the confirmation vote. the full senate could decide by saturday, even though many potential witnesses said they have a story to tell but could not get the fbi's attention. among them is brett kavanaugh's freshman roommate at yale. he is willing to be interviewed, but has not heard from the bureau. >> when brett started saying things about his drinking and his use of certain words, sexually oriented words, i knew he was lying because he was my roommate. we were in a room together. our beds were ten feet apart for a couple of months. what struck me and made me more interested in speaking out about it is not only did i know that he wasn't telling the truth. i knew that he knew that he

wasn't telling the truth. >> we'll hear more later this hour. but joining us how is raj sha. it is a pleasure to have you. i have a million questions for you, so i will try to go quickly with our allotted time. what can you share with us about the revelations from the fbi report? >> well, let me just start by saying that the white house is precluded from outlining the details of an fbi supplemental background investigation or any background investigation. i want to make that clear. that includes witness lists or the contents of the information. i want to say it began on friday on the president's order and was sent over to the white house pretty late yesterday. and ten individuals were contacted. there was an initial list of four provided to us by the senate. they were interviewed. and then leads were followed up on.

we feel very confident that when the senators have an opportunity to review this material as they have already -- they're just beginning to right now, that they are going to be comfortable voting to confirm judge brett kavanaugh. >> did the white house put limits on what the fbi could look into? >> just to be cheer, this is something that has been lost in the process, a background investigation is not, you know, a criminal probe, for example. it doesn't seek to find a specific outcome. it seeks to find information for decision makers. the senate has set a scope on what they are interested in. they have already investigated this matter through their own senate process. they wanted interviews of additional individuals. any background investigation has to have some form of limiting scope, and this time it's always in these matters set by the white house, but we deferred to the senate for quests. >> did you set limits on whether

they could look into brett kavanaugh's past drinking? >> this man has gone through six fbi investigations. >> just to be clear, new information has come forward. >> i would question the veracity of it. but he's gone through six fbi background investigations. hundreds of people have been interviewed, members of his family, friends, neighbors. all of them get asked a standard battery of questions about suitability that includes questions about alcohol, includes questions about potential gambling, fitness to serve, loyalty to their docount. a lot of people are coming forward about claims about his high school and college drinking which the senate hasn't asked us about, but he has already admitted in his testimony that he drank in high school, drank in college, sometimes drank too much, drank underage. he said he likes beer. i don't really know what folks who are demanding an open ended fishing expedition into those

areas want other than delay, delay, delay. >> no. they want to know about memory lapses. that's relevant because christine blasey ford has a story about him being staggeredly drunk and maybe he doesn't remember it. >> they're saying they don't necessarily believe his testimony. >> no, no. they're saying that they know -- >> hold on. >> the real information, they're saying they were his roommate in college. they knew him in high school. they were his drinking buddy. >> you're talking about jaime rosche's interview. >> they know he had memory lapses because he couldn't remember the times he spent with them. >> three individuals, i guess, that you are referring to have claims about what he said or didn't do while in college. that is not what the senate is interested in or asking about. again, he has gone through six fbi background investigations.

all these types of questions get thoroughly investigated throughout one's career. he's been entrusted with some of the most important jobs in government over the last 25 years with a very high profile career. all the folks demanding this type of investigation in the senate are democrat who is already pledged to vote no. they don't want additional information to make a decision. they want to delay this process. >> think they it would be helpful for the people on the fence to have more information. >> why don't we ask the people on the fence that the white house has been doing what they are interested in, rather than allow democrats -- they have asked about the specific allegations. they have interviewed -- the white house authorized the fbi to interview certain individuals and have follow-up interviews. they interviewed nine of them, and that report has been sent to the senate. >> debby ramirez is some of the

new information that says brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her when she was at yale. she says she can provide 20 people who can supplement her claims, but that the fbi has not talked to them. why not follow that thread? why not try to get to the bottom of it? >> i'm limited about what i can say about the investigation. i can say this, though. there is an individual who claims to be able to corroborate her story that has spoken extensively to the new yorker. he wasn't there. he has never spoken to februariry rfebruary -- debby ramirez. the new yorker spoke to that man who said he doesn't know about this story. i'm not going out on a limb when i say that's basically an example of hearsay and that's not worth the fbi's time. the fbi -- that's all in the new yorker. >> i understand. >> what i just told you is all in the new yorker.

it's in their story. they freely admitted this person claims to have corroboration. he's demanding to speak to the fbi, but has no direct knowledge. >> we're talking about the person that heard the story in real-time. >> he said within several days, he thinks. so, again, the fbi has trained professionals. we have not micro managed their process. they did interviews with people that could provide additional information and they have come up with supplemental report that has now been sent to the senate. >> so listen at best it appears that judge brett kavanaugh misrepresented some of his past drinking to the senate judiciary committee and some of his experiences in high school and college in terms of how -- >> i disagree with that con t contenti contention, sure. but i'll let you finish. >> according to now many witnesses he misrepresented the

level to which he drank and his memory issues. at worst, he sexually assaulted someone, as kries techristine b ford accuses. wouldn't it be easier to go with a different nominee. just start over. this process has gotten tainted. start over and do a more clean process with a different nominee? >> no. we're not going to do that. the president and the white house are firmly behind brett kavanaugh. we believe all the questions have been addressed. and to be clear, allegation -- we cannot live in a world where allegation alone can sully a man's reputation for life. judge brett kavanaugh has expressed his denial firmly, unequivocally and repeatedly under oath, and dr. ford has identified three other individuals who would be able to corroborate her account, and none have been able to do so. all three have said they don't have a recollection or don't think it happened. >> is your --

>> no, no. you got to at least let me refute these points. >> you got it. >> ms. ramirez's account to the new yorker only came about after she had a democratic connected attorney essentially work with her for six days to get her story in line with what she told the new yorker, and "the new york times" felt that that story essentially wasn't fit to print. >> as i understand it, i think debby ramirez didn't talk to them. she wanted to have a source -- >> she had been talking to people just weeks ago, unsure about her account. okay? >> i understand, but you are making it sound as though she's making something up. >> i'm saying that when you have come forward with a serious accusation like that, they are serious accusations, these things need to be investigated. the senate offered her an opportunity to speak to them, walk-through the facts and provide additional facts and evidence. she has chosen to speak to the

fbi. i can't get into too much more information, but i can say that certain potential witnesses were followed up with. what i will say is that the senate -- the white house didn't micro manage the fbi. the fbi has done what they done. they're trained professionals. it's been sent to the senate. no white house editing. and, you know, they will be able to make a clear decision. >> last question. are the votes there? does brett kavanaugh become confirmed tomorrow? >> well, we think that some of the swing senators have asked for this set of information. they're going to review it. and then they're going to come forward with their decision. so we don't necessarily know yet. obviously, the senators have just begun to review this information, but we feel very confident that we will have the votes. >> we appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> raj is right. the senators have just begun to review this information.

what are they seeing and what does it mean? stay with us. actually, live for us on capitol hill. it is so breaking, i didn't even know it. give us the process here. >> reporter: well, john, there is some highly choreographed protocol. there is only one physical copy of this fbi report. it is in a secure location. over the course of the day, all 100 senators will have access to it in alternates hour. that kicks off at this hour. at this moment chairman grassley reviewing this document. next dianne feinstein will be getting her first look at it. we are seeing them casting doubt over this report, questioning its credibility, how credible it

could be given the fact that christine blasey ford and brett kavanaugh were not interviewed as part of this investigation. after all this reading after the course of today, then it is decision time. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell set up a close for friday. that is when we will hear yes or no for the key undecided senators. they have said in large part their decision rests on what is in that room today. >> they will go in very shortly. republicans in there already. thank you very much. coming up in just a little bit we will speak to democratic whip dick durbin. he has serious concerns. we are also going to hear from brett kavanaugh's freshman roommate. jaime roche says he is 100% sure that brett kavanaugh lied under oath. >> senators are getting their first chance to see this fbi

report of brett kavanaugh as we speak. we'll discuss all of it next. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man. start winning today. book now at lq.com face the world as a face to be reckoned with. start winning today. only botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make moderate to severe frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. it's a quick 10 minute cosmetic treatment given by a doctor to reduce those lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. ask for it by name. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms.

alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyelid and eyebrow drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. leave your mark on the world. minimize its mark on you. start saving at botoxcosmetic.com 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.

a product of mastery. do i use a toothpaste that whitens my teeth, or one that's good for my teeth? now i don't have to choose. from crest 3d white, the whitening therapy collection with new spearmint and peppermint oil. it gently whitens, plus it has a fortifying formula to protect your enamel. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. mitzi: psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? watch me. ( ♪ ) mike: i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ( ♪ ) joni: think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it. they're moving forward with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic.

it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. mitzi: with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. the very first senators just started reading the fbi's brand-new report on brett kavanaugh. we just heard from the white house on this. let's bring in cnn political analyst and van jones, host of the van jones show here on cnn. it is decision day in many ways for these senators. we know that the fbi spoke to

nine witnesses. is that enough, van? is that enough? >> no, it's not enough. and i don't think anybody thought we would be able to talk to everybody in the week that we had to get this done. you know, i still give a big applause to senator coons and senator flake for at least trying to get something. it is conceivable, we don't know, that they got something that will be the different maker for some of these senators. i think there is something going on in the country. you have a whole generation now of young women who this will be a defining fight for them that will propel them to 2020 and beyond because they see this as a serious disconnect between the way they see these issues and the way the people in washington, d.c. you have an admitted sexual predator, the president, putting an accused sexual predator on

the supreme court in a rush vote. and this is going to be a watershed for a generation. >> i think the silver lining, as we have discussed, is that we're having all of these conversations is that people like you are able to come forward and be believed and tell their stories about sexual assault. that is a sea change. so something is happening in this country. but in terms of this moment, this exact moment as senators are reading through the fbi report, it's obvious they have left information on the table. it is obvious there is more information out there. so many people have said i have relevant information. but i can't get in touch with the fbi. i'm trying. will that be good enough for senators today? >> you can't have people coming forward and saying i heard about this real-time and they are not being contacted. you can't have debby ramirez saying i have all these people that can corroborate it and

they're not being contacted. i think republicans, the reason they have so committed to putting him on the court is they are so committed to this idea they will not allow women to make accusations against men and have them taken seriously. nobody is really asking -- i have to say, i don't want to hear anymore about the both sides thing. it is not a both sides thing. i have no problem criticizing democrats, zero. this is absolutely not a both sides situation. now, are there some democrats behaving in a partisan manner? absolutely. shocked. we're just shocked that is happening. but most people are simply saying do a real fbi investigation. look into this. if he is innocent, clear his name. >> but the argument about both sides is that what he goes back to is that the original sin in terms of the investigation started with dianne feinstein, that she shouldn't have sat on the letter or she should have

privately shared it with the fbi so the investigation could have started earlieearlier. >> so the republicans would have said, thank you so much for coming forward and making this accusation and we're going to take it so seriously. no. they're going to say basically this is a plot to keep him off the court and this is what democrats do. they just make up allegations and try to smear people. i'm sorry. i reject the idea they would have been absolutely open to this because of their behavior. they literally -- they're in an alternate universe. even the talking point about he's had six fbi investigations. they didn't find out the speaker of the house was molesting children. so please stop with he has security clearances so we know this didn't happen.

we all saw it on simple things like claiming he doesn't know who bart is in the book. you need to ask mark judge about it. and there is a letter of him signing his name. you have people, literally rick santorum. and when you have repeated lies for brett kavanaugh and we're told none of this really matters. we don't need to get to the bottom of it. we don't need to investigate anything about his drinking because he may have lied about it under oath. i had a few beers is not the same thing as admitting that you puked all the time from actually drinking too much, as he put in his letter that he signed. >> interesting because rick santorum felt so strongly that this is about the process, not the claim from professor ford. which he apologized for. but it does speak to a passion that exists now from supporters of the president and the

republican party. and the president just wrote about this. i want to get your take on this, van. the harsh and unfair treatment on brett kavanaugh is having an impact on voters. most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations. you said this will be a watershed moment, a defining moment for some voters. and you meant, i think, women voters and democratic leading voters. republican pollsters told me this morning they are seeing at least right now a bounce for the republicans on this issue. >> look, i think that you can't have something of an equal and opposite reaction. here is the traegedy, though. is there argument to be made for fair process and due process? absolutely. we're a fair country. these things matter. but the president unfortunately is the worst possible person to become a convert to the idea of

due process for the accused. he wanted the death penalty with no facts. he's never gone back and said, guess what, those falsely accused guys, those guys were innocent and i'm sorry. when it comes to muslims, when it comes to immigrants, he is willing to throw entire groups under the bus aggressively and smear entire groups based on the acts of a few. he is no champion for due process. he's no champion for fair treatment of the accused. he's snatching babies from moms. for him suddenly now to become this huge champion of the rights of the accused is very, very suspect when if, in fact, those people who are accused have brown skin or black skin or pray differently he doesn't care at all. so, yes, is there a case to be made? somebody might need to make that case? we need to make sure we're looking at all sides of this.

but he is the worst possible person to bring it forward and it just underscores the challenges we have in this country. >> van jones, powers, i think we're out of time. thank you both very much. you can catch the van jones show right here an cnn with dave chappel and neil degrass tyson. >> and a live studio audience that laughs at all of van's jokes. >> you have to have some fun in this crazy world right now. senators just started reading the fbi report. we will speak to a key democrat who will get his chance to read the report very shortly. kevin, meet your father.

kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. you are free to go. tide and downy together.

opportunlike here.rywhere. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. it's doing a lot of kicking down there. meeting the parents. it's gonna be fine. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... go dani, go! opportunity is everywhere. all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

vice president mike pence is about to severely escalate the war of words with china. this is far from the only thing happening with china that you probably have not heard about. but john avalon has it all for us in our reality check. >> later this morning vice

president pence will throw rhetorical brushback pitch to the chinese. cyber information warfare and taking on china's treating of taiwan. it all comes on the heels of this incident. that's a chinese warship cutting off the u.s. warship. the captain had to throw it in reverse and turn sharply to avoid a collision. for a time the two ships were about 45 yards apart. the u.s. has been conducting freed freedom exercises. they began to put military installations on it. last month china embarked on its first naval drills with russia. this is hardly the only front in the looming cold war between the u.s. and china. now that trump inked the u.s./mexico trade agreement.

trump's $250 billion in tariffs against china are designed to shrink a massive trade deficit to reset the relationship while we still have leverage. trade wars are not, in fact, good and easy to win, as the president once said. the american people agreed. but a growing number of surveys suggest that tide is turning, particularly among republicans. while the u.s. navy is in a game of chicken on the south china sea, president trump is playing a game of fiscal chicken as well. neither does chinese president. china says they are fighting extremism. but human rights groups say that check looks like massive internment camps. and then there is taiwan.

now, this summer china successfully pressured u.s. airlines to remove references to taiwan from their websites or risk losing access to chinese markets. america recognized the chinese policy. but today pence is expected today that china's embrace of democracy shows a better path for all the chinese people. conflict about chinese spying, attempting to interfere with u.s. politics. we know that chinese hacked companies. watch what happened when a cnn crew approached this group's alleged hacking headquarters. rising tensions may seem like a distant concern to many americans, but a trade war is already on and there are signs of military and cyber escalation. the result will determine what kind of world we live in for decades to come. and that's your reality check. >> john, we are always smarter

after your reality check and more realistic. >> pay attention to the mike pence speech today. that is a big, big deal. joining us now, senator dick durbin. democrats will have a chance to look at the fbi report in 29 minutes. senator, you have not seen the report yet, but you said of this report the future and the representation of the agency, the fbi, is at stake. based on what you know what into it, interviews with nine witnesses, not professor ford, has the fbi compromised in your mind its reputation? >> of course i owe it to the fbi to read the report before i make a generalized comment. but i find it unacceptable because of the number of witnesses interviewed. this issue, because of its gravity and because of its publicity, deserves the

professional attention of the fbi. so i'm going to wait and see. i will tell you, i'm troubled, too, by the notion there is one copy of this report to be handed from one senator to the next. if it is a long report, hundreds of pages, i'm not saying 100 copies need to be made, but let's make it easy enough to members have an opportunity to personally review it and make their own evaluations. >> the limitations, is that on the fbi, the administration or both? >> i can't tell. but the notion of one copy and that you have to hand it off to the next senator, i have never quite run into that in the time i have been on the senate. >> republicans have the first hour and then democrats will have the next hour. i want to ask you about something else you have been directly involved in. the republicans on the committee put out a tweet of the six previous background checks on brett kavanaugh. nowhere in any of these six fbi

reports which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis was there ever a whiff of anything related to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse. you and seven others wrote a letter saying you don't believe this to be accurate. what exactly is inaccurate? >> there are two issues here. the first one i think is one we ought to discuss as a committee. if these background investigations are to be truly confidential, we cannot have people representing what is in it or not in it. in this case, the republican staffers made a generalized tweet on what they believe was contained in previous background investigations. what was not contained in there. i think we ought to discuss that. is that the ground rule now? can i come out of reading this background report currently being made and say, let me tell you what wasn't in there. that really is the standard we ought to discuss publically. secondly, i will tell you on its face that statement was an inaccurate. that not a whiff statement.

i know it based on having reviewed personally the background investigation of judge brett kavanaugh before this controversy. >> you're saying there is a whiff of inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse? >> well, i'm not going to get into specifics because i'm trying to of course protect confidentiality. but the not a whiff statement came from republican staffers. they volunteered it, put it out on tweets. when i read it i thought that is plain inaccurate and wrong. >> saying there is not a whiff of accusations of alcohol abuse or sexual impro pprietimproprie saying that is inaccurate. >> yes. >> you are saying there is something in those reports that does point to some direction of brett kavanaugh being involved in something inappropriate before. is that a correct inference that i'm making? >> of course that's the inference and one we ought to discuss at a committee level.

if we are allowed on confidential reports to be dismissive and tell you the following ten things were not included, you can make infere e inferences about what was included. >> last night on anderson cooper 360, a college roommate of brett kavanaugh spoke. he said he is 100% sure brett kavanaugh lied in his testimony to the senate about not remembering things when he was drinking and also about some of the terminology he used. do you feel that the fbi should have investigated whether or not he lied about those cases? >> i do. that's a question of credibility. we have a he said she said and i don't want to diminish in any way the courage it took for dr. ford to come forward, but we have a direct contradiction on sworn testimony between two witnesses appearing before the senate judiciary committee.

and it comes down to basic issues involving alcohol and of course the allegations of dr. ford. to say that the fbi could ignore those is to ignore the heart of the issue, as far as i'm concerned. >> the argument we have heard is that this is not the central issue. this is not about whether he committed sexual assault. this is about your terminology of how long drinking is too much and whether he used certain words. what does that matter? >> it is a question of credibility, character. and in the case of presentation by judge brett kavanaugh, temperament. honestly, if you watch the judge and listen to his testimony, the broadside in terms of political partisan ship behind this investigation, it really raises a serious, serious question about his judicial temperament if he goes to the highest court in the land. >> we just heard from a democratic strategist who is concerned that this might has hurt democrats, that there has

been an uptick in republican enthusiasm. have you seen that? >> there's been an uptick in public interest. i can tell that when i went home last week. from the taxicab driver to the doorman. they were all talking about that hearing. shame on us if we shark our duty for fear of the political reaction. we are supposed to do our job. and the political reaction will handle itself as far as i'm concerned. >> i want to ask you one question about a subject that doesn't have to do with the supreme court, at least not yet, which is the family reunifications having to doed with zero tolerance policy of separating kids from their parents. dhs was, quote, not fully prepared to implement the policy or to deal with its after effects. you're calling on secretary

neilson to resign after this. >> someone needs to be held accountable. it is not going to be the attorney general. he may not survive the end of the year. but this head of the department of homeland security, secretary neilson engineered this awful, disgraceful policy which the president abandoned after a few weeks. now we know they literally separated 2,700 children from their parents without any way to keep track of where those children were going and how they could reconnect them with their parents. we still have 136 kids under government custody because of this policy and difficulty to reunite them. 96% of them have their parents -- 96 of them have their parents outside the country. this is disgraceful. it's shameful. i know one of these cases personally. i saw this four-year-old boy in an immigration port in chicago. the poor little kid was playing with a match boxcar while they

were trying to debate his fate. he refuses to speak to his mother on the telephone at this point. they are urging the mom to beg him to eat. a four-year-old being begged to eat? this shows you what is happening to these kids because of this failed policy. someone, particularly the secretary of dhs, needs to be held responsible. >> we know you have a big day of reading, speed reading, in fact, ahead of you. >> thank you. >> brett kavanaugh's college roommate calling him out for lying to the senate. he's here next.

what does it take to make digital transformation actually happen? do you just flip a switch... and presto your business is magically transformed? not quite. it takes a ground-breaking company like dell technologies. a family of seven technology leaders working behind the scenes to make the impossible... reality. for instance, we're helping to give cars the power to read your mind from anywhere. ♪ we're helping up to 40% of the nation's donated blood supply... to be redirected to the areas and people that need it most. and we're even developing technology to create a whole new vision for the blind. so while you might not see what we're doing... what we're doing is changing the way we all see the world. magic can't make digital transformation happen... but we can. let's make it real.

traffic and roads... a mess, honestlyrents going up,le. friends and family moving out of state, millions of californians live near or below the poverty line. politicians like gavin newsom talk about change, but they've done nothing. sky-high gas and food prices. homelessness. gavin newsom, it happened on your watch. so, yeah. it is time for a change. time for someone new.

four zero expense ratio index funds directly to investors. and now we have zero account fees for brokerage accounts. at fidelity, those zeros really add up. ♪ so maybe i'll win, saved by zero ♪ fancy new graphic there. time for cnn business now.

facebook is on capitol hill this week after its largest data breach ever. christine romans is here with more. >> facebook is confirming it sent representatives to d.c. to fill lawmakers in on the largest breach in history. six days ago facebook revealed an attack on the data of 50 million users. facebook says it fixed the flaw, but still has not revealed who did it, what they were targeting or how long this lasted. it is notable that facebook is keeping u.s. lawmakers in the loop. facebook has been trying to work more with washington. facebook is likely trying to get ahead of new regulation. it's already under intense scrutiny. facebook faces billions in fines in europe where regulations are more strict. what should you do? log off, close out, reset your password. go to cnn business. it is your gateway to the

future. find it all at cnn.com/business. it launches, you guys, later today. >> thanks so much for being with us. really, really appreciate it. the breaking news, the first senators getting a look at the few fbi report on brett kavanaugh. the washington post reports that fbi agents were prevented from looking at brett kavanaugh's past alcohol use and whether he lied to congress. so jaime roche says that the president's supreme court nominee lied under oath to the u.s. senate. roche also says he believes his friend debby ramirez who accused brett kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a college party. joining us now is brett kavanaugh's former college roommate, jaime roche. if i can, i want to start with the specifics. you say you are 100% sure that judge brett kavanaugh lied under oath to the u.s. senate in two

separate areas. i want to go after them one at a time, if i can. you say you are 100% sure that he lied under oath about not blacking out after drinking. explain. >> i was brett's college roommate. we shared a room. we had beds 12 feet apart. and i would see him leaving to go to parties. having had beers in our suit. i saw him coming home from parties, unable to speak coherently. i saw him when he was vomiting in the bedroom and in the bathroom in the suit, and i saw him the next morning when he couldn't get himself out of bed. i am not a doctor. i don't know how you define blacking out. but, you know, like a lot of people, i had some beer in college as well. and i would say that those things are consistent with blacking out. >> do you have specific memories of judge brett kavanaugh when he

was your college roommate not remembering things after drinking? >> i did. >> can you tell us? >> it is a long time ago and it's hard to think of a specific story. but we had times we were sitting together in the morning and we had both some of these times been out. we were talking about, well, i can't really remember whether i did this or i did that. so i wish that i could give you a specific example, but i can tell you that this was a common occurrence. >> but you do have specific memories of brett kavanaugh not being able to remember things when he was drinking inning colle college. the secondary ye area is the te. he said that they weren't sexual in reference. what is your memory? >> yeah. that was very surprising. i think, like a lot of people, chuckled when he said that.

it is unbelievable. if you were in college at that time, those words were not uncommon. you know, they're impolite and rude, but they were used and they were used in a context that was not consistent with what brett said under oath and a lot of us knew it. >> you have specific memories of brett kavanaugh using the word either boof or the phrase devil's triangle and haven't it not relate to a drinking game, for instance? >> yes, i do. >> so he says that is the case. he says it is a drinking game. that is what he testified to under oath to the u.s. senate. you are saying he was lying? >> yeah. i think it's absolutely stunning. you know, the thing that bothered me about it, obviously it's not that he was drinking. it's not that he was talking impolitely about women. i think those things are rude, but i don't think they were uncommon and i don't think they disqualify you.

i think what was shocking to me was getting up under oath and with a straight face saying that these things were true when he knew and when a lot of people knew that that was not the case and it was a suggestion that if i just say this nobody will challenge me, that nobody will stand up and take the risk of saying what we all knew to be true. and i think what really got under my skin with this was that really we weren't talking about brett's drinking, and we weren't talking about his saying bad things about women. we were talking about what i believed to be the credible claims of women that had gone through a lot of pain. by getting up there and saying these things, he was saying these women's pain doesn't matter. that either they're lying or they're crazy or they're just going after me. and i don't think that's the case. >> we have heard people say with devil's triangle, who cares whether or not he's being straight about what that meant. why does that matter? >> because he wasn't being

quizzed on drinking. you know, i don't know very many people who didn't drink in college. i know a lot of people that drank in college to the point of blacking out or throwing up. it is not a proud thing, but it is very common. that wasn't the problem. the problem is does he tell the truth. and does he tell the truth when it matters and does he tell the truth about little things and does he lie easily and does he lie for good reasons or does he lie to protect embarrassment? it is in the context of the claims of debby, who, i got to tell you, i knew debby at that time very, very well. i spent lots of time with her. and she was a notably honest person. and so we're being asked to believe the story of a person who i not uniquely but specifically knew to be very honest very ssus a person stand in front of us saying we knew things not to be true. >> you have just made the claim

and you made it last night that judge brett kavanaugh lied under oath to the u.s. senate, which would be perjury, that would be a federal crime. that is a serious charge. has the fbi contacted you and asked anything about this? >> no, no. the fbi didn't contact me in their earlier back ground checks and the fbi has not contacted me regarding this. >> you say that you believe debby ramirez when she says that she was sexually assaulted or she says brett kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dorm party and caused him to touch his penis at that party. has the fbi contacted you on that? >> no. >> what would you tell the fbi? >> i would tell the fbi that i knew debby, that i knew her to be an honest person. that i have no memory of my kind of her misleading or lying. i would say that i saw brett kavanaugh drink to excess with

frequency and that beyond that it would be conjecture. my only point in this is not to say that this happened, that he is wrong and she is wrong. and i can't know that. i wasn't there. the people that were there seem to be too afraid to come out or seem to be aligned with him in some way. so i can't say that to the fbi honestly. what i can say is that he drank and he drank a lot and that is inconsistent with what he's saying now. >> just to with clear, the one thing you did say there was i wasn't there. and supporters of brett kavanaugh will say that why do we care what jaime roche is saying? he was not a witness to this. what is your response? >> my response is if we're going to have a trial, then we should be a proper investigation. right? i would not stand up and say that i'm an eye witness to this particular crime. i would say that i'm a character witness for debby and that some of the things that brett is claiming that are in defense are

not true. >> what kind of person was debby ramirez in college? >> debby ramirez was really striking to me in college. you know, yale was full of people very well educated, sharp and sophisticated and smart but from a very often a common background. you know, there were a lot of people like brett. there were a lot of people like me. we had a lot in common, brett and i. east coast people from wealthy backgrounds who went to boarding school and who knew the language and the social codes of the place and debby was really smart, funny, but she was from a different background. she was bright eyed and a little bit naive and i just found her to be -- to be just a terrific person to be around, and i enjoyed my time with her very much. what struck me about debby -- >> finish. what struck you about debby was

what? >> she was very -- i use the word guileless. he was not the kind of person -- it wouldn't occur to her to make things up or to lie. you know, she was an open and honest person. >> but she never told you when you were in college that this happened, correct? >> you know, i have been thinking about this a lot. and my response was i have a vague memory of something happening. i have a vague memory of debby coming into my room, of being very upset, but i don't have a specific enough memory to testify to this. so i can say i know her. i can say i know him. i can't say for sure that i remember this incident. >> you talked two weeks ago, after this story -- it was when this story came to light after the professor ford story came to light. you didn't speak on camera until you spoke to anderson last night and now you are talking to us now, the morning that the senate actually has the fbi report. do you wish you had come one

sooner? >> boy, that's -- i guess the answer is i do. i think that she's being treated unfairly. i don't know the other women, but i know debby. and i think that this could have been really thoroughly investigated. if there is something i could have done earlier to make this happen, i guess i wish i had done it. but i'll also tell you that there were five or six other people in the room with her and there were countless people at yale who saw brett who know the same thing that i do. and certainly some of them have information that they could bring forward and shed some light on this. if it turns out that information exonerates him, then that's the truth. but i think people are scared to come forward because when people come forward they get attacked. >> are you a democrat? >> am i democrat? i'm registered a democrat now, yeah. i was raised in a republican family. my mother was a state representative in connecticut. my father is very conservative.

but i am currently a democrat. but i'm not a politically active democrat. i have opinions about things, but i don't go to democratic events. i don't contribute to democratic causes. really i'm not particularly politically active. >> did you oppose, at least in your own mind, the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court? >> i wasn't really involved in it. i don't know neil gorsuch and his background. >> what i'm trying to get to is there is a political motivation for your coming out. any political motivation in coming out? >> no. i think it's pretty clear that there is going to be a conservative justice and i don't think there is a lot that can be done about that. the question is not the political or moderate. it's do we want somebody on the court like brett? >> so it's personal in a way because you knew brett kavanaugh and brett kavanaugh said to the

senate you have some axe to grind with him. >> yeah. >> what is your response? >> you know, i knew brett for a year. we didn't really travel in social circles together after that. when i heard from people that brett was in consideration, i thought it was interesting. and actually it was kind of fun to tell people that i knew a guy who was being nominated to the court. i didn't dislike brett intensely back then. i had really no thoughts about him in the intervening period. this is not personal for he. >> he brought up a story of when you moved out -- there was a third roommate. you moved all of your roommates furniture out of the room, suggesting that you had -- i don't know if it was anger issues or you were on different sides of an argument back then which may influence you now. >> i have a 16-year-old son and this is one of the stories i was hoping he wasn't going to hear until he was older.

but this is a prank. i took -- he wasn't in our room. but i took his furniture out of the room and arranged it in the quad and the intent was to wait in his room out on the grass until he showed up. it was a prank. he responded angrily and it's a escalated. but it was between this third person and i. brett was not involved. i had no particular feelings for this other person either. i didn't socialize with him. >> so the senate has the fbi report as we speak. they're going through it. there will be votes as soon as tomorrow. brett kavanaugh could be confirmed as soon as saturday. if that happens, if it turns out that in a week or two weeks brett kavanaugh is sitting on the bench at the supreme court, will this have been worth it to you? will it have been worth it to you to come out and tell this story? >> i think this has gone beyond brett.

if the fbi has the report, they haven't talked to me, they're not talking to me. if they're not talking to me, they're not talking to other people and that means they're being limited in my perception. so i think this is not really about brett. i'm hopeful there are some senators that will think about this and decide that a different conservative justice would be a better idea. what's happened is this has become about women and about things that happened to them and the way that they're treated and why they do or don't come out. i think that is a healthy and productive conversation. i've had lots of conversations with people who are my peers saying, you know, i'm looking back on this time and i'm trying to figure out whether there was something that i did that might be misconstrued as this, and i think that's a very, very healthy conversation. you know, i sent my kids both back to school recently. and i found myself saying different things to each of them. i said