the room and who was finally, i guess, you know, sort of forced to do it but really didn't want to do it when everybody else was saying, hey, let's go, let's investigate this, let's get people under oath, we're happy to tell our stories. you have people like mr. roche coming on your show at great cost to his reputation. telling his story. i think it was really important to focus on the fact that he said he felt he needed to speak up because he noticed that there aren't a lot of people who are willing to speak up. i don't think he was specific about this, but there really aren't very many men. and so when women talk about wanting to have allies, that's what they're talking about.
that there are too many men that sit around and are quiet about the things that they see that they have access to that women don't have access to. and so he's saying, i was there are, i had unique access, and i can tell you things other people can't tell you. why hasn't the fbi talked to him? >> do you think, david, or -- if the details of what the fbi learned will become public and if so, how quickly? i assume through leaks is the way they would become public. >> if they get reported 8:30, 8:45, you may well start hearing things. it's going to be selected. this is so important to the country. there are so many people deeply concerned about this on both sides. you want it to be very important to be fair to mr. kavanaugh as well, and there are a lot of things you can say on his behalf. but to have this sort of -- should be just as transparent as possible, it should be as thorough as possible. it should be, you know, go get all the witnesses. jeff toobin's absolutely right. three days is not enough. we thought it was going to be at
least a week. that's what essentially we were led to believe. we thought there would not be restrictions. the president said they had free reign. a lot of reporting tonight they were very severe restrictions on what they could do. we're left in a situation, either way this goes now, there are going to be millions of people who are going to be very, very unhappy and angry. >> tomorrow morning, 8:00 a.m., we're told is when senators will get their first look at this and be able start reading. up next, we're going to capitol hill. when senators will start reading what the fbi found and then what happens. what happens after that. geico has over 75 years of great savings and service. with such a long history, it's easy to trust geico! thank you todd. it's not just easy.
more breaking news on judge kavanaugh tonight. sources say the white house expects to get the new fbi background check on the supreme court nominee soon. we'll also have learned that senators will start reading it tomorrow at 8:00 a.m. phil mattingly joins us now from capitol hill with more. so i understand senator grassley
gets to read the findings first tomorrow morning. what happens after that? >> reporter: basically, it's going to alternate, anderson. every senator is allowed to read the report, all 100. they're going to go hour by hour. the first hour republicans will have an opportunity to read the report, be briefed by the small number of their staffers that will have access to the report. and then one hour later, democrats will be able to do it. they'll be able to rotate back and forth throughout the course of the day. anderson, it's worth noting this is a report that when it gets to capitol hill from the white house, it could come as soon as tonight. that's the expectation right now. can only be read by 100 senators, 8 staffers, and a clerk. there's no other way to get it. senators have to leave their phones outside. if they take notes during their briefing or while they're reading the report, they have to leave them in the room. this is entirely up to them. what they see and what they take from it. but tomorrow will be the first day they finally get eyes on something they've been calling for. democrats have been calling for for weeks. republicans the last week or so. it's after that, anderson, when they will have to decide whether or not they're willing to elevate judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court.
>> just in terms of any kind of vote, what does it mean for the timing of all it? >> reporter: if you take a look at the senate floor now, they're still in session. my understanding right now is if and when the fbi report gets to capitol hill later tonight, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will likely go to the floor and file a procedural motion that essentially starts the process forward. what that would mean if that happens tonight is the first vote would take place on friday. the final vote would take place on saturday. again, as far as we know right now, before they read the fbi report, mitch mcconnell and the republicans do not have the requisite number of votes to confirm brett kavanaugh. the hope has long been once this report gets to capitol hill, that will be with the three undecided republicans, two undecided democrats need to push this over the edge. but it really does all hinge on that report. first vote, though, anderson, right now looks like it will be friday. >> still no plan to make these findings public. >> reporter: yeah, this is a really important point, i think. senators, republican senators specifically, have been talking the last day or two, anderson, about is there a way to release a public summary.
is there a way to really something publicly to "a" justify senators who decide to vote for brett kavanaugh or "b," if they feel like he's exonerated to use that as well. that at least at this stage is is not going to happen. only senators and a small number of staffers are allowed to have access to it. it's illegal to talk about it publicly. at this point, anderson, everything will remain behind closed doors. that's obviously going to lead to a lot of skepticism and interpretation by the people who read it. it will be tough to pin down what the report says the best metric may actually be. >> phil mattingly, thanks very much. let's check in with chris. >> when the report comes out, it won't go directly to us but senator chris coons will get to see it and he is here tonight. of course, we know him now as one of the men who made this pause possible. also that horrible litany of insults from the president about christine ford. imagine how they met her ears. what impact on her and her
family. her sister-in-law is here tonight to tell us about it. and i'm going to make an argument about whether or not there is a line that should not be crossed with decency in politics and whether the president passed the same. and you and i, we obviously look like the blues brothers. are you jake or elwood? >> i'm not sure. >> you are sure. you are elwood and i am jake. >> okay. i'll keep that in mind. rubber biscuit. chris, thanks >> you knew. i knew you'd know it. >> in the 11th hour of the kavanaugh controversy, there's another new backdrop. the president mocking christine blasey ford and the white house denying he actually mocked her even though we all saw it. we're keeping them honest, next. i even built my own historic trading model.
minutes can mean the difference between life and death. proposition 11 saves lives by ensuring medical care is not delayed in an emergency. proposition 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emts and paramedics to remain on-call during breaks and requires they receive fema level training in active shooters and natural disasters. vote yes on 11 to ensure
911 emergency care is there when you or your love one need it. as we mentioned in less than 12 hours from now, senators will start reading the fbi investigation summaries on brett kavanaugh. it remains to be seen whether anything therein will change any senator's mind, but we do know there are three crucial undecided republican votes hanging in the balance and as the clock ticks down to a vote, everything surrounding this story does matter. which is why what the president and the white house are saying now is worth noting. at a rally in mississippi last night the president mocked christine blasey ford. questioned her memory, implied she was not telling the truth, while a crowd of her supporters laughed and cheered, all
hallmarks of experts in the field why women don't often come forward when they're assaulted. according to the white house, what the president did and said last night was actually not mockery at all. >> isn't there something wrong with the president of the united states mocking somebody who says she was sexually assaulted? >> it seemed to me that he was stating facts that dr. ford herself laid out in her testimony. >> you don't have any problem defending -- >> i don't have any problem stating facts, no. >> that is a little ironic. sarah sanders saying the president did not mock dr. ford. he just stated facts. now, the white house really wants you to believe that because sarah sanders repeated it multiple times. >> the president was stating the facts. i dispute that it wasn't anything other than the president stating facts. the president simply pointing out the facts of the matter. the president simply stating the facts that she laid out in her own testimony. >> facts laid out in her testimony. here's what the president had to say about her testimony on friday.
>> i feel like her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me. very fine woman. >> okay, and here he is mocking her last night in mississippi. this is what the white house would have you believe is just stating the facts. >> i had one beer, right? i had one beer. well, do you think -- nope, it was one beer. oh, good. how did you get home? i don't remember. how did you get there? i don't remember. where is the place? i don't remember. how many years ago was it? i don't know. i don't know. i don't know. [ cheers and applause ] i don't know. >> now, it's really not that difficult. how do we know he was mocking a woman who said she was sexually assaulted? because we saw him do it the same way he ridiculed a "the new york times" reporter who has a congenital condition that affects his joint movement because we saw him do it. >> now the poor guy, you have to see this guy, i don't know what i said. ah, i don't know remember.
maybe that's what i said. >> mr. trump has repeatedly denied he was mocking the reporter's disability even though it is recorded and we just heard him do it. by the way, did you notice the way when he mocked both people he actually used the same "i don't remember" tag lines? anyway last week the president said professor ford looks like a fine woman, now she deserved to be mocked the president seems from time to time seems to feel sympathy for men in these situations. billow rye riley, roger ailes, rob porter and brett kavanaugh. here's what he said last night. >> what neighborhood was it in in i don't know. where's the house? i don't know. upstairs, downstairs, where was it? i don't know. but i had one beer. that's the only thing i remember. and a man's life is in tatters, a man's life is shattered. >> by the way, if you don't think that's mockery, that's fine. facts like mike wallace used to
say when being lied to in interviews in 6 "60 minutes," come on. the white house claimed he was just stating facts. what he was stating are not actually facts. upstairs, downstairs, where was it, i don't know. dr. ford actually was very clear that she did remember where this happened. >> i went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to the second floor to use the rest room. when i got to the top of the stairs i was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. >> dr. ford admitted what she didn't know and did say what she says she did know and did remember. what's clear from last night is the president is trying to make it seem like there is an epidemic of women falsely reporting assault allegations against men. he recounted an imaginary young man talking to his imaginary mom. >> mom, i did great in school. i've worked so hard. mom, i'm so pleased to tell you i just got a fantastic job with
ibm. i just got a fantastic job with general motors. i just got -- i'm so proud. mom, a terrible thing just happened. a person who i've never met said that i did things that were horrible and they're firing me from my job, mom. i don't know what to do. mom, what do i do? what do i do, mom? what do i do, mom? it's a dam sad situation. >> now, keep in mind there is no epidemic of false allegations of sexual assaults. a review by the national sexual violence research center between 2 and 10%, there is an epidemic of sexual violence against women. data from the incest and abuse network one in six women is the victim of rape or attempted rape. only three in ten are reported to the police. and the message today it seems to all those survivors of sexual
assault in this country, if you're a woman accusing a man who is politically allied with him, you may be mocked by the president of the united states. and then the white house will deny that that even happened at all. a reminder don't miss full circle our daily interactive face cast. 6:25 eastern on facebook.com/anderson cooper full circle. the news continues right now. i want to hand it over to chris for cuomo primetime. chris? >> thank you,. welcome to "prime time". the fbi kavanaugh report is coming. it's heading to the white house. it's going to be read by senators. will it build consensus or more chaos? how will we know what's in it? because it's not coming to us. but like i said, the senators are going to get it and we're going to have a key player in the senate who helped create this fbi review. he's going to see it. chris coons from delaware is here. the president went low even for him last night.