tv MSNBC Live With Alex Witt MSNBC September 30, 2018 9:00am-10:00am PDT
that's our show for today. thanks for watching. "am joy" up next sunday. up next is alex witt. >> are you sure you're coming back? i thought after seeing you last night at global citizen fest, i thought we lost her to the fandom. >> i love it but i needed to sleep. good day, i'm alex witt. here's what's happening right now. new questions this hour. does the fbi have free rein or is the white house micromanaging? into the scope of brett
kavanaugh's scope. the acciarimony is still boilin >> a judge to confirm brett kavanaugh is a vote to confirm one of of the most accomplished legal minds of our time. >> even assuming we were unfairly accused, he's still supposed to behave as a judge. he can feel what he wants. >> but you're trying to portray him as a stumbling, bumbling drunk, a gang rapist who during high school and college was bill cosby. plus, the second accuser, the fbi now questioning her about claims against the supreme court nominee. we'll tell you what her lawyer says. but we begin this hour with new reaction from the white house on the scope of the investigation into sexual assault allegations against judge kavanaugh. two people familiar with the matter tell "the new york times," four people will be questioning over the next few days. but top officials are pushing back on reports that this list is part of its effort to limit the scope of the investigation and explaining why it has not in12rui instructed the fbi not to
interview the third accuser, julie swetnick. >> did the white house counsel give the fbi a list? >> not that i'm aware of. the white house counsel has allowed the senate to dictate what these terms look like and what the scope of the investigation is. the white house isn't intervening. we're not micromanaging this process. this is something -- it's a senate process. it has been from the beginning. we're letting the senate continue to dictate what the terms look like. >> has the fbi been told, don't look into julie swetnick's allegations, we don't find them credible? >> the white house is not getting involved in the fbi investigation that way. the president very much respects the independence of the fbi and feels, as he said last night, they should be looking at anything they feel is credible within this limited scope. >> did don mcgahn say, you can interview these witnesses but not these witnesses? >> i have not talked to him about it had. >> also today senator jeff flake
in his first sitdown interview since calling for an investigation, sharing how he interpreted judge kavanaugh's testimony on thursday. >> i have to say that what i heard him, i heard someone who i hope i would sound like if i had been unjustly accused. and to see his family behind him, as chris said, and it was -- it was anger. but if i were unjustly accused, that's how i would feel as well. and i've -- as it went on, i think his interaction with some of the members was a little too sharp. >> the part he talked about the mention of the clintons and whatnot, i didn't like either. it seemed partisan, but, boy, i have to put myself in that spot. i think you give a little leeway there. >> also new today, kellyanne conway making a personal revelation while discussing the accusations against judge kavanaugh.
let's go to jeff bennett with more on that. before we get to that, i understand you have new reporting. tell us what you have to share. >> reporter: hey there, alex. two high-level sources familiar with the matter tell our friend and colleague ken dalanian the fbi has received no instructions from the fbi how to proceed with the sexual misconduct allegations against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. president trump's saturday night tweet saying he wants whomever to investigate whomever he deems appropriate has not changed the white house counsel's office on the investigation, which includes a specific witness list, which does not include julie swetnick and also on off the list are classmates. they describe him as a frequent, heavy drinker. i'm told by a senior u.s. official that the white house is the client in this process. you'll hear me say that a lot today. i think it's the best way to explain this.
this is not an fbi criminal investigation. it's criminal investigation. it's a background investigation in which the fbi is acting on behalf of the white house. the white house sets the parameters. the reason why this matters is the limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the senate judiciary committee expect when they agree to give the fwi the week to investigate the allegations. we have seen the white house defending brett kavanaugh and the entire confirmation process. kellyanne conway brought up her own history of sexual assault and defended brett kavanaugh. >> i feel very empathetic, frankly for victims of sexual harassment and rape. i'm a victim of sexual assault. i don't expect judge kavanaugh or jeff flake or anybody to be
held responsible for that. you have to be responsible for your own conduct. >> it's the first time i heard you talk about something personal like that and i'm really sorry. you work for a president who said all the women who accused him are lying. >> don't conflate that with this and what happened to me. it would be a huge mistake. >> this other issue about the kavanaugh investigation, we asked him about the role in forcing the week long delay, president trump said the delay is fine and said if the process looks fair and the investigation turns up nothing as they hope and expect it, kavanaugh benefits from the delay. >> okay, geoff bennett. powerful reportering there. ted lieu everybody ises on the
how judiciary and foreign affairs committees. what we heard kellyanne conway say, i paused when she said you have to take responsibility for your own actions. you have to be responsible for your own conduct, admitting that she herself is the victim of sexual assault. i don't know how to describe my reaction to that, but i didn't feel right with that. what's your reaction? >> thank you for your question. my heart goes out to all sexual assault victims and we have to reduce the number across america. i don't know about kellyanne conway's personal experiences, but this is a good educational moment for america where people are learning about it and why two thirds don't report and the cost of reporting.
i hope the silver lining is we are more aware. >> what do you make of her arguments against brett kavanaugh are being conflated with other allegations, including those levelled against president trump. >> they are not being conflated. dr. ford gave compelling testimony under oath that he was sexually assaulted by brett kavanaugh. that was one of the issues in this process. i have to reiterate. this is not a trial. this is a job interview. no employer in america would hire a applicant who has a credible allegation of sexual assault and then yell at you. there are other far more qualified people and should nominate someone else. >> let's listen to what chris coons of delaware had to say about the one-week background investigation into kavanaugh.
>> i support it being one week. that's what a compromise is all about. i would have liked longer, but one week i think was a key compromise and commitment here. >> what are your thoughts on the compromise? is it a fair compromise? >> i do. the fbi has vast resources and can interview relevant witnesses and information if they were not limited in their scope. this investigation does not result in the interviewing of all the women accuser who is have accused brett kavanaugh. it will be an incomplete investigation and that will cause more problems for the white house and the confirmation process. they should have the fbi interview julie swetnick and the other witnesses who contradicted it and the americans can have a good process. >> congressman, the reporterire that you made at the top in
association with ken delaney here, it would seem julie swetnick will not be interviewed or off the list, former classmates who contradicted his college accounts describing him as a frequent heavy drinker will not be allowed to speak. how thorough of an investigation can this be? >> the american people want a thorough investigation and want these witnesses interviewed. at this point they haven't been interviewed yet, but my hope is they will be. if you are not, they will have the same problem as they had before. why are you not interviewing relevant witness. why are you hiding from the american people? it makes no sense to me. they will have this fbi intervi interview, they need to do it right. >> you were quite critical of kavanaugh's testimony. his lies under oath were not little lies. he lied about devil's triangle
because it was about sex and raffling because it was about inebriati inebriation. he is accused of drunken sexual assault. how much credibility does brett kavanaugh have? >> less than dr. ford and that's all it takes. this is a job interview. if you are not comfortable with the job applicant, you vote no and have someone else go to the supreme court. you have many qualified judges and no reason why the republicans have to stick with brett kavanaugh when he made false statements under oath. the reason he made these lies is they go to the core of his allegation that he had drinking problems and may have engaged in sex activities that were not proper. that's why he was being evasive or lying about the issues. that's a problem for any supreme court nominee. >> how do you respond to the republican leader who is say they believe dr. ford was indeed
assaulted by someone, but not brett kavanaugh? >> they are basically saying they don't believe dr. ford's testimony. she was 100% sure was brett kavanaugh. when people say there is no evidence, that makes no sense. we routinely in america have trials that are determined based on testimonial evidence. her testimony is evidence. there is a lot of things that corroborate her testimony. mark judge is a friend of brett kavanaugh and they both drink a lot and in the same area and had social gatherings where they interacted. there are a lot of corroborations. she mentioned it also in 2012 and 20 then. she is not a left wing clinton experience. also the fact that brett kavanaugh brought that up shows why he is unfit for the court. >> some are saying brett
kavanaugh is playing a political card. we know by the sheer nature of the president nominating the supreme court justice, how fair is the criticism that he is very, very very right? >> you have to watch his testimony in front of the u.s. senate to know that he is very partisan, but it's beyond that. he believes in experience theories. that is a problem. when you see dr. ford's testimony, it's very clear she is not part of some vast left wing conspiracy. she was assaulted by brett kavanaugh. she told people in 2012 and 2013 and for him to think she is part of a conspiracy makes me question what kind of impartiality he can show on the u.s. supreme court. >> is that perhaps the best defense for christine blasey ford when she talks about being
100% certain that brett kavanaugh was the man who assaulted her because she was talking about him well before he became a supreme court nominee? >> absolutely. it lends tremendous credibility to her story that she privately told her therapist about this sexual assault. in addition, the whole reason she had to tell her therapist is because she wanted to put two front doors in her home. that's how much that sexual assault bothered her. for people to say she is not telling the truth, she was the person who was far more credi e credible. this is a job interview. if you account dr. ford could be correct, you do not put brett kavanaugh on the court. >> did brett kavanaugh cross a line by saying he's a victim of a political hit from the left? p,
fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding.
while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.
new reports this afternoon on brett kavanaugh's confirmation battle. a report in the "los angeles times" details how the nominee's aggressive testimony may have saved his nomination, but his partisanship may have under cut his credibility as an impartial jurist after he portrayed the accusation as a politically motivated attack by vengeful democrats. mazie hirono and lindsey graham
weighed in. >> he had every right to do what he did. you destroy a man's life and say he is unfit to judge you because of the way you treated him. we are not going to play that game. this is not the future of the nomination process, where you accuse a guy of being a gang rapist, an alcoholic bumbling stumbling sexual predator and you get upset when he forcefully fights back against liberal smears. >> he came off at the hearing which was shocking to me that he would accuse democrats as a vast experience to do him in and dragged in hillary clinton. i found it bizarre. we hardly need somebody on the supreme court who has these experience theory notions. >> joining me now is federal prosecutor nelson cunningham. welcome to you, sir. brett kavanaugh became visibly irritated and emotional during the hearing and calling the process a circus.
here was the partisan turning point. let's play it. here it is. >> this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fuelled with pent up anger about president trump and the 2016 election. revenge on behalf of the clintons and as we all know in the political system000s, what comes around. >> should that disify him from a seat on the bench, going in not knowing whether a nominee leans left or right? >> it's good to be with you. by the way, i have seen this from three perspectives. i clerked for a federal judge on the court of appeals and counsel of the senate judiciary committee handling supreme court nominations under joe biden and then went to the clinton white house where i worked closely
with the white house counsel's office. i have seen this from three different perspectives and judges are absolutely supposed to be impartial. brett kavanaugh on this matter certainly is not. i think he is projecting. why do i say he should projecting? people forget he spent five years as an aide to ken star pursuing who? the clintons as a member of his independent counsel team. he is the one who wrote the report calling for bill clinton's impeachment for doing what? having a sexual encounter with an intern and lying about it. if brett kavanaugh believes what he wrote in that report in 1998, he ought to be looking at his own behavior pretty closely. >> where do you come down on his performance. what do you believe? >> there is nobody who watched thursday's hearings who says that dr. ford looked untruthful.
whether you are a liberal or conservative or fox news or nbc or cnn. everybody agrees dr. ford was credible. there is a divergence as to whether he was credible. there were many questions he did not answer and on which he equivocated this. if a jury were deciding, they would go with a witness who nobody thinks is lying. >> if you are concerned if brett kavanaugh makes it to the supreme court couthere will be only a perputual cloud not unlike the we see around clarence thomas, but going forward, the perception that the supreme court is impartial and that they take everything and look at it, we know people have certain leanings, but they are
able to interpret the law with a relatively impartial perspective and put forth their rulings. are you concerned if he is there that it will be tainted? >> a big part of being a judge is demeanor. does a judge appear to be fair and listen carefully to the arguments and does he or she consider the briefs carefully and look at the facts scrupulously. the demeanor he showed on thursday is not the demeanor any of us would want to see from a judge sitting on the bench. we would be concerned if a judge was deciding our legal issue and our future had that look on his face when he was talking to us from the bench. >> so is it fair to judge brett kavanaugh on this performance? this was very personal. it was all about him. >> it's absolutely fair. this was the face that he chose
to put before the senate judiciary committee, the senate, and the american public at the most critical moment of his life. earlier in the week we saw him on fox news, he was a choir boy. the brett kavanaugh we saw thursday was an entirely different brett kavanaugh. he puts on a face when he wants to and takes it off when he wants to. it felt very carefully scripted to me, i must say. >> senator graham alluded to this and others that were on my broadcast alluded to this, that brett kavanaugh was seeking the support of one person. donald trump. and that donald trump liked the way he was defiant and combative and pushing back. donald trump style. do you think that hurt him overall? was it too much? >> it got him through thursday afternoon, but i can't imagine his biggest worry was at the end
of the day, donald trump was reported to have said about dr. ford, she seems believable. his biggest fear had to be at the end of his performance, the president would withdraw his nomination. he got through that. he got through keeping himself on the right side of donald trump. second, he got through his second task which is stay on the right side of the republicans on the committee and give them a reason to support him. he clearly did. his combativeness, lindsey graham's combativeness turned that hearing away and allowed the republican members of the committee to come back and back him. it got him that far and yet it did not get him that critical 11th vote which is jeff flake's vote who equivocated it has not given him that critical vote that will be held next week. there are certainly other moderates on both the democratic
and republican side who will be swayed by his performance and i think negatively. at the end of the day, it hurt him. >> former federal prosecutor, nelson cunningham. >> it has been a pleasure. thank you. >> the white house appears to push responsibility off the president and on to the senate. someone is really pulling the strings. that's next. strings. that's next.
the white house is not micromanaging the process. the senate is dig r dictating the terms and they laid out the request and we opened it up and as you heard the president say, do what you need to do. this is what the fbi does and we are out of the way in letting them do exactly that. >> press secretary sarah huckabee sanders is stressing the hand says off approach against supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. politics reporter and msnbc contributor and the hill's editor in chief. welcome to you both. betsy, the white house appears to be laying it all on the senate when it comes to the terms with the fbi. is that what you were hearing and the white house is completely hands off?
>> there is very little reason to believe the white house has totally extricated itself from the fbi background check. part of the season is the fbi is undertaking this project at the direction of the white house. that's how the background checks work. the job that the fbi is tasked with is helping the white house and the senate gather the information that they need to make correct decisions about a nomination and the way the fbi works when it's doing the fbi checks for the confirmed position. it's doing the job for the white house. that's part of the reason that this investigation is likely to leave so many people concerned that they are not getting the full story. because the nature of the investigation is the fbi is working with the white house as a client. the result is there will be lots of open questions when the investigation is finished. >> geoff bennett has been saying
that all day that makes it crystal clear how this is going. >> you saw kellyanne conway asked about this. whether the white house counsel gave a list of witnesses to the fbi. none would flatly deny that. what's your sense of that? >> listen, trump had to order this fbi investigation after the hearing and after what senator flake did, but he can shape it. through his public comments, he wants to find out who leaked the letter that led to the revelation of dr. ford even though she didn't want to come out publicly. they can shape it and certainly we are not seeing julie swetnick being contacted yet. they will start to see as the week goes on, you will see democrats more and more complaining that this is not a broad scope and we need to have a broad scope to figure out, if we can, what happened. >> so the president tweets out
that the fbi has free reign, but our reporting here on nbc would counter that for these specific details. i will run them by you. as of this tweet, the limits imposed by the white house couple's office by the fbi investigation includes a specific witness list that does not include the third accuser, julie swetnick. former classmates who have contradicted the account of his college alcohol consumption describing him as a frequent heavy drinker. free reign, can we define that or is that the president putting spin on something? >> the president's tweet puts the fbi in an unusual position as a host of his tweets have done. the reason is that the justice department understands the tweets to be presidential
communications. the fbi is part of the branch that answers ultimately to whoever the executive is. as a result the president sends out a statement saying i want the fbi as part of its responsibility to help the white house with the background check process undertake certain steps or take certain activities or do certain things, that's what the executive is directing an entity in the executive branch to do. if that clashes with the president's deputies and don mcgahn is directing them to do. the officials in the bureau are in the weird position of trying to decide how possibly to reconcile the president's tweet requests the formal directions of the deputy. it's a very unusual situation. that's part of the reason that so many people are going to have concerns about the final findings or conclusions or assessments that the fbi
produces by the end of the week. >> let's take a listen to something senator graham had to say earlier today chltd. >>. >> i have to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. who betrayed dr. ford's trust and who in feinstein's office recommended katz as a lawyer and why did not not know the committee was willing to go to california. who released the anonymous letter. we will do a full-scale investigation of what i think was a despicable process. >> this is reflecting what you had spoken about earlier. senator graham was speaking about it. how much is that about process and not about the american that is the american public wants and or deserves between what happened or did not happen.
brett kavanaugh repeats he said he denies all of the allegations. >> yeah. then it gets to what republicans want this probe to be and democrats want the probe to be. they have a week to do this. senator graham said he wants to find out who the leak was. it's worth noting that senator feinstein said she was not the leak and the reporter who broke the story neither she or the staff was the cause. president trump at his rally called out feinstein. then is it a leak investigation or kavanaugh and the accusations? it was smart to hit the pause button. the moderates on the committee as well as in the senate, i don't think they were ever going to vote. they were clearly talking about this, but at the end of the week, this is just going to be another partisan endeavor and unlikely we will have democrats and republican who is either believe or don't believe kavanaugh, i don't think they
will be changed by anything the fbi says. the fbi is an impossible situation. >> do you have any thoughts on the conventional wisdom as to how this is going to be perceived. it would be friday, seven days after the investigation started. >> look, as has been the case throughout the entire kavanaugh confirmation process, it's the safe assumption that partisans on both sides are unlikely to be swayed by the results of this fbi investigation. kavanaugh has long been a figure who generates keep concern and opposition from progressives and democrats and other folks on the left. in the same way, he has ann incredibly large following in the white house. the audience for this fbi conclusion is an extremely tiny one. the people are senators jeff
flake, louisa mu-- lisa murkows and susan collins. even joe manchin. these are the four votes likely to decide whether or not he becomes a supreme court justice. regardless of where the four individuals come down, the results of this investigation are unlikely to do anything to mitigate the acrimony that unfolded in the wake of the allegations. >> you took the words out of my mouth about those four. exactly what i was going to say. thank you. questions about whether brett kavanaugh has the right temperament to be on the supreme court. erament to be on the supre court. peninsula trail? you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there. take this left.
if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one. ...if we listened more? could the right voice, the right set of words, bring us all just a little closer, get us to open up, even push us further? it could. if we took the time to listen. the most inspiring minds.
the most compelling stories. download audible. and listen for a change. opportunlike here.rywhere. download audible. 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. ♪ not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town.
energy lives here. breathe right strips are designed to simply when nighttime nasal congestion closes in, open your nose right back up. ♪ breathe better. sleep better. breathe right. pe"what is your nationality?"ent countries that we traveled- and i would always answer, "hispanic." so, when i got my ancestrydna results it was a shocker! i'm everything, i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder, what do i mark? because i'm everything. and i marked "other". discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com
the president is expressing confidence about brett kavanaugh's confirmation to the supreme court. >> i expect it's going to turn out very well for the judge. there never has been anybody looked at like judge kavanaugh. i think it's going to work out very well. >> charlie savage, m srksnbc contributor. is there any way we look at it, whether or not kavanaugh is
confirmed, the next juryist. why these comments? >> the supreme court is supposed to have an image of being above the partisan fray and it drives a lot of legitimacy and authority for the rulings and settling these highly fraught issues even if the gistisjustic not partisans. the comments by judge kavanaugh in angrily defending himself and portraying the attacks as revenge for bill and hill reclinton and the embrace by president trump and this is why i appointed him and you are seeing the guy i wanted, that threatens that image. if brett kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court court and we see a lot of 5-4 rulings on
contentious issues where democrats and republicans are on opposite sides, the image that he is arriving at the supreme court with as a result furious process is not going to help the supreme court maintain a sense of detachment from being another political arm. >> i'm curious about the inner workings of the supreme court as well. neal gorsuch, the newest guy, the other justices had to get used to him and they are in the process of working with him, but he has a funny sense of humor and they are working with that. how do you think the justices are viewing all this testimony? what do you think is precipitating the start of the new term tomorrow? >> so far the supreme court has taken very few, really none of the big major contentious cases this term.
you get the sense they are using the authority to decide which cases to take in an tearattempt turn down the temperature. i can imagine that chief justice robert who is has an institutionalist-minded approach to his job and trying to preserve the legitimacy of the court is cringing as he watches this unprecedented with all the fights we had going back to clarps t clarence thomas. he has to see it as damaging to the institution of the supreme court. i suspect that we will see them trying to turn the temperature down by staying out of the headlines as much as possible as the dust settles for a term or two. >> you talked about the mid-terms. if the democrats regain control of the house and or senate. >> jerry natler was saying we
are going to relitigate this if democrats gate subpoena power. they are going to do a proper veive i vetting the way they didn't. looking at the documents they did not obtain because they were relying on the national lawyer and not the national archives. >> what can that do if he is seated on the supreme court? >> if did lay the ground work for impeachment if there is perjury. it's exceedingly unlikely, but a way to keep the politics of this going over and satisfy the liberal base who thinks this is rigged. if democrats take the senate which is less likely, they will refuse to confirm trump appeal court judges and supreme court justices until the next presidential election and that will take a lot of pressure over
...that's why i've got the power of 1-2-3 medicines with trelegy. the only fda-approved 3-in-1 copd treatment. ♪ trelegy. the power of 1-2-3 ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 trelegy with trelegy and the power of 1-2-3, i'm breathing better. trelegy works 3 ways to... ...open airways,... ...keep them open... ...and reduce inflammation... ...for 24 hours of better breathing. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling,.. ...problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1-2-3. ♪ trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com.
start with 100% cleancheese? ingredients. like vermont white cheddar. then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be. with large debris and stuck-on dust, so shark invented duoclean, replacing the front wall with a rotating soft brush. while deep cleaning carpets, two brush rolls pick up large particles with ease, make quick work of stuck-on dust, giving hard floors a polished look,
i know that senator flake, collins and murkowski wanted a limited review. they wanted the fbi to talk to the witnesses that dr. ford named. they wanted them to talk to mr. ramirez. >> so julie swetnick will not be interviewed by the fbi? >> i think the accusations she names are outrageous. >> allegations looked into by the fbi investigation. republican strategist susan del persio and legal analyst. you're not at home today. you look in a different place altogether. >> on the road. >> how are you interpreting all this, howard? >> graham is trying the thing in
the press, which he should know better than that. it's a train wreck. it's a train wreck for the supreme court. 70% of the public thought the supreme court was nothing but a political body, and this is going to drive that number higher. i don't think it's going to look too great for the republicans, either, in the upcoming elections. it sounds like the fbi investigation may be compromised by the president. so it's a huge mess and it's not going to get better in the foreseeable future. >> do you, susan, think that democrats will have a valid reason to cast out on the entire investigation if swetnick is not interviewed? >> no, i think senator graham is right, the allegations made by her are far less credible than the other two allegations. and the fbi will continue to investigate those two, and yes, we say that the investigation is going to be limited in scope. but i also think we're going to see a lot more reporting. there are scores and scores of reporters out there, and if
there are valid claims out there or people substantiating -- or going against actually what judge kavanaugh said in testimony, those reports are going to be made. they are going to be made part of the public record. the fbi may not have to investigate them, but i think they will certainly consider including it in their overall review to the committee. >> the big worry i have is the testimony about kavanaugh's drinking. he lied under oath about his drinking, and there are a lot of people who say, including his roommate, who says it's just not true, he was a belligerent drunk. that matters what the fbi says about that, because that is what got him into the condition to attack ms. ford. >> howard, if they even get to speak to those, because nbc is reporting off the list that the fbi is interviewing, there are four on the list they are interviewing. off the list are other
classmates who countered kavanaugh's drinking. what happens -- how does the fbi interpret all of this if at the end of the seven weeks, there is nothing terribly substantive uncovered to further any testimony, credibility, affirmation from the fbi investigation? >> that says more about the fbi investigation than it does anything else. i mean, look, if you claim that you didn't drink too much and all this other stuff that kavanaugh was claiming and you have credible people who are saying publicly, oh, yes, you did, i roomed with you, i lived with you for a year and you were a drunk, if you don't investigate that, then kavanaugh, even if he gets confirmed, the support of the court will be tainted for a long time. you have two alleged sex offenders and a guy who got in there with a weight of abusive process. it's a question if this guy is appointed. >> susan, you wanted to jump in.
>> i was going to say let's not lose sight of what we're looking at. the majority of senators on the democratic side of the aisle were voting against kavanaugh. the majority of republicans were voting for kavanaugh. there are a few from each party that are on the fence. that's who this fbi investigation will either give cover for, meaning if there's nothing found then the republicans and maybe some of those democrats can vote and say, look, the fbi investigated, we're going to vote for him. or if they find negative things, it will allow them to vote against him. i'm thinking specifically about susan collins and senator murkowski. >> and flake and mansion. those are the four carrying it going forward. i want to say that joy reed interviewed a yalie, i guess she was a roommate of christine
ford's, and she said she saw brett kavanaugh drunk but never belligerent. this was a roommate of ramirez's. she saw him drink while there but not belligerent. brett kavanaugh on his part said, i was never belligerent as a drunk. is that threading the needle, howard? >> well, first of all, given the amount of belligerence that kavanaugh showed to the committee, i would be shocked if he wasn't belligerent when he's drunk. that's why you have to have an fbi investigation and put people like that under oath. >> susan, threading the needle too much? >> perhaps. when we start getting into the psychology of how much did he drink, the question will be does he have a proven behavior of either passing out and not recalling it, which would be hard, but if you could find people to confirm that, or if
there was any aggressive behavior of a sexual nature. that's what they'll really be looking at because part of a background investigation is to see if there were any claims filed against a student when you're looking them up, et cetera. more and more can come out. it's just -- i think it would be more done in the press than through the fbi. >> okay, howard, susan, we're going to call it a wrap right now, but you know we'll be talking about this all week long. good to see you guys. thank you. in the next hour, i will speak to senator ben cardin about trump's message at the united nations and his comments about kim jong-un just last night.
and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner.