tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC October 4, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
there's nothing in the report that we didn't already know. his colleagues seem to agree. >> when the noise fades and the uncorroborated mud washes away, what's left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us. >> no cooperation what so ever. even the people that they've alluded to to corroborate their stories deny. >> they corroborated judge kavanaugh's reiteration of the facts. >> no corroboration. nothing new. in there's no corroboration. >> senators who requested the supplement fbi background check got what they requested. i am ready to vote. >> regardless. the only report needs to convince three of the five undecided senators.
now that key senators have seen the fbi report, what happens next? both procedurally and politically. joining me nbc news capitol hill correspondent kacie hunt, peter baker, ashley parker and former fbi senior official chuck rosenberg. susan collins was stopped in the hallway and she says it appears to be a thorough investigation but i'm going to go back to read the interviews. it kind of sounds like this is her saying she's going to vote yes. does that mean brett kavanaugh is all but assured to get a seat on the supreme court? >> reporter: i'm not ready to go that far but we're inching in the right direction. susan collins seemed to be looking for way to vote yes on
brett kavanaugh. she had been under enormous pressure. that pressure has only increased. she's in markedly different place than a lot of democrat who is have come out of these briefings and says she does belief this is thorough. the sa she said she wants to go back and read what she's not been able to go through. she did some more of that this afternoon or i suppose still morning. we expect her to go back later on this again and we're waiting to hear from flake and murkow i murkowski. it takes two no votes among the republicans to sink this nomination. that's before you account for joe mansion. a democrat who may be more inclined to vote yes on kavr gn -- kavanaugh in the wake of this intensity.-- kavanaugh in the wake of this intensity. kavanaugh in the wake of this intensity. kavanaugh in the wake of this intensity. susan collins is inching forward that position that her
colleagues hold. >> tell me if you would not be looking at this, but i would be looking at hieidi heitkamp is down. does that mean she's more likely to be a yes? >> reporter: i think there's real questions. she's said the least of all of these people to the cameras about where she stands on this. i think people i talked to are of mixed minds. some say she votes no on kavanaugh, she's sealing her fate. there's other who is are saying she's on track to lose any way, she might as well vote her c conscience. >> how many have youed this and does anybody else need to view it. >> reporter: the only people that need to view it are the ones we have been talking about.
those will decide when this moves, how it moves. whether it moves at all. all 100 senators have the right to come in and see the material. we have talked to some rank and file senator who is said they will not get a chance to look at it until tomorrow morning. looking at this report will stretch out over time. what mcconnell has set up is a procedural vote for tomorrow. we're hearing some, a lot of speculation, quite frankly, about what time of day that might happen. i have one source who suggests that midday might be most likely. the timing of that vote will dictate what happens with the fiej vote. it will be about 30 hours afterward. that would be the critical vote op final passage. i would say that the vote we got set up for tomorrow, assuming they go forward with it, because they are ready to, that's the one i would look to as the crimin
critical moment of drama. >> the white house is trying to get votes for judge kavanaugh. here was sarah sanders this morning on fox news. >> has anyone on the white house staff been in kwarkt with senators flake and murkowski? >> we're continuing to stay in close contact with a number of senators. >> would you name any one of those three? >> the white house is continuing to stay in close contact with the senate. >> what about democratic senators? >> we'll continue talking with those individuals as well. >> i'm in the sure why we played that because she said the same thing over and over again. peter baker, how does the white house feel right now? do they think this is a sure thing? >> they're two cautious to say sure thing but they feel mump
bett -- much better than 24 hours ago or 48 hours ago. it might give some pause. today they feel pretty confident. they feel like they are on the verge of a positive vote for judgekavanaugh. the momentum is on their side. it will give some cause for waivering republicans to come back home. none of this is guarantee. we won't know until tomorrow when we get the key cloture vote on filibuster. for the moment the white house is feeling good about it. >> political cover for those who would have felt compelled to vote no. maybe this gives them the cover to vote yes.
ashley parker, the president made a marked departure from the way he was speaking about dr. ford this week. why did he suddenly change tone when it came to dr. ford? did he feel -- did he see internal polling? did he feel like he had his base or the republican party on his side and safe enough to go out and? i can't believe i'm saying this in a sentence, safe enough to go out and make fun of a woman who was saying she's assaulted when she was a teenager? >> that's the question and there's a number of factors. one of the reason he did not mock dr. ford up until we saw tuesday night was that he had a number of people from leader mcconnell to don mcgahn who sort of running this process internally to his own political team telling him in no uncertain terms to not do that. saying you can defend judge kavr
gn -- kavanaugh. you can be forceful going after the accusers and her credibility helps nothing. there's some evidence that the president being on the campaign trail and getting feedback from the people he saw in his base and being told came to believe that forcefully supporting kavanaugh and even to the point, the flip side of that going after thoese who would try to prevent him from getting on the supreme court. not just on his base but galvanizing. he told me all bets were off. a letter had come out from one of dr. ford's ex-boyfriends that seemed to call into
credibility -- call into question her credibility. the president was fired up as he headed into that rally for a number of reasons. >> here who is has been interviewed. there's mark judge. leland keyser is dr. ford's friend who was at the gathering. pj smyth. deborah ramirez. this is a partial list. certainly a partial list from what the democrats wanted to see. they were proposing up to 29 others. also not on this list and tell me if this is surprising to you, dr. ford was not interviewed by the fbi and neither was judge kavanaugh. >> i don't know what the right now is. i don't know if it should be 40
or 40 or 400. if the fbi had the opportunity to do whatever it thought it needed to do. if it were treating this like a criminal investigation, which it's not. i'm pretty sure they would have interviewed dr. ford and judge kavanaugh and everybody who came up. just because somebody raises their hand and say i have stuff for you doesn't make them valuable or credible. it seems like their work, actions, conduct were fairly well circumscribed by the white house. >> after complaints by democrats and undecided republican, president trump authorized the fbi to go beyond the four interviews. the fbi has not publicly explained why it stopped after talking with just five more people. ms. ramirez gave the name of multiple people they thought could help shed light on the allegations. why would the fbi stop? >> they would stop if they were
told to stop. they would talk to five people if they could only talk to five people. when i was a prosecutor, i used to say there's no such thing as too much evidence. if you want to get to the truth or as close as we can, then you gather as many facts as you're allowed. this is real important for folks to understand. i don't think the fbi was permitted to do everything it felt it needed to be done. >> if the fbi and i'm not sure if you're talking to anybody but is there a concern that they were in a bad situation. they were between a rock and a hard place. if the republicans remain in power, they have to keep them somewhat happy and if the democrats take over congress, is there a feeling they will get all of their communications between them and the white house and the investigation in white house that those will get subpoenas and the democrats will
make those public? >> i agree they are in a box. i don't think they are in a box for precisely that reason. here's why. >> i want to say this real fast. this is reportable, this news from north dakota. control room. never mind. we're going to ignore it. keep going. >> the fbi is in a box because they're going to get blamed if there's a perception that the investigation wasn't thorough. on background investigation, the terms of that are set by the white house. the white house is the client. if the white house only wants them to talk to x number of people then that's all you can do. it's not really a concern about politics or partisanship or democrats or republicans or how one or the other might feel. it's really a concern that the investigation is going to be required to be done right and well. if it's circumscribed in some
way, who's fault will it be? not the fbi. who will be blamed? probably the fbi. >> this fbi reeached out to ten people. interviewed nine. we don't any why the tenth wasn't interviewed. it may be those nine are plenty. our reporters here with far fewer resources interviewed nine people in a few days. it's possible to have done a mu much broader sweep of information even if it may or may not be helpful in the end. one ofrt thing of the things t
to do was look at the allegations that dr. ford and deborah ramirez brought up. none of these other allegations about did he fully tell truth about his level of drinking. the last few people have talked about whether judge kavanaugh was a stumbling drunk or would have blacked out in contrast to his testimony. that was not part of the fbi's mandate here. >> i know that chuck rosenburg wants to jump in on that. the news in north dakota, we can report. this is from wday. a local affiliate in north dakota who sat down and did a one-on-one with senator heidi heighkamp. she says she will vote no on the supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. that means that's one of those five taken out of unknown box and put into the no box. puts a lot more pressure on
collins and murkowski. still, again, we don't know where senator manchin will go. whether he will vote yes or no. we don't know the motivation for heighkamp. if she says i'm down in the polls or trying to drum up the democratic base. chuck respond to peter in terms of what he was talking about in the fbi investigation. >> it's the difference between capability and authority. the fbi has the capability of interviewing however many witnesses they need to interview and they can do it quickly. i'm not overly concerned about the time constraints. the authority is the question. this is not a criminal invets ga -- investigation. the terms are set by the client. while they could have talked to a lot more people and probably would have. the clients talked to this group
of people and report back. that is the entire extent of the fbi's authority to investigate in this matter. >> ashley parker, at one point she did travel on air force one with the president when they were talking about a certain policy issue. i believe it was earlier this year or late last year. since then the president has campaigned for her, for her competitor in north dakota. the latest fox news poll has her down double digits. this news she will vote no is a red state democratic. what do you make of it? >> i would add she's one of these red state democrats, including senator manchin who was brought in privately to meet one-on-one with the white house in advance of choosing judge kavanaugh to see what their concerns were. there was a sense they were potentially gettable. what i make of her no and we don't know her reasons but
talking to people inside the white house and in the republican white house orbit is they are sort of ecstatic about the benefits of how this is playing. mainly they think it would damage red state democrats and they named her spervcifically. they said she's in this no win situation and they believe a no vote from her would be devastating. again, we'll have to see why she did it. we'll have to see how that plays. from trump's world, they think this is nothing but pure upside from them from a political point of view. assuming he has the votes to get over the finish line. >> here is more from that fox news poll. the poll found if she voted against kavanaugh's confirmation. twice as many voters say they would be less likely to vote for her. that's 34% against more likely. kevin kramer leads her by 12
points. last month he was only up by four months. i don't know if it's the kavanaugh nomination or the news coming out of congress that ha t helped boost kevin kramer. in looking at the sheer politics of this, not the morality of it. not do you believe the accusers. the democrats, i would imagine are making a hard choice behind the scenes. what's more important trying to stop this nomination or maintaining the seats we have in the senate and potentially, potentially if all goes their way retaking control of the senate so they are in better position should another supreme court nomination come up in the next two years. >> right. it's a very important point. i think that it is a conundrum.
it's a good question. you lose this seat, you lose a majority on the supreme court. if the democrats are able to win the senate and influence the choice because brett kavanaugh isn't approved, they might get a more moderate figure who might be more of a swing vote. >> the question going forward if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, is a good thing for the republicans or a better thing for the democrats. do republicans maintain that excitement, that anger around the supreme court nominee for the month until the election or does that enthusiasm, does that momentum then shift the
democrats? take a look at what we're seeing in washington, d.c. right now. there are protests. they have been walking and making their way up constitution avenue to barrett courthouse. maybe they made it. i guess that's the steps of the capitol right there. they are trying to convince lawmakers to say no to kavanaugh. again, the question, will moment be on the democrat side or will it be on the republican side? thank you very much. stay with us. we'll be right back. u very much. stay with us we'll be right back. it's time for sleep number's fall sale
on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, free home delivery. ends monday. at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. you get all this coverage for zero dollar monthly plan premium in most areas. and
we're following breaking news. heidi heitkamp says she will vote no on brett kavanaugh. kevin cramer has a double digit lead. we're expected to hear from senate republicans. that's a live look at where their news conference will be. we'll bring that to you as soon as they take the podium. joining me is steve kornacki. jonathan, i want to start with you. mid terms are coming up.
i was talking to peter baker about this. in terms of cold political cal cue l -- calculations here. democrats are trying to stop this nomination. they do not belief in brett kavanaugh. joe mansion could vochin could . the democrats have a choice to make. what do they do? do they allow some republicans to vote yes? do they back off and say it's more important for us to try to turn some senate seats or keep pushing and hope that will help them turn some senate seats? where does heidi heitkamp pall into that? >> she's the one that's in danger and most certainly likely to looz. for her, the calculation is one
of two things. vote your conscience but it's like maybe this is hail mary pass to reenergize people around her and come out p. i think joe manchin remains to be seen whether he's a democrat that will support this nominee. there doesn't be appetite to have this. they want to fight forward. we have known democrats for many months are hyper energized because of the anti-donald trump movement.
>> let's find out why heidi is voting no. we have her brother who hosts a talk show in fargo, north dakota. i hope you can answer this question for us. welcome. secondly, why did your sister end up voting no on kavanaugh? >> you know, i don't speak for heidi. i want to be clear about that. i know her probably as well as anybody but i don't speak for her. she's been a champion all her life. she's been a champion for women and women's rights. i don't think this is about re-election. with all due respect to yourself and others that you work with. you get married to these polls. it's your job to do what's right. i don't believe these polls as much as what everybody else does. >> why not? >> i travel all over the state.
all over the state and people stop me randomly that i don't know to tell me they will vote for her. i'm not -- last time she ran, she was down by ten points in the polls a week before the election. she won. you tell me if these polls are absolutely right. >> in an election like 2016 and like this when enthusiasm has grown so much, the question is polling likely voters an adequate way of going about it or are there people who night not have been considered likely voters in the past. do you see more of that when you travel, folks that would have sat out in a previous election
or not thought that. >> i see a lot of people that voted for donald trump that will vote for heidi. i also see farmers ta are mad. woi bean prices are down. i'm a fan. i watch your tv station. she may be down in the polls and she may lose but in morning when she's brushing her teeth, she needs to like the person she sees.
>> i'm curious. you're totally right. you're there every single day. i'm not. wa do voters care about in north dakota? is this a big deal or is it tariffs or the committeeconomy? what is driving voters? >> how sick they were of what was happening in washington. they anything noignored it wasn republic republican/democrat. he was on outsider. the kavanaugh thing will be a big issue for about a week.
i think you really have to look at pre-existing conditions. everybody hated the affordable care act. they ran around calling it obama care. i don't know if you noticed they don't call it obama care anymore because it's gotten popular. i'm sitting here with two fake knees. that's a pre-existing condition. i was around the game of football too long. it happens. people have it. that's a message that is out there. you have a congressman in kevin cramer that hasn't done anything. don't bet against her. >> that's a good question.
i know there are folks asking it including our own steve kornacki is where does the enthusiasm go afterthis. if he is confirmed on saturday, as early as saturday. if kavanaugh is confirmed and the attention to it fizzles out in a week. does the enthusiasm benefit your sister? >> the people in the midwest needed this. i know most of these people. i don't speak for heidi. the face i saw that spoke to senator klobuchar is not a face i would want to be in front of for any reason when i'm in the courtroom. i think people got that. >> let's play a sound bite from your sister talking about why she voted no for judge kavanaugh or why she will vote no.
>> the process has been bad. at the end of the day you have to make a decision. i've made that decision. >> that decision will be what, senator senator? >> i will be voting no on judge kavanau kavanaugh. >> again, that was from wday. that's a local affiliate. we also just got a statement from heidi. we need to take politics out of supreme court as much as possible. it takes republicans and democrats in the senate, the administration and individuals around the country to help make that possible. we live in a very divisive time but we can change that. both sides horribly handled the process around this nomination. we must learn from these mistakes. she also underscores she did vote for justice gorsich because she felt his legal ability and temperament qualified him to serve on the supreme court. she says judge kavanaugh is different when considering a
lifetime appointment to the supreme court. we must evaluate the totality of the circumstances and record before us. in addition to the concerns about his past conduct, last thursday's hearing called into question judge kavanaugh's current temperament, partially. these are criminal traits to serve on the highest court. there's been questions about whether or not he got too partisan on thursday. your sister is pointing to that when he came out and said this is revenge on behalf of clintons. this is the left that's doing this to me. is that being discussed by any folks in north dakota? >> the one poll i would agree with is they supported judge kavanaugh. i can tell that. north dakota supported president nixon and the more they found
out, the less they found out. judge kavr gnaw anaugh is a com different man than justice gorsich. anyone can see that. it's pretty easy to ask about rulings, judgments but you get to look in their soul when you ask them personal questions. clearly, judge gorsich passed that test. he wasdecent, good human being. if you doubt that. if you question whether you believe her. i've said it many times on air, i believe her. then you have that doubt in your mind. with all the different individuals that can sit on the supreme court. instead of this litmus test they had to go to georgetown prep. there's a lot of people that can be a good supreme justice that
isn't a conservative. in that case it wouldn't have been hard for me. i was a no a long time ago. >> we should also underscore this would be the second georgetown prep alumnus who would sit on the supreme court. i would to bring in steve kornacki who i don't know you don't like the polls but he's a wizards with the polls. steve can you give us a sense of where things stand and what what you're seeing and what you're reading with numbers that are out there is compelling voters right now. >> any time you talk to a candidate and you have polling that doesn't look good for them, i don't know what you expect them to say. they shouldn't say i surrender. my job is to look at theese in
north dakota. the numbers are painting a -- >> i'm so sorry to interrupt you. mitch mcconnell is talking now. >> corroborate any of the allegations against judge kavanaugh. the second thing we know for sure is there's no way anything we did would satisfy the democrats. they've always got a reason why the goal post need to be moved further down the field, farther down the field. nothing we would do would satisfy them. they are 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 committeconomy w done on outstanding job. >> thank you. before i say a few words so i won't have to announce after me. in this order will be hatch,
co cornyn, lee and tillis. this is the 87th day. that's three weeks longer than the average of the last three or four nominees to the supreme court. don't tell me we haven't spent must have time. 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 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 to serve are recognized. judge kavanaugh should be confirmed on saturday. this started downhill very quickly on july 10th when schumer said we're going to do everything we can to stop this nomination. you can look back 87 days and you can see everything of whether he's qualifier qualifie has been brought out. i've tried to commit and brought out that we're going to have a fair and thorough process. we've had a fair and thorough process. 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. i've been dealing with the downhill slope that schumer put us on is dealing with a demonstra demolition derby. they just about destroyed a g ed person to be on the supreme court. hopefully we're 48 hours from having a new person on the supreme court.
>> i'm disappointed in my democratic colleagues for what they are doing. i'm grateful for the fbi for doing a thorough and 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. after investigations from the committee and the fbi, we have found nothing, absolutely nothing to corroborate accusations against him. we need to confirm him right away. this confirmation will be a victory for the institution. a reminder that the politics of baseless personal destruction has no place here.
i apologize to him for the way he's been treated. they thought they had won the election and that isn't the case. our side has handled this with discreti discretion. handling every problem that's come up. i hope we can just move forward and get this done. it's the right thing to do. he is a great judge. i will do everything i can do to make sure he gets there as quickly as he can.
>> the senior senator from north dakota said this is not normal. i agree with her. 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 have seen directed at this nominee in this case. if that's the new normal, i don't know who would want to serve and i think people would be justified of losing any respect for the senate in the way it conducts itself during the con fir mag procefirmation . more is at stake than just this nomination and the supreme court. the senate itself is on trial here. a vote against judge kavanaugh will be an endorsement of the mishandling of the confirmation process because of hiding relevant information that could
have been examined on a bipartisan basis in 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 have talked to a vototal of 150 different people through the seven background investigations that judge kavanaugh has been through since 1993. no corroboration, no confirmation of these accusations that have been made
against him. this could have all been avoided, most of the embarrassment to dr. ford and the public circus like atmosphere if we had just, if the ranking member had just made the allegations known in the regular process and could have been investigated. i believe we should and we did treatment dr. ford the same way i would want my daughters or my wife or my mother treated under similar circumstances. we have to remember that judge ka kavanaugh is entitled to fair process too. he's not been subjected to fair process. now is 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 confirm this good man
to this important position. >> the process of reviewing the fbi reports that swreceived thi morning has been exhaustive. it's been a collaborative process. these are documents we're not allowed to disclose to the public. 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 port of it is not allowed to be public, we treated these documents just as we treated each and every allegation with utmost seriousness. with a desire to do nothing more than search for truth. just as we spent hours upon hours hearing testimony in open hearings before the public, we
have also spent hours upon hours reviewing these documents in a classified environment. allegations of sexual misconduct are serious. sexual assault are most serious nature and also have to be treated with utmost seriousness. they have been in this case. this is someone who has been through seven background inve gainve -- investigations. he has outstanding character.-- investigations. he has outstanding character. investigations. he has outstanding character. investigations. he has outstanding character. he and his family have been subjected to a lot of embarrassment. that's been a difficult part of this process for him. in the process of doing that, he's proven his character and his willingness to be candid with the public.
i'm convinced of this man's character and troouthfulness to serve on supreme court of the united states. i look forward to voting for him in the coming hours. >> i agree with everything my colleagues have said. i believe that dr. ford experienced the traumatic event in her life. i don't believe there's no evidence we have seen through the time we spent in the hearing to substantiate these claims. thousands of pages, we were in that briefing room together for an hour. we breaked for an hour and we were back for two hours.
in none of those documents were 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. if it was in recent memory you would have seen some suggestion but there was none. the last thing i'll leave you with, it appears since one of the texts my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is not working. they are not able to substantiate the allegations. now they have moved to this narrative of the way he behaved in the hearing last week was somehow putting to question his judicial temperament. 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. he maintained his poise throughout the 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 is having very eyes, having his 13-year-old daughter heartbroken and having his wife issued death threats. and i would defy anyone in this room if you had gone through that same experience if you wouldn't have had the same emotions. and yet over the course of that him it, i think he composed himself and did a good job in answering the questions and defending mi ing his good name. >> we're ready for questions. direct them to whoever 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 in a 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 who to interview. >> so why not have the fbi interview people that blasey ford confided in over the years? isn't this key? >> they did. and 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 is supplemental investigation into current credible accusations sexual misconduct. they did that. >> just to be clear, we did not give them a list of people and only these people that they can speak with. we went back to have them go back to those who issued statements, speak with them, but a part of the protocol with a criminal background investigation, is there anyone else i should speak to.
and in fakct when at the went through that, they identified others. we saw that in the record this morning. >> attorneys have said that there are eight additional witnesses. deborah ramirez's attorney said there should be additional 20 witnesses. potentially people that could corroborate these accounts. why not green light the fbi, tell the white house to glean lig green light the fbi to interview these people? >> the fbi has gotten all of the permission they need in order to interview whoever they think is necessary. there has been no one to krob blat any of the allegations made by dr. ford or by ms. ramirez. and the fbi has reported that back to us. they followed additional leads. but the whole purpose of this is delay. this is not a search for the truth anymore, it became clear early on when this allegation by dr. ford was midden from the committee and handled in such an extraordinary way against her wishesconsent,
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 that has been exhaustively studied by the fbi as well as judiciary committee staff. there really isn't anything else. >> the president has 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 their stories, are you confident that you have eliminated any cloud of doubt? >> all of the people identified by ms. ramirez and dr. ford have testified contrary to the way ms. ramirez and dr. ford have alleged. and so the witnesses they have identified saying they were present at the event have all refuted their allegations. so i think that ought to settle it. >> on a slightly different note, would one thing when dr. blasey ford
said that it was not clear that the committee would go to california to interview her, i'm curious, chairman grassley, you've alreadycorroborated alle. i'm wondering where the committee take any action against the attorneys for blasey ford. >> we don't prosecute -- >> or will you refer them. >> right now i don't know and i don't know that there is any reason to. i think that -- 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 collegial way that the united states senate ought to do and particularly when it comes to the supreme court nominations. and you folks can have something to do with this. i would never use the word fake news. i consider you folks policemen for our democratic system of government. but i want to show you where some of you have bias. i've had demonstrators in my
office for two bike bike week for and against kavanaugh. and one time the people for kavanaugh wanted to be interviewed. and they said we only -- we are only interested in interviewing people against kavanaugh. now, is that -- that is a bias that none of you should be part of. >> dr. ford's legal team has sent a letter to the fbi characterizing this as a stain on the process of the fbi and on our american ideal of justice. what is your response to that? >> i'll give you -- let the fbi do what the fbi is hired do and keep political interference out of it. and my making a call to the fbi that you ought 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 is also important to consider the source. this is a legal team that when we formally communicated on more than one occasion that we would come to california and have a confidential interview and on her terms, fthat she wasn't awae of that really makes me wonder the competency of the folks that she has advising her. >> either the competency or the political bias that they have. >> 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 that what i said earlier, that we -- once we learned of will 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 setting but in a circus-like atmosphere, i hope that we did the best we did under those awful set of circumstances to treat her with respect and dignity and listen to her. but that doesn't mean that we forget our basic concepts of fair play and constitutional due process. that is why we've 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 agencillegations o ford even people she identified as being present. so i believe we've done the best we could under these is circumstances given the incredible mishandling of dr. ford's allegation by the ranking member on the judiciary committee to try to treat everybody fairly.
but it is time now to vote. and that is what we're going to do starting tomorrow morning. >> hold on. anybody on the back row? >> i want to say something. i want to say something before you ask your question. as someone who actually 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 is in front of them by the way, i want you to know i take this stuff very, very seriously. and i don't know that i've ever seen anybody who would exceed judge kavanaugh as a judge in the federal court system. i personally resent what has been heaped upon him. it isn't right, it isn't fair. and it sends a message to everybody that do you really want to take a federal judgeship in the future.
this is just wrong. and unfortunately, there are some people who just don't care. and the know that these judges on the supreme court will handle difficult issues. and i'm sure when the judge is there on the supreme court, he will decide issues that will terribly disappoint republicans and maybe terribly disappoint democrats from time to time. but i know one thing, he is honest, and he will decide cases based upon the law and he will do a good job in doing it. that is one reason why we feel so deeply about this. and frankly, i resent this business of taking on anybody that is from the purchase party or tparty -- republican party or the democratic party for a federal judgeship. it is really irritating. as though thooem these peopugh spent a lifetime getting the highest rating that you can have from the chief rating service of
attorneys in this country. i know a little bit about that. i had the highest rating you could possibly have both here in utah and back in pennsylvania. these are important things to me. when i got out to practice law in utah, i was told by everybody that judge ritter was somebody you had to watch. i got along well with him. he just wanted you to be competent. this is an important position. and this man is qualified. and to put him through this type of a mess just because they are unhappy that donald trump had the right to appoint him it just plain wrong. and i got to say that i'm proud of my colleagues for standing up on this