Skip to main content

tv   Anderson Cooper 360  CNN  October 1, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
>> remind you of yourself? >> not one bit. >> reporter: exaggerated, sure. there's nothing canned about the laughter. cnn, new york. >> thank you so mump for joining us. ac 360 starts right now. good evening. thanks for joining us. another person has come forward saying that brett kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth when he said about his drinking habits. the backdrop is the clock that's ticking down on whether kavanaugh will be on the supreme court for life. cnn learned that see republican senators have called the white house over the past 24 hours to let it be known they expect a real investigation. the fbi agents are not limited in their expanded background investigation. that contradicts what chris
5:01 pm
coons said. he came away with the impression that fbi agents would not interview additional people beyond the witnesses that were actually listed by the white house. he said he told mcgahn that's not kredsabcredible. the reporting is the white house isn't limiting the investigation. meaning that fbi agents can and will find out that multiple people who knew brett kavanaugh say he wasn't truthful in his testimony to the senate judiciary committee. i mentioned another one has come forward. kavanaugh's former yale classmate says kavanaugh was staggering drunk and belligerent and aggressive. he made a statement a short time ago. here is part of what he said. >> i do not believe in heavy drinking or behavior of an 18 to 21-year-old. i would be a hypocrite to think so. however, i have direct repeated
5:02 pm
knowledge about brett's drinking, his disposition while drunk. i believe brett's actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. if he lied about his past actions on national television and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the united states senate, i believe those lies should have consequences. >> that former classmate says he thought it was his civic duty to come forward and he's been in contact with the fbi. it isn't just him. another classmate said that brett kavanaugh was a sloppy drink drunk. his freshman year roommate said he was a heavy drinker even by the standards of the time. he made the statement last monday before the kavanaugh hearing but after deborah ramirez. the most serious allegation comes from dr. christine blasey ford. the question isn't so much did brett kavanaugh drink a lot in high school and college but did he lie about it in front of the
5:03 pm
senate judiciary me. kaitlin collins asked the president about that. >> there's concerns he may have lied or mischaracteredize drinking while testifying. if they find he did, do you think that bars him from being your supreme court nominee? >> i watched him. i was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer. he's had a little bit of difficulty. i mean he talked about things that happened when he drank. this is not man that said alcohol was -- that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. i thought he was actually going back to so many years, i thought he was excellent. >> that's a mischaracterization of brett kavanaugh's testimony. he never said he had any difficulty with alcohol. the president did get one thing right. kavanaugh was vocal about how much he liked beer. he tried over and over to down play it to characterize it as
5:04 pm
the normal dripgi idrinking tha teenager do and in black out. >> i drank beer with my friends. sometimes i had too many. i liked beer. i still like beer. i did not drink beer to the point of black out. we drank beer. my friends and i, boys and girls. yes, we drank beer. i liked beer. still like beer. >> headline, he likes beer. no mention of having a quote, little bit of difficulty with alcohol. no mention of whether he drank any other kind of alcohol. the president went onto talk about senator blumenthal's mischaracterization in vietnam. accused cory booker of being a horrible mayor.
5:05 pm
what he didn't do. >> you didn't answer my question. if he did lie, does that mean you'll pull his --? >> i don't think he did. >> still didn't answer the question. the president may not think he lied. multiple people who knew brett kavanaugh are indicating he did just that. some senators tried to get to the issue of black out drinking. if you're black out drunk, you can't remember all of what you did. >> you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before or part of what happened? >> you're asking about black out. i don't know -- have you. >> could you answer the question, judge? that's not happened. is that your answer? >> i'm curious if you have. >> i have no drinking problem judge. >> more do i. >> the defensiveness and disrespect are not the issue although kavanaugh came back
5:06 pm
after break and apologized for that. the issue is potential lying. if he lied under oath, should he be on the supreme court. the president doesn't seem to think he lied. it won't be up to him to decide. it will be up to the senators. it's up to three undecided senators. senator lisa murkowski and senator jeff flake and susan collins. >> if judge kavanaugh shown to have lied to the committee, nomination is over? >> oh, yes. >> joining me now, cnn white house correspondent, kaitlin collins. two people have come forward to counter claims about the heavy drinking. >> reporter: two people who are also classmates at yale. that's what the other man who did say he saw judge kavanaugh drink so much, he believe he would have experienced memory losses.
5:07 pm
he said he lived with brett kavanaugh and he was his suite mate. he never saw him so drunk that he wouldn't have been able to remember something. they are saying these people who are saying they do believe he mislead congress when he testified under oath that he never blacked out or never drank that mump, they'ch, they're say know him better. they are openly admitting that. they are saying they didn't drunk drink as much. you saw the president saying brett kavanaugh described a drinking problem. that's not likely what brett kavanaugh took away from the testimony when he tried to down play and say he was doing what every one else in college was doing as well. >> do we know if the white house sees it as a real potential problem with the nomination?
5:08 pm
>> reporter: it does seems they are seeing it as a problem. president trump made clear he doesn't drink. he turned a question from me about whether or not he thinks it would be a problem if brett kavanaugh lied about drinking. he turned that into an answer about his own sobriety and if he did, could you imagine what it would be like. that wasn't a question or answer about whether they would pull his nomination if it's revealed he did lie. no one is saying that he committed this and did sexual assault christine blasey blasey ford. we know that's a vice for the president. he's not fan of people who drink. you saw the president there today. at first refusing to take questions on brett kavanaugh. making clear he starting to get frustrated with this entire process. not just with senate democrats who are raising questions but with mitch mcconnell and republicans because this is being so drawn out.
5:09 pm
he did leave some room today to potentially withdraw this nomination if it came down to it or distance himself from it if it does come to the point where people like senator susan collins, lisa murkowski show they aren't going vote for brett kavanaugh. >> appreciate it. thanks. there's another news story out there from kavanaugh's yale days about an altercation in a bartha was investigated by police. ben, walk us through your reporting. what you can tell us about this bar fight back in 1985. >> mr. kavanaugh was hanging out with friends at bar and it appeared the police were called after man got into an argument with had to go to the hospital because he was bleeding from the right ear. it appears mr. kavanaugh didn't cause that incident but he at one point did throw ice on that
5:10 pm
man was part of the larger skirm they were in. it was a eyewitness who was involved and they all seemed to be part of his group of friends from yale. >> my understanding is they were staring at this man at bar thinking he might be one of the performers from ub40, a band at the time. the person got annoyed and that's how this began? >> that's what we know chad is another yale student at the time and eyewitness to this. the police report didn't make clear the back stories. kind of instigation we can tell from the police report with mr. kavanaugh throwing ice on this person. that led to somebody else hitting him with the glass.
5:11 pm
>> hitting the man at the bar and not mr. kavanaugh. >> correct. >> someone in kavanaugh's group allegedly hit this person with a glass. >> that's correct. >> the glass hit him in the right here. the victim went to the hospital. >> is there any indication about alcohol being involved in this? >> it was a bar. >> report reflects that the detective was called around 1:20 a.m. it's unclear how much dpririnki was involved. it involved there was alcohol involved and the police report makes reference. >> it's hard to imagine hanging
5:12 pm
out at dimery's past midnight and you're not drinking. >> the glass that was thrown was a tall collins glass. mr. kavanaugh was throwing beer, not ice. definitely alcohol was involved in some way. >> has kavanaugh made any comment about this? >> we quacontacted the white ho a few hours ago. so far all we can get is he was not arrested and we're seeking additional comment. we're waiting to hear back from them. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. >> what do you make about this bar altercation he was questioned about? >> it's not proof in and of
5:13 pm
itself that either the kavanaugh did anything wrong at the time or he was drunk. it fits with a pattern of what several wntitnesses are saying he was around alcohol a lot when he was an undergraduate. that doesn't mean he lied about -- in his testimony before the judiciary committee but it also suggests that a thorough investigation of whether he lied would take some time. there will be people you'll want to identify and interview if you really care about whether he told the truth. >> support of the judge, i wondering does this bar incident concern you. others have said he was a sloppy drunk. >> he said if you listen carefully, you can almost see the goal post moving. first they said we need hearing. then they said we need the fbi
5:14 pm
to investigate. the fbi is investigating and now hay are trying to figure out can we do something else. it's getting really silly. we're talking about a friend of his hit someone in a bar 30 years ago and questioning now whether we should launch a whole new investigation into his testimony. his testimony was pretty clear. it's like i drank beer. >> do you believe a college kid only drinks beer? >> i don't think he only said beer. i have to idea. i didn't drink a lot in college. he never said he only drank beer either. it's getting a little ridiculous. how would this be really relevant? this is a desperation attempt from my perspective. there's these allegations. they are not corroborated. people are trying to drum up all sorts of other angle they can go
5:15 pm
here. that is simply not relevant. it's not contradicting his testimony. we need to stop the teams at delays. vote against him. this is getting a little ridiculous. >> jeff. >> i don't think it's ridiculous at all. you have a witness, the judge who says he did not commit sexual assault and he didn't drink all that much. now the question is -- s >> he said he drank too much t t times. >> i don't think what was said today that judge kavanaugh lied under oath. i don't think they are entirely contradictory. if you look at the statements that are out there, it suggests
5:16 pm
that more investigation is appropriate about whether sexual assaults took place and whether he lied about his drinking. none of which is proven. the fbi investigation has been going on for about 48 hour. he's going to serve for perhaps 48 years. why is it necessary to shut down the investigation right now? this idea that this is some horrendous delay and the supreme court can't function, you of all people who was wildly supportive of keeping the merritt garland seat open for a year, could understand maybe it's appropriate to spend some what more than a week on this investigation. >> it was not my idea to spend a week. it was senator coons who said can we get a week. you had democrats saying why will this take such a long time.
5:17 pm
immediately after he says fine, you have your week. oh, wait, a week is not nearly enough. you can't keep moving the goal post like this. it's let's look into the allegations that are out there. this is not suppose to be a government funded fishi ining expedition. you can't keep moving the target saying let's come up with new things. >> he has three women who accuse him of sexual assault. >> they are looking into those. >> perhaps it takes more than a week to investigate whether that's true. >> tell that to senator coons. >> in any kind of background investigation, they interview principal people and they ask those people is there anyone else we should talk to. in this case miss ramirez has given them a list of names of people who she says were there, who heard about it, who she told
5:18 pm
about it and should the fbi as part of this investigation or background investigation, should they only talk to miss ramirez or the names she's given to them. >> i'm sure they are talking to all of them. this member is a guy who passed six background checks. one of the specific things they look for is ask the people from every range in life including college and law school, the same periods we're talking about is this someone with substance abuse problems. i've answered these questions for people they asked me about doing background checks. this is what they ask. six different times he passed that. not just at the regular background check level. higher than top secret level. if he had some crazy history of alcoholism back there, my goodness sake, the fbi would have found out. >> to our knowledge the fbi didn't find out that a police report with his name on it was
5:19 pm
with the new haven police department. >> now they do. i think it shed too much light on it. his friend hit someone with a cup. a glass. that doesn't shed a lot of -- that's not something kavanaugh did. that's the whole point. >> professor ford had not come forward at that point for her own reasons. the fact that wasn't investigatinvestigat investigated -- sdinvestigat investigated. >> i'm not talking about ford. i think this is silly season here. >> appreciate it. good discussion. mu much more reahead. the story that seems be changing by the minute. the prosecutor hired by republicans to ask questions who was sidelined by the republicans when she started to ask judge kavanaugh questions.
5:20 pm
she has given a memo saying a reasonable prosecutor would not bring a case based on dr. ford's allegation. this place isn't for me. that last place was pretty nice. i don't like this whole thing. i think we can do better. change is hard. try to keep an open mind.
5:21 pm
come on, dad. this is for me, son? principal. we can help you plan for that. rewards me basically so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? or wearing a full-body wetsuit at this spa retreat? or sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse kevin? because lets me do me, right? sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. you do you and get rewarded. you're wearing a hat. that's funny.
5:22 pm
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. if these packs have the same number of bladder leak pads,
5:23 pm
i bet you think bigger is better. actually, it's bulkier. always discreet quickly turns liquid to gel, for drier protection that's a lot less bulky. always discreet. -of course, daniel. -fridge, weather. -clear skies and 75. -trash can, turn on the tv. -my pleasure. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered. -what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media. he'll be fine. -[ laughs ] -will he? -i don't know.
5:24 pm
the fate of brett kavanaugh depends on what the investigation finds orders by the white house. phil matingly joining me now  from capitol hill. what is the latest you're hearing from those key swing senator ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that.s ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that. ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that.o ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that.r ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that.ors about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that. about them? >> reporter: it's let fbi do its job. you heard that. i've been told multiple senators reached out to the white house.
5:25 pm
susan collins was in consultations with the white house about making sure there weren't limits on what the fbi can do. it's worth noting when the investigations were had on friday, focus was on first two accusers. not the third accused and represented by michael avenatti. the focus remains there today. the point has been what the fbi finds and what leads the fbi gets they should be allowed to pursue them. you hit on the key reason why this is so important. at this moment, even though mitch mcconnell said he plans to vote op bren brett kavanaugh th wek, they do not have the votes. what they take from the investigation will determine whether or not brett kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court. >> do we know who will find out what the fbi learns? will the entire senate be given the findings. obviously the no, ma'am medication has been voted out of conference, out of judiciary committee? >> reporter: this is a really important if technical point
5:26 pm
that will come to fore. this is a background investigation. this isn't a criminal investigation. there's a process. the white house orders it. the fbi does its interviews and review and sends that information back to the white house. the white house sends that to the senate. all 100 senators because it's a supreme court nomination will have access to that information. they will have to read nit in a private room. kit not be released publicly. only a limited number of staffers will have access. that raises a key question. how is the public or how are the senators going to be able to talk about what they find or what the fbi sends back. there's no answer to that question. senator john cornyn made clear somehow, some way that information will have to be made public if the form. that would be out of norm and that is still a question they don't have the answer to.
5:27 pm
some people will have to find out what the fbi has done. how that will come about, we don't have an answer to. first of all, as far as this new york times report is concerned, is alleged ice throwing something the fbi would look into for a supreme court nominee? >> if it's relevant to his pattern of behavior, it could be. i think it depends on what they see over the course of several interviews whether there's some recurring themes and they might want to go back and look at incidents. does this times report concern you at all or the other people
5:28 pm
to come forward. sdpr this is my view is what he did in collection if it was these kinds of antics and even will it be considered very bad behavior or if any teenagers are watching, don't do this. i think it would preclude him from being on the supreme court. i don't think it tells us anything about who he is today. the only reason any of this information cold be relevant is if you're looking at whether or not he perjured himself. whether or not he misrepresented who he was in terms of the drinking which he walks kind of fine line but he said i like beer and i had a few beers. you have a lot of people coming forward saying it's a little more than that. it was a little more than occasionally somebody who got out of control. i want to say a lot of people are talk about i never saw him black out. you don't see somebody black out. you don't know whether somebody blacked out or not. they know whether they are blacked out. the only way you would know is if they told you.
5:29 pm
i gez you never told them he didn't remember something the night before. that's a pretty remarkable memory. i can't tell you that about my friends in college or high school considering how much drinking was going on. >> michael, you heard judge kavanaugh say today not that life should be ruined. i don't think anybody would want that to be a blanket rule. dop you agree with that sentiment and do you think kavanaugh, there's a problem with his testimony based on what you heard from people coming forward. >> if i'm not wrong, i believe that judge kavanaugh in that former roommate didn't get along all that well. there may be a bit of a reason behind him stating this. i'm also struck by how this is probably going to be a full employment program for matt damon. now we're talking about a bar
5:30 pm
fight. i can see him reprising good will hunting. we're talking about college bar fieg and freshman drinking bouts with a former roommate that never got along with him. i think we should focus on his record. i know we're not going to do that. a week is enough. i think we should move on after that. >> i want to take a quick break and continue this discussion. more on the new fbi investigation and where it might lead. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain.
5:31 pm
and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. i never thought i'd say this but i found bladder leak underwear that's actually pretty. always discreet boutique. hidden inside is a super absorbent core that quickly turns liquid to gel. so i feel protected and pretty. always discreet boutique.
5:32 pm
so why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like... well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
as we heard, senator mitch mcconnell is saying the vote for brett kavanaugh will come some time this week. the new york times reports about an altercation he was involved in back at yale. when the fbi hear mitch mcconnell say we're voting on the nomination this week, do they have to adjust to meet that deadline or is fbi director the one they look to for guidance? who runs this? obviously it's run by the fbi but who is running it? >> i can assure you they are not paying attention to mitch mcconnell. they will take their direction from christopher wrey likely in this case given the level this is happening on. they have been give an deadline. they will do their best.
5:35 pm
when they come back on friday with number of interviews that they have done, if they cut them off at that point, those interviews are recorded on 302s. these are testimonial documents. they will put down what the interviews say. the there's loose ends, that will be clear to anyone who reads them. it's going to be clear there are additional leads, additional witnesses that were not pursued. it becomes a political question on how the senate wants to move forward if it's very clear the investigation is not complete. >> michael made the point before the break about we're talking about throwing ice at somebody 30 plus years ago. they should be focused on his record, his history as a judge. other republican who is say this is clearly now the people are trying to move the goal post. what started out as one thing, they oppose the nomination then there were the sexual assault
5:36 pm
allegations. now the focus is on drinking and whether or not he misrar mischaracterized his drinking 30 plus years ago. he has multiple sexual assault allegations against him. that's the most important thing is to get to the bottom of that to find out whether or not that happened. that's the most important thing for justice and also for brett kavanaugh is to have a real investigation to try to figure out what happened here as definitively as you can figure out what happened 35 years ago. the drinking what i was saying before, the drinking comes into it for a couple of reasons. one is because the allegation in both, at least in first two were that he, in all three he was drinking excessively. if he says i didn't drink excessively then it means if you have enough people saying i didn't drink excessively then maybe he wasn't the guy. that's why it's a factor and why anybody would be looking into these things. it's not that people think you can't be on the supreme court
5:37 pm
because you throw ice at somebody or you drank a lot in high school or college. i really don't know anybody who thinks that. >> do you think that should be what it boils down to? >> well, i'm not sure i agree this is all so important. what is important is i think the sper vi interviews with dr. ford and the witnesses, the people she said witnessed, i think rachel mitchell's report to the republican senators and the judiciary committee might be helpful to the fbi as they do this investigation. it's interesting how we're talking about drinking and what it the impact it has on jfustics and judges. the drinking i saw in washington when i worked there going on between congressmen and senators and the bar fights i saw in washington between staffers. if this was a disqualifier in washington, the united states
5:38 pm
capitol would be empty. >> i just got saying it wasn't a disqualifier. i don't know what you're responding to. >> nobody says it's a disqualifier. nobody said drinking now is a disqualifier. nobody says the drinking in college or drinking excessively in college or high school is a disqualifier. that's just not an argument anybody is making. >> let michael finance. >> what i'm saying here is focusing on this is waste of time. focusing on this would put a lot of people in duj in washington. those are serious allegations that need to be dealt with. >> appreciate it. thank you.
5:39 pm
michael mentioned a report from rachel miller. she was the prosecutor hired by senate republicans to question dr. ford and judge kavanaugh although they decided to not have her question judge kavanaugh when she began asking him questions. we'll have more on what her memo says and what two veteran sex crimes prosecutors think about it. machine why bother mastering something?
5:40 pm
because when you want to create an entirely new feeling, the difference between excellence and mastery, is all the difference in the world. introducing the all-new lexus es. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. a product of mastery. walking a dog can add thouswalking this many?our day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move. ♪ [ telephone ringing ] -whoa. [ indistinct talking ] -deductible? -definitely speaking insurance. -additional interest on umbrella policy? -can you translate? -damage minimization of civil commotion. -when insurance needs translating, get answers in plain english at ♪ -he wants you to sign karen's birthday card.
5:41 pm
it's a high honor. denybe but sworn my love,e thy name. or iand i'll... not, so she's telling romeo to ditch his parents and then she'll be his boo forever. oh. there are multiples on the table: one is cash, three are fha, one is .a so what can you do? she's saying a whole lotta people want to buy this house. but you got this! rocket mortgage by quicken loans makes the complex simple. understand the details and get approved in as few as 8 minutes by america's largest mortgage lender. ♪
5:42 pm
the kenya tea development agency is an organization that is owned by tea farmers. every week we sell this tea, we get paid in multiple accounts. we were looking for a bank to provide a safe and efficient technology platform to pay our farmers. citi was the only one that was able to ensure that this was done seamlessly. and today, at the touch of a button, all the farmers are able to get their money, pay school fees and improve their standard of living. with citi, we see a bright future for our farmers and their families. ♪
5:43 pm
. the prosecutor hired by senate republicans said no reasonable prosecutor would seek to bring charges against judge kavanaugh. she only asked a femaw question of judge kavanaugh before members took over. she cited inconsistencies given by ford. they conducted prosecutor training with rachel mitchell. >> mitchell says in her memo he said, she said cases incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. do you agree? >> i always trained there's no such thing as a he said, she
5:44 pm
said. it's your job as an investigator, as a prosecutor to find the information that supports one side or the other. there's so much more information that everybody has especially dr. ford then was listed at this very choppy five minute hearing. i think you need to sit down with her. when she says i have 100% certainty about recognizing him it's because she was with him on one, two, three, four, five. how about mark judge or the other guys in the room. >> you say mitchell conclusion in the memo are not the reasonable views of the prosecutor. can you explain why you have that opinion? >> i think when she says a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case as a criminal
5:45 pm
matter, i think she's right. i don't think the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. i don't think the interest of the justice would demand bringing it forward in that form. i agree with linda, i don't believe it's a he said, she said case. i don't believe that term belongs anywhere in prosecution. let me say i know rachel miller. i trained with her. she's a decent and honorable public servant. i'm distressed by this report. it seemed gratuitous. she states there's no clear standard as to what the senate committee would need to use. if that's the case then why comment on it further. when she goes onto say here's why i don't think these allegations are strong, frankly, the report ends up reading like a conclusion in search of a list of evidence of points to support it rather than a bunch of points
5:46 pm
leading up to a rational conclusion. >> what's interesting is she was disappeared from the testimony very quickly kwu lly once kavan testifying. she's reached a conclusion without able to question brett kavanaugh which she was supposed to be able to do but the male senators decided they would take over. does it surprise you that she would write this measurimo? >> it's very surprising. in the first four lines she says three time this is is my independent report. the word independent is ludicrous in light of the role she was there to play. she was a hired gun. he was not a prosecutor. she was not independent. you look to her questions. one of the things i thought was fascinating and i agree with everything roger said about the need to be creative in these investigations and dig deeper
5:47 pm
and talk to every one she put in that room about things outside of the night of that party. rachel got as far as asking him something about how much he drank. how much beer he drank. he said look at the blood alcohol chart. he kind of half laughed. nobody went back to that. as roger knows, as you may know from dwi cases, you can look at blood alcohol concentration charts and they will tell you how with each bit of beer or alcohol as you get more intoxicated different things happen including getting more aggressive and alcoholic blackouts which i think are a big part of this. sdpr maybe >> maybe i missed it. he said it was beer. i find to believe there wasn't other forms of alcohol involved. >> i thought the same thing. >> nobody asked that. >> nobody asked that at all. >> people just went with he really likes beer and did he drink too much beer and did beer
5:48 pm
make you pass out. >> there's a lot more options especially at that time for those students. >> one thing i always like to stress, the difference between passing out. he says i sometimes fell asleep. that goes to passing out. there's a medical term. that means you keep walking, talking, bridrinking. you can have sex, you can drive a car. you just don't remember. the camera function in the brain stops recording. >> mitchell focuses on ford saying she had a fear of flying yet was able to fly to washington. she told her husband she had been the victim of a sexual assault where she told the washington post she was the victim of physical abuse. are those inconsistencies red flags to you? >> no. they are inconsistencies that
5:49 pm
are distinctions without a difference and they are explainable. any competent prosecutor, i know rachel can do this too. it's natural for human beings to basic press a description of events from one time to the next. the attack that ford describes involved both physical abuse and a sexual component. i'm not sure why mitchell made so much of that. it doesn't make any sense to me. in 20 years of doing this, prosecuting cases i've never witnessed a victim who sounded more compelling than she did. >> thank you so much for being here. appreciate both well, this evening, democrats on the judiciary responded to the mitchell report. mitchell's claim that dr. ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened and was, quote, not rooted in fact, senator feinstein disputed the claim. want to check in with chris and
5:50 pm
what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. >> mitchell isn't the only former prosecutor to say that professor ford's case would be tough to bring. not just because of the time. there's no statute in maryland for that type of crime. she's no unique in that respect. but tonight we'll take a look at this question that's now vexing the nation. when does credibility account. as you remember, anderson, i've been hot on this since the beginning of this. i've felt that the allegations would always be unsatisfying in that setting. that's why the process was something that deserves scrutiny. and not what was said about kavanaugh, but what he said about himself was always going to be the biggest test, and now he's been tripped up by that, it would seem. we have players. chad luddington, the latest friend. he gave a press conference today. he has his first tv interview here tonight. >> great. >> we had two other women on last week who knew kavanaugh. they didn't hate kavanaugh. they knew kavanaugh in college. but they had a very different
5:51 pm
reckoning of his habits that he offered up to all of us in the senate. when does it matter, when does it not? and how come, quickly, sorry, we haven't heard whether the third allegation from miss swetnick is being heard from the fbi? is she hurt from a credibility standpoint? is she unbelievable? her lawyer, michael avenatti, is here to be tested. >> look forward to that in about nine minutes. up next on "360," why a group of people living nearly 4,000 miles from washington in a remote village in alaska could be a key role in whether brett kavanaugh is actually confirmed to the u.s. supreme court. we'll explain, with ahead. so why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like...
5:52 pm
well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless.
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
. well, the fate of brett kavanaugh's nominations to the supreme court could come down to just a handful of senators, obviously, who are currently undecided. among them, as we've pointed out, is republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska. she shown her independent spirit
5:56 pm
before, voting against the republican plan to repeal obamacare last year. the gop not only wants her support this time, they certainly need it, but murkowski is facing pressure back home. the details now from our gary tuchman who traveled to a remote area in alaska to hear some people's concerns. >> reporter: katherine martin is an indigenous alaska, a member of the ma taska traditional council. and while she and about 100 other nates in this village may be far out in the alaskan wilderness, they are all in on the debate happening in washington. how many of you want to see judge brett kavanaugh be confirmed and end up on the supreme court? who doesn't? all of you. >> yes. >> yes. >> reporter: there are tens of thousands of indigenous people who live in alaska and past senate elections they have voted overwhelmingly for lisa murkowski, whose vote is key in determining if brett kavanaugh ammunition it to the supreme court. everyone we talked to in this village strongly supports murkowski, because, they say,
5:57 pm
she understands their way of life and challenges. >> we're experiencing rates of sexual abuse and domestic violence at higher rates than anywhere else in the country. and our senator, lisa murkowski, she knows that. >> reporter: so there is great sympathy for christine blasey ford among many in the native community and among everyone we talked to in this remote village. >> as a survivor of sexual abuse, i think it takes years for people to come out with this. you know, some victims, as some victims come out with it immediately, but i think that some victims, it takes them a while before they're able to talk about it. and i think this is what happened with this lady. >> i think he is against women's rights and including native rights. >> reporter: and that's the other huge issue working against kavanaugh, and likely weighing on senator murkowski's mind, native rights. in a case that went to the u.s. supreme court, kavanaugh questioned whether the constitutional protecions given to native american tribes should also be given to native
5:58 pm
hawaiians. people here think that bodes poorly for them. >> how concerned are you that native alaskans' rights could be taken away if brett kavanaugh ends up on the supreme court? >> very concerned. it's our way of life. >> reporter: alaskan natives considering themselves a modest people. but many of them are not particularly modest about the political influence they believe they hold, which they think senator lisa murkowski needs to keep in mind. just last week, indigenous alaskans were arrested, while protesting outside the washington, d.c. office of alaska's eother u.s. senator, dn sullivan. nobody expects sullivan to vote against kavanaugh, but the message for alaska's other senator is loud and clear. >> so if lisa murkowski votes ultimately to confirm kavanaugh to the supreme court, what will your thoughts be about lisa murkowski? >> she won't have my support in the future. >> reporter: how do you feel about that? >> she won't have my full support, either. >> what about you? >> i wouldn't -- i would not write her name or put a check
5:59 pm
marc by her name. >> reporter: would any of you still vote for lisa murkowski? >> no. >> no. >> reporter: no. so you're counting on her to vote "no." >> yes. >> reporter: on kavanaugh. >> yes. >> reporter: and would you be surprised if she did vote "yes"? >> very. >> and gary joins me now. is there a steense if murkowski has given her constituents to any indication of how she might vote? >> reporter: the people we talked to in that village have faith that she will vote their way, but certainly don't know for sure. today on capitol hill, the senator talked to some reporters and they said, quote, the fbi needs to be free to do its job as strethe investigating body. but that doesn't tell us very much, nearly as much as something she said last week and something that could be very notable. it was a local reporter with alaska public media who was talking to the senator in washington about the me too movement and she asked the senator, have you ever had a me too moment? and the senator said "yes," but did not elaborate. and that could prove to be significant. >> all right.
6:00 pm
gary, thanks very much. a reminder, don't miss "full circle," our daily interactive newscast on facebook. you get to pick some of the stories we cover. you can see it weeknights 6:25 p.m. eastern on facebook/andersoncooperfull circle. let's head it over to chris. he has a lot ahead. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo and welcome to prime-time. tonight, we have the players for you. the yale classmate who came forward just today. he's here for his first tv interview. we have had the first tv interviews with several who say they can attest to kavanaugh's behavior in school. why? because i think his habits are disqualifying. of course not. because from the beginning, check it, i have thought the ford testimony would prove unsatisfying as a matter of establishing facts in that segt. and that the bigger test would be how kavanaugh portrayed himself. and now the media is fixated on that. and we have two people at the center of that fixation. chad luddingt