tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News October 4, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
and out of that private room to read the fbi report. the seventh look at judge kavanaugh. our coverage continues on fox news. stay glued today. i'm harris. here's dana. >> dana: this is a fox news alert. we are awaiting a news conference of mitch mcconnell and senator chuck grassley on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. a white house source telling fox news the fbi found no evidence supporting allegations of sexual assault, but amid the unfolding drama, democrats and republicans going toe to toe. >> it looks to be the product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house. we do not agree that the white house should tie the fbi's hands. >> for goodness sakes this is the united states of america.
nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent in this country. nobody is supposed to be guilty until proven innocent. >> dana: we have live coverage. we begin with chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel. he is live on capitol hill. mike? >> reporter: this is the point when there's a great deal of study of body language of undecided senators and careful scrutiny of their every word. susan collins and jeff flake have said positive things about the fbi review. collins calling it a thorough review. flake saying there is no additional corroborating information in the fbi report. lisa murkowski is more difficult to read, saying she has made no decision and says she wants to read the full report herself. south carolina's lindsey graham said the fbi was not hindered in any way and did a good job
looking into the allegations. >> the idea that the fbi looked at the committee's work product, i didn't need it, but it's done. put a stamp on it. these three in good faith tried to find out what happened here and what's best for the country. >> reporter: leading democrats are not happy. chuck shumer and the top democrat diane feinstein spoke to reporters earlier. feinstein said what is notable is what is not in it, in terms of what's not in the report, saying it was not detailed enough. new jersey democrat corey booker, a member of the judiciary panel suggests the white house put limits on the fbi. >> i wish we could get in writing. we should be asking for a copy of what they were given. clearly, anybody commonsense would say if something happened between you and me and i named
five people witnessing it, then you should interview those five people to get to the bottom of the truth. >> reporter: this afternoon, mitch mcconnell tweeting, i was proud to file closure on judge kavanaugh's nomination yesterday evening and i will be proud to vote to advance his nomination tomorrow. gop leaders are anxiously waiting to hear from these undecided senators, whether they are a yes or no ahead of a critical procedural vote tomorrow. >> dana: thank you, mike. more on this now with republican senator jeff fisher of nebraska. senator, thank you for being with us today. we appreciate it. do we have the senator? we may not have -- okay. we're working on getting senator jess fisher. she has just read the fbi report. there's that one copy, being held in a safe. one of the questions is -- there we have her. she will help me explain this. you read the report. i know there's only one copy. i understand that there is a desire to keep it confidential.
but having read it, do you think that is the wisest thing to do, since there's no much public interest in this situation? >> first of all, one copy is the agreement that was made years ago by the president obama and chairman of the committee at the time senator leahy and the ranking members. this is a long-time precedent that has been there for these types of reports. this is white house that has jurisdiction over the fbi and is in charge of this. it was an agreement made during the obama administration. the report we're looking at today, the newest investigation. remember, this is the seventh. there have been 150 people who have been spoken to by the fbi about judge kavanaugh. this seventh report is 40 some pages long. it is fairly easy to get through. >> dana: did you see anything in there that would lead you to
believe there was a problem of sexual assault by brett kavanaugh? >> no, not at all. there's nothing new in this report. there's to corroboration whatsoever that's being shown by a number of witnesses that were interviewed by the fbi. >> dana: are you concerned that the report is incomplete? >> no. i believe it is complete. it's my understanding, conversations with people in the room to answer questions, that the fbi followed up. there weren't limits. they interviewed witnesses and then they followed up. >> dana: i assume you will be voting yes. i know senator mcconnell and senator grassley are going to be having a press conference at 2:15. do you think at this point they feel confident to say they are ready to call the vote? >> well, i think we need to vote. i am voting yes. what we're seeing are delay tactics. what we're seeing is i think the democrats in some of their folks
like the aclu, they're spending millions of dollars on a campaign against judge kavanaugh in states like nebraska. they have an ad running focused on me that i am supposedly a swing vote, that i haven't made up my mind. i have made up my mind. >> dana: you've probably got a lot of phone calls. i did want to ask you about this. your fellow senator from nebraska was on the senate floor earlier today making a statement that i guess you could say raised some eyebrows. let's listen to that. >> i have said many complimentary things about judge brett kavanaugh and his distinguished record of 12 years of service on the d.c. circuit court. i urged the president back in june and july to make a different choice before he announced this nomination. i urged him to nominate a different individual. i urged the president to nominate a woman. >> dana: i'm curious if you know why.
i can ask the senator as well. does that cause problems for this nomination? they just get the fbi report back. looks like collins and flake are saying there's nothing that gives us concern, even though they haven't announced that they'll vote. why bring up that you would have put someone else? >> senator sasse made those comments last night. in the past he has made a number of comments in support of judge kavanaugh. >> dana: so then where do we go from here? you have a very angry democratic base. you have members of the senate, kind of at each other's throat. do you think that this will dissipate if there is a vote and everyone can move forward or is this going to have a long lasting effect? >> you know, when i came to the senate six years ago i made a promise to nebraskians that i was going to reach across the aisle and establish relationships with republicans, democrats and independents and
get things done. i have done that. we're looking at case now where there are pretty deep fractures between relationships and it's gonna take some time, i believe, after this vote, in order to re-establish some trust again between us. >> dana: lot of people want to know in washington, who is gonna be the ones that reach across? how do you start to build back that trust? do you think it's possible to do in this environment? >> i always look at issues. i look at policy. i try to find individuals, republicans and democrats, where we can agree on policy and come together on different bills. that's the way that i have built trust in the past with my colleagues. i look forward to working on issues, working on issues that are important to the american people so that we can find solutions that would help families. >> dana: senator deb fisher, thank for being with us today. >> thank you. >> dana: protests are under way in washington as the group marches towards the u.s. capitol to call on senators to reject
the kavanaugh nomination. griff jenkins, of course he's out there with the protesters. >> reporter: hey, dana, that's right. several thousand protesters started at the federal courthouse, walked down to the mall to the supreme court. let me look at this large crowd. they call themselves cancel kavanaugh. it's largely a women's march group. several different women's groups. they have been speaking. before they started to watch, senator elizabeth warren rallied the group, mentioning she needs to take back the white house. this entire protest is for a select group of senators those gop holdouts, collins, murkowski and flake. we see this dying out here. what was your name? >> lisa. >> reporter: why are you out here? is this intended for the gop fence sitting senators? >> yes. women need to support women.
men need to support women. kavanaugh has proven that he is not ready for the supreme court. vote him down. >> reporter: did senator collins come out here at any point or murkowski? >> no. no, they have not come out. >> reporter: well, there you go it. i'll show you this is a group of speakers that has been alternating about every two or three minutes. it was certainly lively, energetic and also chanting going on. they got here. they want their message heard. no indication whether they'll have any impact on the senators. >> dana: all right, griff jenkins, thank you. we are awaiting a news conference with the majority leader mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley. we will have that for you as soon as it starts. plus a fox poll showing a boost for the gop as one republican builds up a double digit lead for the senate.
introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost®. delicious boost® high protein nuritional drink now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals boost® high protein. be up for life. boost® high protein. (woman) we'd been counting down it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for lows. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar,
or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (woman) we found our tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®.
>> what they have done is energized republicans and the president is feeling that energy in all of the locations he's been. you've seen polling come out in the last day that has republicans up in montana -- closing the gap in montana, up in north dakota, west virginia. i think the message is very clear. >> dana: that's white house press secretary sarah sanders saying the confirmation battle could help energize republicans in the senate battles. my next guest agrees with sanders writing this, republicans have generally been
lesson thaouz kwraftic than democrats but they may have been jolted into action by this controversy. the gop could strengthen its hands further, especially with independents, by keeping the focus on how democrats created this mess. who is that guy? it is karl rove, former white house deputy chief of staff and a fox news contributor. karl, i want to get to that enthuse tphafpl number. local news organization in north dakota, wday, reports that heidi heitkamp is going to vote no on the kavanaugh nomination. fox news polling yesterday shows she has a double digit deficit to try to make up against her challenger up there in north dakota. we've been waiting to find out how she might vote. according to wday, she's a no. your thoughts? >> if this is true, what she is doing is auditioning for a spot in the next presidential administration. the polls, public and private, i'm involved with a super pact
that has numbers similar to that. this race is falling away from the democrats. kevin kramer is on his way to the u.s. senate. literally last night i had a conversation with somebody, we were talking about this exact issue, what was she going to do? my belief is if she voted yes, it was a desperate attempt to save the seat. if she votes no, she's auditioning for a spot in the cabinet for the next democratic president. in a new poll out in north dakota, 2:1 margin voters in north dakota want brett kavanaugh confirmed to the supreme court. >> dana: we're waiting now, mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley are going to do a news conference and tell us what the process is from here on out to see if we can get to a vote. what kind of pressure does that put on other democrats who are running for re-election or even republicans who have significant challengers. you wrote a little about that this morning about these states. >> yeah. look, if you're a republican
challenger in one of these big red states, very deep red states like north dakota, missouri, indiana, montana, west virginia, this is a big advantage for you. the electorate is polarized over this. republicans overwhelmingly want kavanaugh confirmed. democrats want him defeated. so if you're in a big red state like that, this helps you. in a state where things are more balanced like nevada or florida or arizona where two of those three states were won by trump but small margins, it's an even question. in the harris poll that came out late last week, they asked people, are you in favor of confirm eight or not? immediately after the hearing, in which dr. ford and brett kavanaugh appeared. it was 37% confirmed, 44 not confirmed 18% undecided. they then asked the question, what happens if the fbi does an investigation and there's no corroborating witnesses? it goes to 60/40 confirm with
overwhelming majority republicans, 58% of independents and even 40% of democrats say if the fbi can't come up with any corroboration, confirm brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. >> dana: tell me a little bit about how this plays into the enthusiasm. we had a new poll, i think you've got one of your famous white boards. >> there we go. >> dana: can we get that? go ahead. >> npr marist in july. how important is the fall election? very important. 78 democrat, 68 republican, 64 independent, september. again, we haven't had all of the kavanaugh issue play out. it is 82 dem, up 4, but up 12 for the republicans, so statistically a dead heat in how important they consider the fall election. independents still roughly where they were at 65. what's interesting to me, do you know what the group is that's changed more among the electorate than any other?
republican women who now are more enthusiastic by a margin of 83, 79 they consider the election to be more important. >> dana: if you're a candidate or one of the parties and you've got about 30 days left until the election, can the kavanaugh effect sustain itself for democrats or republicans going into the next home stretch? >> welsh it certainly can in the deep red states. states that are more closely balanced, you got to hit the right tone, which is to say both dr. ford and brett kavanaugh deserve to have their -- to be heard. this whole process was a tkafr. dianne feinstein held on to a letter for two months that she should have turned over to the peub. if she had, we could have solved this without all the controversy. but, yes, the fbi now looked into these allegations, found no corroborating witnesses. all the people that dr. ford
thought could corroborate it did not. they said they didn't recall such an event or such behavior. so it was right to seat him on the court an let's move forward. we need to find a way to get away from the acrimony and dishonest process. >> dana: they want me to wrap, but i have a quick question. if heidi heitkamp, if that race were closer, do you think she would have voted no? >> she might have, but i think she would have been more likely that she voted yes. if she voted no, she would have done with claire mchaskell did, do it before the hearing and blame it on something else. claire mchaskell said he won't give me an answer on soft money. >> dana: she was thinking way ahead. all right, karl rove, thank you. vice president mike pence with some really tough talk on china, making new accusations against beijing. and do you have a question about
the fbi report or about what's next in the senate on the kavanaugh vote? i'll host a facebook live with our senior producer right after this show and we'll try to answer as many of your questions as we can. go to facebook.com/daily briefing fnc. post your question. we'll try to get to it on air. a, because i know so many of you have served our country honorably. one of the benefits that we as a country give you as a veteran is the eligibility for a va loan for up to 100% of your home's value. if you need cash for your family, call newday usa. with automatic authority from the va, we can say yes when banks say no. give us a call. call 1-877-423-5732. if you're a veteran, own a home, and need money for your family, call newday usa to use your valuable va home loan benefit. thank you, admiral. it lets you borrow up to 100% of your home's value.
(woman) learned ao play second language. applied to college. applied for a loan. started a business. started a blog. shared a picture. shared a moment. turn your wish list into a checklist. learn more. do more. share more. at home, with internet essentials. >> dana: we are awaiting a news conference from majority leader mitch mcconnell and senator chuck grassley. first new accusations against china with vice president pence saying that country is interfering with american politics and trying to under mind president trump. white house correspondent kevin cork is live with more. what's the vice president's
message to the chinese >> reporter: simply speaking, the days of beijing running rough shod over this country are over. he also offered today, i think you'll find this interesting, a warning to beijing not to continue to meddle in our elections. he said what beijing is trying to do is even worse than what the russians managed to do back in 2016. so make the acknowledgement that, yes, we made some great progress in our relationship with china. the vice president today took direct aim as what he asserted was beijing's aggressive and often anti-american policies. >> our message to china's rulers is this. this president will not back down. the american people will not be swayed. and we will continue to stand strong for our security an our economy. even as we hope for improved relations for beijing, our
administration is going to continue to act decisively to protect america's interest, american jobs and american security. >> reporter: now, the speech comes amid reports, dana, that amazon and apple network servers have been compromised by chinese spy microchips. other reports warning of attacks by beijing linked hacking groups. another story you may have heard about. the u.s. navy proposing to have an increased show of force to counter act chinese agreg in the south china sea. the idea, of course, is to balance your messaging. but do keep this in mine, dana, when the chinese had the full page ad in the des moines register, lot of americans took great umbrage. that really seems to be just one thread in the unravelling ball of yarn diplomatically that we'll keep an eye on. but for now, back to you. >> dana: thank you, kevin. fox news alert on the deadly shooting in south carolina where
a vietnam vet stands accused of opening fire on seven police officers, killing one of them in florence. he had posted on social media about being a competitive marksmen with comments on his face book page about taking his child to a shooting rage and using an m-14 rifle similar to one he used in vietnam. he was also a lawyer who lost his license decades ago. the officer killed in the stand off is identified as terrance carroway. he was a 30 year veteran of the police department. some breaking news on a trump state democrat trailing in the polls. we're gonna show you what senator hieidi heitkamp is sayig about the brett kavanaugh vote. people tell me all the time i have the craziest job,
the riskiest job. the consequences underwater can escalate quickly. the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love. that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org
>> dana: fox news learning heidi heitkamp is going to vote no in the brett kavanaugh vote. she's trailing behind congressman kevin kramer. peter doocy happens to be live in fargo, north dakota, lucky for us. tell us what's going on there? >> reporter: it sounds like last thursday's hearing with dr. christine blasey ford and judge brett kavanaugh is something that heidi heitkamp
thought about for a couple days and then decided she could noted support his nomination to the court. she explained herself like this in an e-mail that we just got. in addition to the concerns about his past conduct last thursday's hearing called into question judge kavanaugh's current temperment, honesty and impartiality. this decision comes as women voters and voters with college degrees have been flocking toward congressman kevin kramer. he's up 12 points over the democratic incumbent. she is trailing. something he sees as a strengths that been all the north dakota voters who have been watching the kavanaugh confirmation chaos. >> to be honest with you, that spectacle proved to be perhaps the greatest political gift i have been given in a long time. the tragedy of it, it exposed how dysfunctional the united states senate is and how badly it is in need of more adults.
>> reporter: and senator heitkamp's choice could have direct consequences on her re-election because 34% of voters say they are less likely to vote for her if she votes against kavanaugh, which she said she is going to do. that is a number that's grown 9% in under a month. heitkamp is all dealing with trying to get reelected in a state where president trump has a 64% approval rating. but democratic leaders are launching what they say is their largest field operation in the state's history to warn voters about the president's trade policies. >> we've got people coming out of the field with soy beans every day. we're hoping they have markets to go to. we know that's not always the case with some of the recent developments that have happened. >> reporter: and just because heitkamp is trailing in the polls doesn't mean donors have been scared away from this race. she raised $3.8 million in the last quarter. that is her biggest quarter ever. now we'll watch to see if that
dries up or if the money keeps coming in now that she is a no. >> dana: that is a huge amount of money to spend in north dakota where the media markets aren't as kpepbive. that's rashable. for more on this, former secretary to president clinton and david hop ppy. are republicans feeling overconfident in north dakota that they will be able to pick up that senate seat and get brett kavanaugh on the supreme court? >> i presume you're talking to me. >> dana: sorry. sorry. >> thanks. well, i think that it's safe to say that we're talking about a question of turnout here. all of us are wondering, will these events in washington decrease turnout among democratic voters and among republican voters. the poll you just saw are likely voters or people responding to a phone call. if we learned anything from 2016, you can't always rely on
what somebody says on the phone. what i wonder is this. obviously, if we look at polling, there's an increasing gap in women and republican voting patterns. there's ab a 25% gap in women. democrats versus republicans. they favor democrats by 25%. that's compared to 7% only eight years ago. that's according to our republican friend here in washington. what does that mean in terms of turnout? people are so angry that they go and vote, or are there male republicans like wise motivated? i'm betting on the women to turn out more. >> dana: they might. david hoppy, i want to ask you about something. we had karl rove on. he was showing us the poll about enthusiasm and that republicans have caught up to democrats just in the last two months. they are now even when it comes to voting. karl all said that republican women are starting to get more enthusiastic and they are gemmed up about this brett kavanaugh
confirmation and gemmed up in favor of republicans. your thoughts on that? >> i think that's what the polls are showing, the increase. the last year and a half the democrats have had an advantage in enthusiasm. hatred is a very powerful motivating tool. they hate president trump and everything about him. but the republicans now seeing what has gone on in the senate are very -- republican women especially. but all republican men and people who believe the presumption of innocence ought to be given to an individual. that is just a basic part of our jurisprudence in the united states that you deserve the presumption of innocent and you must have something more than just an accusation to condemn somebody. >> dana: i have got to stop you there. stand by. senator mitch mcconnell and senator chuck grassley. been waiting for this press conference. let's listen to them.
>> good afternoon, everyone. what we know for sure is the fbi report did not corroborate any of the allegations against judge kavanaugh. and the second thing we know for sure is that there's no way anything we did would satisfy the democrats. they've always got a reason why the goal posts need to be moved further down the field, farther down the field. nothing we could do would satisfy them. they're dug in. you've seen it from the beginning. with that, i want to turn it over to chairman grassley and the members of the committee who have done a really outstanding job. >> thank you, mr. leader. before i say a few words so i won't have to announce each person after me in this order will be hatch, coryn and tillis. please just come to the podium
and say whatever you want to say and then we'll take questions. this is the 87th day. that's three weeks longer than the average of the last three or four nominees to the supreme court. so don't tell me we haven't spent enough time. also, i feel very good about where this nomination is right now. i don't say that from the standpoint of counting votes. i say that from the standpoint of the qualifications of this candidate and the fact that those qualifications to be a supreme court justice based upon his 12 years on the d.c. circuit without anybody finding any fault with his qualifications to serve there. but that hasn't been talked about much. everything else. this person is very well qualified. a person that believes in the principles of due process, the
presumption of innocence and readiness to serve our -- recognize though judge kavanaugh should be confirmed on saturday. now, this started downhill very quickly on about july 10th when schumer said that we're going to do everything we can to stop this nomination. and you can look back 87 days and you can see that everything but whether he's qualified to serve has been brought up. i have tried to commit and i think i have carried out what i promised immediately. that we would have a fair and thorough process. we have had a fair and thorough process and i think that's best demonstrated by the fact that we, the minute i read about who
the person was in the feinstein letter, dr. ford, i read about her name in the paper. we got on it right away to provide to forum she wanted. in turn, we provided the same forum for kavanaugh. but what i have been dealing with since july 10th the downhill slope that schumer's put us on is really dealing with a demolition derby. they just about destroyed a good person, to be on the supreme court. so, hopefully, we're 48 hours away from having a new person on the supreme court. >> i certainly endorse everything that the chairman of the committee has said. look, i'm disappointed in my democratic colleagues for what
they're doing. there's no excuse for it. but they're doing it. i'm grateful to the fbi for their efforts in doing a thorough, very important investigation. many of us have said that if judge kavanaugh did what he's been accused of doing by some of the democrats and outside people, some outside people, he should be disqualified. but after investigate eight -- investigations from the committee and the fbi, we have found nothing, nothing to corroborate accusations against him. and we need to confirm him right away. his confirmation will be a victory for the senate as an institution, a reminder that the politics of baseless personal destruction has no place here. i think he's one of the best nominees i have seen in my 42 years in the united states
senate. i apologize to him for the way he's been treated. yes, it's an important position. yes, democrats have a right to feel very worried about upset about a republican getting this seat 'cause they thought they had won the election. but that isn't the case. our side has handled this with discretion, handling every problem that's come up. frankly, i hope we can just move forward and get this done. it's the right thing to do. judge kavanaugh is a great judge. he'll make a great justice on the united states supreme court. i'll do everything i can to make sure he gets there as quickly as he can. >> our friend the senior senator
from minnesota said ab this confirmation process. she said this is not normal. well, i agree with her. because if this is the new normal, woe be to the senate and any nominee that would be subjected to the unacceptable character assassination that we've seen directed at this nominee in this case. if that's the new normal, i don't know who would want to serve. i think people would be justified in losing any sprebgt for the senate and the way it conducts itself during the confirmation process. more is at stake than just this nomination. the senate itself is on trial here. a vote against judge kavanaugh tomorrow will be an endorsement of the mishandling of this confirmation process because of hiding relevant information that could have been examined on a bipartisan basis in a way that
respected dr. ford's request for privacy and gotten to the bottom of this as we have attempted to do now with 20 million people watching on television. a vote against judge kavanaugh tomorrow will be a vote for abusing the confirmation process and a good person, and it will be a vote for the shameful intimidation tactics that have been employed as part of an orchestrated smear campaign. i agree that the fbi investigation now they've talked to a total of 150 different people through the seven background investigations that judge kavanaugh has been through sin 1993. no corroboration. no confirmation with any outrageous accusations that have been made against him. unfortunately, this could have all been avoided, most of the
embarrassment to dr. ford and the public circus-like atmosphere if the ranking member had just made the allegations known in the regular process so it could have been investigated, as i said, in a way that would have protected her and her confidentiality. i have said before and i'll say it again, i believe that we should and we did treat dr. ford the same way i would want my daughters or my wife or my mother treated under similar circumstances. but we have to remember that judge kavanaugh's entitled to a fair process, too. he has not been subjected to a fair process, anything but. so now's the time to quit all of these antics, these hijinks. we'll do that tomorrow morning when we vote and saturday when we vote to finally confirm this good man to this important position.
>> the process of reviewing the fbi reports that we received this morning has been exhaustive. it has been a collaborative process with my colleagues. it occurred in a classified environment because these are documents that we're not allowed to disclose to the public. but because we can review them in only one place, we reviewed them together and we stopped and we talked about each point made, to make sure we understood the message from each interview and each report. although that part of it by operation of law is not allowed to be public, i want to give you the assurance that we treated these documents just as we've treated each and every allegation with utmost seriousness, with the desire to do nothing more than search for the truth. just as we've spent hours upon hours hearing testimony in open hearings before the public, we've all spent hours upon hours
reviewing these documents in a classified environment. allegations of sexual misconduct are serious. of sexual assault, are of a most serious nature and always have to be treated with utmost seriousness. they have been in this case. again, this is someone who's been through seven background investigations in the course of the last three decades. with over 150 people interviewed with regard to him. this is a man of outstanding character who has lived an exemplary life. his family has been subject to a lot of questioning, humiliation and embarrassment in the last few weeks. that has been a difficult part of this process for him. but in the process of doing that, he's proven his character and his willingness to be candid with the public.
even sharing facts that are at times uncomfortable. i'm convinced of this man's character, of his truthfulness, of his qualifications to serve on the supreme court of the united states. i whole heartedly support his confirmation and look forward to voting for him in the coming hours. >> i agree with everything my colleagues have said. i also want to say to dr. ford, i firmly believe t experienced traumatic event in her life. i also believe there's no evidence that we have seen through the fbi background checks, through the time we have spent in the hearing to substantiate that these claims are properly alleged and directed towards judge kavanaugh. thousands of pages in that briefing room, senator lee and i were in that room together. we breaked for an hour and then went back for two hour. at the desk is also some 1500 pages that document the prior
fbi background investigations. and in none of those was there any reference -- keep in mind this goes back 23, 24 years. this would have only been six or seven years after he was out of college. certainly if it was in recent memory, you would have seen some whip or suggestion. and yet there is none. that is the last thing i'll leave you with. it appears as though since one of the tact some of my colleagues have taken here is not working. they're not really able to substantiate the allegations. now they've moved to the narrative of the way he behaved in the hearing last week was somehow putting into question his judicial temperment. in the 31 hours that he was before the judiciary committee, i saw judge kavanaugh. he was extremely patient with unfair questions, being cut off. but he maintained his poise throughout those 32 hours with very few breaks.
last week i saw brett kavanaugh. i wasn't judging him as a judge. i was judging him as a human being who's having his life destroyed before his very eyes. having his 13-year-old daughter heart broken and having his wife issued death threats. and i would defy anyone in this room, if they had gone through that same experience, if you wouldn't have had those same emotion. and yet, over the course of that testimony, nearly two hours, i think he composed himself and did a good job in answering the questions and defending his good name. >> we'll take questions. direct them to who ever you want to answer. >> chairman grassley, can you explain to us how you came up with your list of who should be interviewed by the fbi? >> i think i'll let you do that because you were at the same meeting i was at. >> we did not come up with a list of people who the fbi should interview. the fbi was requested to conduct
an investigation into any and all credible current accusations of sexual misconduct by judge kavanaugh. and the fbi made the decision from there as to who to interview. >> why not have the fbi interview people who christine blasey ford confided in over the years? >> they did. i think i answered your question. our request was to the white house. the white house then made the request of the fbi to conduct a supplemental investigation into current credible accusations of sexual misconduct. they did that. >> just to be clear, we did not give them a list of people and only these people they can speak with. we went back to have them go back to those who issued statements, speak to them. part of the protocol when you do a criminal background investigation, is there anyone i
should speak to? they had found others. we saw that in the record this morning. >> her attorney said there were eight additional people who should have been interviewed. there should be an additional 20 people that could have corroborated the accounts. why not green light the fbi, tell the white house to interview these people. >> the fbi has gotten all the permission they need in order to interview who ever they think is necessary. there has been no one to corroborate any of the allegations made by dr. ford or by miss ramirez. the fbi's reported that back to us. they have followed additional leads. the whole purpose of this is delay. this is not a search for the truth any more. it became clear early on when this allegation by dr. ford was hidden from the committee and handled in such an extraordinary way against her wishes and without her consent. this is a search and destroy
mission. this is not a search for the truth. we've done everything we can to treat both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford fairly, and treat all allegations made seriously. it's been exhaustively studied by the fbi as well as judiciary committee staff. there really isn't anyone else. >> the president said that there shouldn't be even a little doubt. given the fact that the accusers are suggesting that there are additional people who could corroborate those story. are you confident that you eliminated any doubt. >> all of the people named by dr. ford and miss ramirez have testified contrary to what dr. ford and miss ramirez have led. the people who were present at the event have refuted their allegation. >> slightly different note, one thing that was notable at the committee hearing was when christine blasey ford said it was not clear that the committee
would go to california to interview her. chairman grassley, you already referred to the doj regarding uncorroborated allegations. i'm wondering, will the committee take any action against the attorneys for dr. blasey ford? >> we don't prosecute. >> or will you refer them to the aba? >> right now i'd say i don't know and i don't know whether there's any reason to. what i'd like to do when we get all done, because this is almost rock bottom, i would like to have the future mending things so we can do things in a cordial way that the united states ought do and particularly when it comes to supreme court nominations. you folks can have something to do with this. i would never use the word fake news. i consider you folks police men for our democratic system of government. but i want to show you where some of you have bias. i have had demonstrators in my office for two weeks now, both for kavanaugh and against
kavanaugh. one time the people that were for kavanaugh wanted to be interviewed and they said, we only -- we are only interested in interviewing people against kavanaugh. now, is that -- that's a bias and none of you should be proud of it. >> dr. ford's legal team has sent a letter to the fbi. they're characterizing this investigation as a stain on the process on the fbi and on our american way of justice. >> let the fbi do what the fbi is hired to do and keep political interference out of it and my making a call to the fbi that you ought to do something is political interference. i made no call to the fbi since this whole process started a week ago. and i'm not going to. i never had any conversation with anybody in the white house because i got confidence in the fbi. they go where the facts lead
them. >> i think it's also important to consider the source. this is a legal team that when we formally communicated on more than one occasion that we would have to california and have a confidential interview on her terms from dr. ford to testify she wasn't aware of that really make mess wonder the competentsy of the folks she has advising her. >> either the competency or the political bias they have. >> chairman grassley, how do you think history is going to judge what christine blasey ford has done? >> well, of course, none of us can -- none of us have that perspective yet. but i hope what history documents is what i have said earlier. that one we learned of her identity, once her name was leaked, contrary to her wishes and without her consent to the
public, and she was forced to tell her story not in a safe, confidential setting but in a circus like atmosphere, i hope we did the best we could under those awful set of circumstances to treat her with respect and dignity an listen to her. but that doesn't mean that we forget our basic concepts of fair play and due process. that's why we tried to interview every witness that has any alleged knowledge of relevant facts and because we believe we're a country that believes in the presumption of innocence and due process of law. and what we know now is there is no corroboration, no one confirms the allegations of dr. ford. even people she identified as being present at the scene. so i believe we've done the best we could under these circumstances given the incredible mishandling of dr. ford's allegation by the ranking member on this judiciary committee to try to treat everybody fairly. it's time now to vote.
that's what we're gonna do starting tomorrow morning. >> anybody in the back row? >> will the public -- >> i want to say something before you ask a question. someone who tried cases in the federal court system and in front of two of the most notorious judges in the history of our country, and one case in front of him, by the way, i want you to know, i take this stuff very, very seriously. and i don't know that i had ever seen anybody that would exceed judge kavanaugh as a judge in the federal court system. i personally resent what's been heaped upon him. just isn't right. isn't fair. it sends a message to anybody, do you want to be a federal judge in the future? this is just wrong. unfortunately, there are some
people who just don't care. they know that these judges on the supreme court are gonna handle very, very difficult issues. i'm sure that when the judge is there on the supreme court, he'll decide issues that will terribly disappoint republicans and maybe terribly disappoint democrats from time to time. but i know one thing. he's honest and he will decide cases based upon the law and he'll do a good job in doing it. that's one reason we feel so deeply about this. and frankly, i resent this business of taking on anybody that is from the republican party or the democratic party. for a federal judgeship. it's really irritating. these people who have spent a life time getting the highest ratings you can have from the chief rating service of
attorneys in this country. i know a little bit about that. i have the highest rating you can possibly have, both here in utah and back in pennsylvania. these are important things to me. when i practiced law in utah, i was told one of my fellow judges, judge ritter, was a -- he was biased. this is an important position. this man is qualified. they put him through this type of mess just because they are unhappy that donald trump had the right to