civility back to the white house. i'm voting because i feel as though we need a real change and to make america really great again. >> well, will you be voting for the first time in november? post a video to instagram telling us what is motivating you to vote for the first time. use the #whyivotecnn for a chance to be featured on the show as well as cnn's instagram. >> very good tuesday morning to you. i'm jim sciutto. >> i'm poppy harlow. we're so glad you're with us. it's the top of the hour and we're on the top stories. so many witnesses, so little time. the finish line is in sight for the newly reopened background probe of judge kavanaugh, the top senate republican who is also kavanaugh's top booster said floor votes will get under way this week, regardless of where this probe goes. it's going to happen this week. >> in the meantime, agents from the fbi security division have virtual carte blanche from the white house to do interviews,

any interviews they deem necessary. and a group of senate democrats has offered up a list now of almost two dozen people who may shed light on allegations of kavanaugh's sexual misconduct and drinking habits from the 1980s. to the latter point, a new haven, connecticut, police report from 1985 documents a bar fight that a witness says was started by and allegedly drunk brett kavanaugh. all of this brings us to abby phillip at the white house where you expect her to be. so you have a lengthening list of requested witnesses here. is it your understanding that the fbi is going to get to all these witnesses and that the white house is giving them free reign to do so? >> it's not exactly clear that that's the case, jim. the president yesterday said that he would allow the fbi to do whatever senate republicans thought they ought to do. and we already know some of the witnesses that the fbi has interviewed, four of them, two of them include one of the accusers of kavanaugh, who says he was engaged in some sexual misconduct while in college, as

well as mark judge, who is a friend from high school, who was a part of the ford incident. but there's a big question about how much this drinking issue, about what kavanaugh's drinking habits were when he was younger, is part of the ongoing investigation that we are in right now. now, deborah ramirez, one of the accusers. gave the fbi a longer list of about a dozen people they could speak to. senate democrats have their own list of about almost two dozen other additional names. but we're also hearing from friends of kavanaugh's from high school and college who are disputing kavanaugh's characterization of his drinking habits. the white house is responding to that by producing their own character witnesses for kavanaugh. they released two statements from his college friends disputing he was a heavy drinker. so we're still having this fight in public, and we're not sure exactly how much of this the fbi is looking into. meantime, later today, president trump is going to have a campaign rally, so i'm sure we'll hear more from him on this and other issues as well later

tonight. jim and poppy. >> okay, abby, thanks for the reporting. let's go to our chief political correspondent, dana bash, who got up bright and early for us. >> anything for you, jim and poppy. >> what are you hearing? you're so tapped in to all of these senators. what are you hearing from republican senators who are calling the white house? what do they want and what do you think they're going to get in terms of how wide and broad this probe goes? >> i heard something this morning that you don't normally hear from this group of republicans who are holding the key here, because susan collins, lisa murkowski, and jeff flake, jeff flake in particular, have been among the most vocal in their opposition to things that the president does. in their party. and yet, what i'm hearing this morning is that they liked what they heard from the president yesterday. that he more than anyone else who has kind of been leading the charge on this question about c kavanaugh and how far the fbi investigation should go, said the right things about allowing the investigation, the background check, to go where it

goes. to follow the leads. and that is the concern that i, again, am hearing this morning, that i reported yesterday that the initial hope among republican senators who very much support kavanaugh, was that this background check could be done by today. and among these three key republicans, the hope is it is not done by today. because this is not a court of law. we said this so many times. this is not, you know, this is not a typical investigation that leads to a potential prosecution. this is about public perception, and the concern, at least among the top aides to one of these republicans, is that if we follow the public perception, if this investigation is done in two days, then that doesn't look like it was done in a very thorough way. >> right. listen, at the end of the day, at the end of the week, i should say, senators -- swing vote senators here are going to be faced effectively with the same

decision they were faced with last week, with more information probably, but not conclusive information. and it gets to this key question of whether they believe that liberal drinking habits, whatever you want to call it, from the high school and college years, and whether they have heard enough to believe dr. ford's allegation, whether those things are disqualifying. are you hearing from those swing voters any indication of where they're going to end up? >> no, because they are really keeping their powder dry on that issue until they see whatever information the fbi turned up. quite honestly, my sense is that they don't know how they're going to weigh those questions about drinking. they don't know how they're going to weigh those questions about drinking and how they may or may not contradict what kavanaugh himself said in the hearing because that is obviously the big question. that's why we care. >> dana, stay with us. we're are going to jump to mitch mcconnell. he's speaking about this on the

senate floor. >> the context for every action the democrats have taken during this entire process. these statements remind us democrats may be trying to move the goalpost every five minutes, but their goal has not moved an inch. they will not be satisfied unless they have brought down judge kavanaugh's nomination. it started with straightforward political maneuvering, none of it worked, of course. but whatever excuses they could find to delay, delay, delay. first back in june, the democrats tried to argue the supreme court shouldn't confirm -- democrats tried to argue the senate shouldn't confirm a supreme court justice in any even numbered year, any even numbered year.

then they were reminded that justice kagan, breyer, and suitor will elected in even numbered years and that argument evaporated. next, they said they should be delaid because time-out few documents were available from kavanaugh's past public service. then they received the most pages of documents ever produced for a supreme court nomination, so guess what came next? the goalpost moved down the field and the democrats called for delay because there were too many documents for them to read. i wish this fight could have remained in the realm of normalcy, but when none of these tactics worked, once judge kavanaugh demonstrated his brilliance, open mindedness and collegiality at his confirmation hearings, some chose a darker road. the politics of personal destruction were willfully

unleashed. i have spoken at length about the underhanded way senate democrats have treated dr. ford and her allegation. in brief, for six weeks, dr. ford's confidential account passed from one democratic member of congress to the democratic side of the judiciary committee to the washington, d.c. lawyers that senate democrats hand-picked for her. then well after judge kavanaugh's hearings wrapped up, the supposedly confidential letter found its way into the press. shoving aside proper procedure, shoving aside the accuser's plea for privacy, this, madam president, is not politics as usual. because let us not forget, dr. ford's allegation is not the only uncorroborated allegation that has been breathlessly, breathless l lly paraded around. oh, no. shortly after the letter made its way to the press, inthe

floodgates of mud and muck opened entirely on judge kavanaugh and his family. out of the woodwork came one uncorroborated allegation after another, each seemingly more outlandish than the last. a tabloid lawyer organized a red carpet rollout for someone who wanted to accuse judge kavanaugh of masterminding some kind of high school drug and serial sexual assault ring. hosting one wild party after another, filled with sexual violence, for which there conveniently happened to be zero witnesses. zero witnesses. but plenty of people to refute the claims. it didn't say in the tabloids, by the way, this fantastic story was read into the record of the judiciary committee by the ranking member, who decided it deserved a mention in her remarks during last thursday's

hearing. and every democratic member of the judiciary committee seized on this outlandish tale in a formal letter in which they called on judge kavanaugh to withdraw his name from consideration. this is how desperate some became for any way to stop this stunningly qualified nominee. i guess upholding any standards of any kind was just too much to ask. we heard another anonymous, unattributed and now thoroughly debunked account. this time, an anonymous accusation from colorado, alleged physical abuse 20 years ago. a sitting federal district judge quickly stepped up to bat down that anonymous smear. we heard that judge kavanaugh was supposedly responsible for a sexual assault on a boat in newport, rhode island. until the accuser recanted the

story completely but not before many in the media had begun eating it up. in short, democrats mishandling of dr. ford's letter opened the floodgates for this deluge of uncorroborated, unbelievable mud. and the mudslide was cheered on and capitalized on at every turn by the far left that has been so eager to stop this nomination. just politics? i don't think so. and on the other extreme, some of the other lines of attack have been completely trivial. last night, "the new york times" unleashed this major story. get this. judge kavanaugh may have been accused of throwing some ice across a college bar in the

mid-1980s. talk about a bombshell. one can only imagine what new bombshell might be published today or tomorrow. but here's what we know, madam president. one thing for sure. the senate will vote on judge kavanaugh here on this floor this week. here on this floor this week. our democratic friends will try to move the goalpost yet again. just yesterday, they submitted a list of 24 people whom they wanted the fbi to interview. so i'm confident we'll hear that even the very same supplemental fbi investigation democrats had so loudly demanded is now magically no longer sufficient. well, after the fbi shares what

they found, senators will have the opportunity to vote. we'll have the opportunity to vote no on the politics of personal destruction. we'll have the opportunity to vote yes on this fine nominee. now, madam president, on an entirely different matter, the u.s. economy continues to deliver very good news. my home state of kentucky is certainly no exception. yesterday morning, i had the opportunity to take part in the announcement of a major new investment in my hometown, louisville. ge appliance, appliances -- >> the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell there, piping in on the kavanaugh investigation, saying, accusing democrats they will not be satisfied up till they have brought down kavanaugh's nomination. also, accuses them of perpetuating the politics of

personal destruction, a familiar phrase from the clinton days. dana bash is still with us. dana, as you listen to the majority leader there, what did it tell you about the republican strategy this week? >> a couple things. number one, he's talking about the democrats. and blaming them for moving the goalpost, but also more importantly, going through, as he has pretty much every day since this has been an issue, mishandled the ford allegations. that is -- seems to me, aimed at trying to anger the constituents, the republican constituents of those three key republican senators, and make them call the offices and cry foul. it doesn't appear to me that that could work, given where those three republican senators are right now. but he's also got a republican base that he has to manage. that he has to keep energized, as you said, five weeks before the midterms. the other thing about moving the

goalposts that democrats are going to say at the end of the week, we didn't have a long enough fbi investigation. that's true. we know that's going to happen. but again, the democrats aren't the issue here. it's those three republican senators who i am told are going to, until the very last minute that they can, work together as a block, because as a block, they have unlimited leverage because if they stick together on the process of the fbi investigation and what they expect, then mitch mcconnell does not have the votes. period. end of story. so that is why we're keeping an eye on them. he did say we're going to have the vote by the end of the week, but if the fbi report doesn't come back until friday, let's say, it's hard to imagine someone like susan collins, for example, saying okay, i'm going to read this report in 20 minutes and i'll be ready to vote. so he's doing what he has to do as a leader, as the manager of the expectations and the desires

of the republican base. but there's also a reality going on separately that he understands that he has to deal with. and that is he doesn't have the votes and he's got to deal with these republicans who understand their leverage and are using it to the nth degree. >> quickly before you go, we heard lindsey graham, a few other republican senators calling on dianne feinstein and her office to be investigated for the leak of this -- dr. ford's letter, et cetera. she came out with an ardent defense yesterday of the dates and the timeline of how this all happened. how are republican senators suggesting and what entity investigate feinstein's office for this and for what alleged wrongdoing or crime, if you will? >> well, it's interesting because on the one hand, republican senators, including lindsey graham, who have been the most critical of this process, are defending dianne feinstein. publicly and privately saying that they genuinely don't think it was her that leaked this, that she did what she thought was right and she reiterated it

in a statement yesterday. she was asked by professor ford to keep this private, and she did that until it was no longer private. but on the flip side, they are saying that there should be an investigation by the fbi into who did leak the information because the argument that they're making is that it could happen to their party as well some time down the road. >> understood. thank you for all the reporting. let's jump back to the senate floor. senate minority leader chuck schumer. >> to get an honest report out of the fbi. what a double standard. how galling. accusing democrats of needlessly delaying a supreme court nomination is galling, is hypocritical. coming from a leader who delayed the nomination of a supreme court justice for over 300 days until his party had a chance to win the white house. so no one, no american should

accept his admonishments about delay. he's the master of delay. and second, he blames democrats for these delays. well, as the leader well knows, democrats are not in charge. we can't set the calendar. these things have been delayed because people on his side of the aisle, who had sincere concerns about having a fair process, said they won't go forward unless the process is made fairer. even the initial hearing where dr. ford and judge kavanaugh testified was because a member of the judiciary committee on the republican side said he didn't want to go forward until he heard from them. nothing to do with democrats. did we agree that should happen? of course. so did most people who are fair-minded. but it wasn't caused by us. and then, this fbi reopening of

the fbi investigation into these new allegations. background check investigation. who caused that? who caused this delay? i would ask leader mcconnell. not the democrats. we don't have the ability to do it. it was three members on his side who sincerely were seeking better truth because they heard two arguments and they weren't sure which was right, and they saw that without some kind of independent investigation it would tear the american people pay a price years down the road, no matter what the outcome of the vote on judge kavanaugh. so democrats didn't cause these delays and he knows it. it was the inability of all the republicans to be unified with justification because the truth should be sought after in a more sincere way for a nomination to the highest court of the land.

leader mcconnell has said we're going to plow right through the recent allegations. fortunately, some members on his side of the aisle didn't want to plow right through. they didn't want to delay unnecessarily one week. give me a break. compared to ten months. leaving the scalia seat open. who are we kidding? who are we kidding? who is making this a political argument? let's ask. and one final point. the leader kept accusing the people who came forward of political smear campaigns, of being in the mud. i want to ask the leader to answer a direct question. does he believe or not believe dr. ford? yes or no. i happen to believe her. he refuses to answer that. one way or the other, because he knows that dr. ford had tremendous credibility. instead, he calls her names. he uses it as democrats, but she

came forward on her own, and by the way, one of the first things she did was call "the washington post" and spoke to the reporter who later wrote the story. that was long before any democrat knew what was going on. she felt a sincere need to come forward. to call her political, which is what by ricochet the leader is doing, is so unfair. is so wrong. to call all three of these women who came forward, whether you believe them or not, as political actors, is treating women in the same way that unfortunately too many women, as we have learned over it last few years, have been treated in the past. that doesn't mean allegations shouldn't be proven. that doesn't mean there should be a discreet, fair process to try to get to the bottom of it, which is what the fbi investigation is. that doesn't mean all men are guilty before proven innocent.

it means there deserves to be a fair hearing. even if it takes one week. one week compared to the ten months of delay. and finally, madam president, the investigation itself, it should only take a week. that's for sure. no democrat has called for it taking more than a week. we are not moving the goalposts back. but it should be thorough. it should not be limited by the senate judiciary staff, who was initially calling the shots. and they have been biased to begin with. when the democratic staff asked to be on the phone with the counsel to the president, mr. mcgahn, the republican staff refused. that's not bipartisan. that's not fair. that's not even-handed. but fortunately yesterday, the president said the fbi should go forward. they can interview many people

in a week. when there's a crime situation that calls for it, a terrorism situation that calls for it, from what i understand, they have interviewed hundreds in a week. so a list of 20 people to be interviewed in a week when the fbi has thousands of agents, many of them well trained in the art of figuring out how to interview somebody, is not unreasonable. it's only fair. and we hope that there are still no limitations on the fbi investigation. we hope that there are no limitations, because that will jaundice the whole process, and that is not what those who called for it on either side of the aisle that asked for it, that asked for it to be full and fair and open, and then everyone will make his or her judgment. that's all people are asking for. finally, madam president, so on that issue, i call on president trump and the white house once

again to release in writing what white house counsel don mcgahn has instructed the fbi to pursue. until then, we have to take president trump's off the cuff comments with perhaps grains of salt. we have to be shown that what he said is actually being implemented. now, let me read you a few quotes. the supreme court must never, never be viewed as a partisan institution. that's judge kavanaugh, his 2006 confirmation hearings. here's one more from a speech judge kavanaugh gave in 2015. first and most obviously, a judge cannot be a political partisan. i think most americans would agree with that. i certainly do. a lodestar in our consideration of judicial confirmations should be whether a nominee is independent and within the idealogical mainstream. the judge kavanaugh we saw last

thursday did not meet the standard laid out in his past statements. his prepared statement to the committee, prepared, if you will, malice aforethought, accused sitting u.s. senators of a phony smear campaign lambasted, quote, left-wing opposition groups and portrayed the recent allegations, the allegations of dr. ford, ms. ramirez, the third person who came forward, ms. swetnick. he portrayed those as revenge on behalf of the clintons. frankly, judge kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for fox news than a confirmation hearing for the august united states supreme court. but that's in character with judge kavanaugh's long history of working for the most partisan legal causes.

ken starr, bush v. gore, all the myriad controversies of the bush era. it would be one thing if judge kavanaugh discarded his partisan feelings once he donned the black robes of the jurist. unfortunately, he's been on the bench for many years, and to thursday's hearing revealed his bitter partisan resentments still lurk right below the surface. it should give us all pause to consider what it means to elevate such a partisan world view to the supreme court, whether it be a democrat or a republican partisan view. when rulings must be made on the legal merits, not, not on the side of the aisle which most benefits. and then the greatest issue against judge kavanaugh. the one that really bothers most people, his credibility. is he telling the truth? that issue supersedes all the others. there may be some who say, well,

what happened in high school shouldn't count. it's many years later. people grow, people change. now, i think what happened to dr. ford, and she seems credible to me, is something you can't forget. it's not what men do. but some may say that. but we are looking at what judge kavanaugh says at age 53, not what he did at age 18. we are looking at his credibility now as a grown adult. and if you believe dr. ford, then judge kavanaugh is not telling the truth. and if this were the only instance, it would be one thing. bad enough, but there are many more. over and over again, it's hard to believe what judge kavanaugh

swore under oath at the committee hearing to say. just yesterday, nbc news reported that either judge kavanaugh or people close to the judge were in communication with his yale classmates to get them to rebut allegations by deborah ramirez later published in "the new yorker." beyond the unseemliness of a federal judge pressuring former classmates to support his nomination, it seems that judge kavanaugh was at least very misleading to the judiciary committee about ms. ramirez's story. when asked by senator hatch when he first heard of ramirez's allegations, he answered, quote, in "the new yorker" story, first heard based on the nbc reports, if they're correct, that was not truthful. and it would be one thing if that were one isolated incident. but again, there are fortoo many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many

mischaracterizations. he pled ignorance to many bush era controversies only for e-mails to be released showing he was aware of them all. and played a role in many. he offered explanation for high school yearbook quotes, and it's not the quotes themselves or what they indicated. it's his explanations sort of defy belief. and, of course, based on the accounts by his high school and college classmates, he's grossly mischaracterized his relationship with alcohol. a common thread, judge kavanaugh repeatedly tip-toes around the truth, doesn't tell the truth in many instances, it seems, to paint his nomination in a favorable light. we want a supreme court nominee, whatever their politics, whatever their party origins, to be a shining example of someone who tells the truth without

doubt, without equivocation. if you say, well, maybe he's telling the truth, and maybe he's not, he doesn't belong on the supreme court. and i think most americans are saying that. again, even if you want to discount, as some people do, what happened when he was 15 in high school and 18 in college, you cannot discount what he is saying and professing at age 53 when it flies in the face of being truthful. that's the key question here. there is demeanor. he sure didn't show the demeaner of a judge at the hearing. there is partisanship. he brought out the most raw form of partisanship, so unbecoming of someone on the district court. federal appeals court, let alone the supreme court.

and he did not show any semblance to always being 100% honest and truthful, which is what we need in a supreme court justice. so again, even if you feel that what happened when he was 15 and 18 shouldn't matter, what happens when he's 53 does matter. and his credibility is in real doubt. doubt enough, i think, for most americans to say this man does not belong on the supreme court. there ought to be somebody, many people, who would be a whole lot better. i yield the floor. >> all right. there you have two very different points of view on judge kavanaugh's nomination from the senate majority leader and the senate minority leader. partisan politics, a huge part of all this. let's get down to the facts. we have just gotten in as we were listening to those two

representatives of the american people, those two senators, the lawyer from mark judge, the man who dr. ford says was in the room when she was allegedly attacked, he's finished his interview with the fbi. that is what his lawyer says. and that's a very significant interview because, remember, he wrote that letter and signed it, but said i have nothing further to add. what has he told fbi investigators? >> the other news, we talked a bit this morning about a bar altercation that kavanaugh took part in. there was a police report. >> 1985. >> 1985. we have now learned that a friend of kavanaugh's, chris dudley, who became an nba basketball player, he was arrested in the fight. kavanaugh was not, but perhaps it speaks to how serious that was. >> we just heard ellie honing joining us, a former federal prosecutor, and also former fbi criminal director, chris sweker. ellie, we just heard, it seemed to indicate the democrats are shifting the argument away from what may have happened at age 17

with judge kavanaugh to the credibility of him now and the testimony that he gave under oath on thursday. he said his credibility is in doubt at age 53. are you sensing a shift in the tone here and the argument from the democrats on this? >> i think both of those things matter. i think it matters what his credibility is now at age 53 and it matters very much what he did and how he acted back at the time of the attack alleged by dr. ford. we heard senator mcconnell before that sort of dismiss the inquiry into the drinking and fighting as trivial attacks. i disagree. these are not trivial. the way that kavanaugh and judge conducted themselves, drank, behaved, is central to doctor ford's allegation. she says they were both very drunk when it happened. it's central to kavanaugh's defense u baz if he was drunk to the sense of meaningless, that matters. this is why we have an investigation. we need to know how serious.

was it an ice throwing incident or did someone get arrested. >> the other issue here is the truthfulness of kavanaugh's testimony, his description of his behavior in college, high school. et cetera here. let's be purely in terms of a background investigation. if you're doing a background investigation, and you interview the nominee, and then you interview others about same instances, behaviors, et cetera, if there's a contradiction there, evidence that the nominee lied about those, is that typically relevant in a background investigation? is that something that the fbi would cite when it reports back to the white house or whoever else has nominated this person for federal office? >> yeah, certainly character and truth and reputation for truth and veracity is a central focus of a background investigation, a special inquiry, which is what this is, not an fbi investigation. it is a spin. so they're going to go talk to people. they're going to report what they heard. they're going to report the records they have searched that

may corroborate or contradict. they're going to report all of this, and the reader, the senate and the president, are going to have to decide who's telling the truth and what the credibility is. that's not the purview of a background investigation. they're not going to make credibility determinations. they're going to let the facts and statements speak for themselves. in some cases, they may be ambiguous. details are incredibly important in this type of scenario. and fresh, unstepped on statements from witnesses who haven't had a chance to coordinate with each other and have not heard each other's statements is important. >> that's the point right there, the fbi investigate it, they say this is what we got. and again, it's up to the senators to make the final decision. thanks very much. still to come, we're five weeks from the midterm elections. new polls show races, very key races, tightening for several inki

incumbent senators and the senate hangs in the balance. >> also, the biggest, most significant data breach in facebook's history. the social media giant now has to face questions from lawmakers about it, and the real question is, what are regulators going to do about this, if anything, ahead. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

new ensure max protein. but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be. this is truecar.

welcome back. there is new reporting this morning that president trump sought a restraining order to keep stormy daniels from publicly talking about her alleged affair with him. >> the timing of this matters. let's bring in cara skinel. the "wall street journal" broke the story and what they're saying is this was in february. so that would have been months before the president's now famous remarks denying knowing anything about the stormy daniels payments, that was in april, on air force one. what is the significant of the timing? >> the "wall street journal" is reporting president trump was personally involved in an effort to try to stop stormy daniels from bogue public with her story

about an alleged affair with trump back in february. that was february. what the journal is saying is that trump called michael cohen, his then personal attorney and had him get his son, eric trump, involved in this effort to seek an arbitration to silence stormy daniels. this is the first time we have ever heard eric trump surface in anything involving trump's legal issues, personal ones such as stormy daniels, or the mueller investigation. they were put in place of the trump organization when the president became the president. and he had to cede control of his business or at least partially cede control of it. the timing here is interesting because we have stormy daniels wanting to go public in february with this allegation of the affair. this is when michael cohen gets involved with directing eric trump to become involved in this. and michael cohen says at the time that he was the one who made the payment, that it was personal, but in april, donald trump denied having any

knowledge of this payment. >> did you know about the $130 payment to stormy daniels? >> no. no. >> why did michael cohen make it? >> you have to ask michael cohen. michael is my attorney, and you'll have to ask michael cohen. >> do you know where he got the money to make that payment? >> i don't know, no. >> so there we have trump denying that he knew anything about this payment, and according to the journal, trump two months earlier was involved in directing cohen and his son eric trump to try to seek an arbitration to silence stormy daniels. so poppy, jim, we now see that the president did know about this in advance, and michael cohen pled guilty in august, he said he had paid stormy daniels at the direction of the president. >> right. all important points. cara, thank you for the reporting. >> the president was also being misleading because later he denied michael cohen worked for him much. minimizing his role.

there, he confirmed he worked for him for years. >> new cnn polls show two crucial senate races are neck and neck with five weeks untidmidterms and the control of the senate hanging in the balance. we'll discuss that next. a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending!

each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer.

this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray. after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today.

all right, count them. how many weeks, jim? >> five weeks. >> five weeks until the

midterms. we have new cnn polling. two u.s. senators in very close re-election bids. we're talking about missouri where the incumbent democrat, only three points up against republican contender josh holly, and also nevada. >> republican dean heller down four points to democratic challenger jacky rosen. let's discuss what it all means. politics senior writer harry, both of those numbers are within the margin of error. what does that tell you about the broader look at how and if the senate might flip? >> yeah, exactly. we should point out those polls are within the margin of error. there are so many races within the margin of error. missouri, nevada, tennessee, florida. the list goes on and on and on, where you have all these close races which means we have a best estimate about what might happen in the senate come november, but it really could be a democratic wave or a republican wave if the polls are off in one direction. >> republican wave in the senate, the house? >> in the senate, not in the house. the senate battleground is

significantly different. you have ten states which have senateincumbents. >> it keeps you employeed. >> and i'm ready to throw a celebration. you know, the fast food is coming in hard. and the cream soda is popping. sglil >> it's always wendy's with you. >> or pop eye's. >> is there something that tell said you this year is different than other? >> the thing that is so interesting about the map and what is so interesting is a few things. you have a national environment that is very favorable to democrats. that's good for them. you have a lot of democratic incombnlts which is good because incumbents tend to do better, but they're running in red states, which is why the senate is much more difficult to kind of disentangle than say the house is. >> let me ask you, and again, we learned this in 2016. you know, tight polls, you can miss. you can miss signs in there. do you notice any trend here towards a tightening in the senate, for instance?

do you notice a trend of there was discussion of a blue wave, big generic ballot advantage for democrats. do you notice a tightening there? >> i will say the generic ballot does seem to be tightening a little bit, which is good news for republicans. there's a lot of talk with, oh, brett kavanaugh and the whole confirmation mess, that might hurt republicans, but it doesn't seem to be so far. we're seeing some tightening in senate races and more than that, in the house races as well. >> on that point, how and how importantly do you think kavanaugh will play into the midterms? you look at the quinnipiac polling, 61% of college educated white women opposing him, not believing his testimony. i think 58% of those not thinking he should be confirmed. they're important. they were important for the president in the election. how is he going to factor in and how much of a sense to the midterms? >> i would say number one, he's one of the most unpopular nominees since robert bork. >> the most. >> right, but his numbers are still better than donald trump's numbers are. the more focus on him and the more it makes it a partisan

fight if you look at the kavanaugh numbers, democrats one way, republicans another. if you put voters into their partisan circles, that may be good news for republicans considering the senate map in front of us. >> as a key, the issue, the big gap that was consistent was an enthusiasm gap, right? with democrats with a big advantage over republicans, and the question is, is this an enthusiasm driver for republican voters. >> democrats seem a little more enthused than republicans are, but the key bloc for me is independents, and they don't seem to be leaning necessarily one way or another. >> that's interesting. >> they don't seem enthused by this, so this may be an instance of a real partisan fight and not something for independents. >> as we launch this why i'm voting series, the one consistent thing -- >> your idea, by the way. >> i'll take that credit. i haven't seen a voter yet mention kavanaugh. >> that's true. >> not scientific, but noticeable. >> health care, health care, health care.

>> i wonder if the new trade deal will help republicans. >> we'll see. >> facebook has some explaining to do. company officials there all the way up to the top getting ready to brief lawmakers this week on what is the single biggest data breach, the biggest hack in the company's history. everything you need to know about that next.

there lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a

decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today. don't miss this story. this week, facebook officials are expected to brief washington lawmakers on what was the biggest data breach in the company's history. may have gotten lost in the kavanaugh controversy. other politics in washington this week, but facebook says the accounts of some 50 million people were exposed. that could include your account, my account, and folks listening. >> as our colleague brian

stelter said in his newsletter, there's a little bit of data breach fatigue, but there shouldn't be. this is really important. not just your facebook account. think about the outside accounts you have linked to through facebook. hackers can get into those as well. this is a story, i'm so glad you led your newsletter with it. it's not getting enough attention with all the other news but it affects people. >> there's much going on in d.c., but this is a d.c. story as well because it involves potential regulation of facebook. so much scrutiny of the social media networks in the past few months. facebook executives and others have been testifying on capitol hill, and this is another bad, bad headline for the company. it is, as you said, the worst breach in the company's history, and facebook still doesn't know exactly what happened here. it's almost as if hackers were able to get into 50 million homes, snoop around, but we don't know what they did in the houses yet. they might have stolen stuff, they might have moved stuff around, or maybe not. ee don't know. facebook is still trying to figure out exactly what was done to these 50 million accounts,

but these hackers were using an exploit in the code, something called access tokens, in order to snoop around in people's accounts, and the company is still trying to get to the bottom of it now. >> if you make cars and something in the car doesn't work and makes you less safe, that car company is liable for it. technology companies don't have liability for data breaches and other companies don't have target or -- >> we're the product. we use facebook, we are the product because facebook is selling our data to advertisers in order to make a lot of money. because the product is free, i think people have low expectations when they logon about what's going to happen, but i think people should have high expectations for their priva privacy. we should not get used to these data breaches even though there is a lot of fatigue. >> not really free because you may not be paying with money but you're paying with your information and privacy. >> we pay our lawmakers to deal with things like this. >> right. >> their job is to regulate companies to protect us. that's a big part of their job. is there, like, legislation out there that you think could be an

effective tool that's being pushed that might actually make it through congress? >> to some extent, the problem is it's a game of whack-a-mole. even if there were more intense privacy regulations put in place, you have hackers getting better every day of finding new ways in. it's a constant challenge, and as much as one law or one piece of regulation might make a modest improvement, there has to be constant scrutiny on the issues. it is notable, our colleague is reporting facebook will have to go to d.c. and speak with lawmakers, basically, briefing lawmakers about this. that shows there is some attention from our congress people about this. >> one thing i picked up from reading this morning is log out of your account and log back in because that resets the tokens to some degree, and that's one security step every one of us could take. >> thanks. >> and also, we leave you with money news from amazon, making headlines this morning. the retail giant, the baby of jeff bezos, raising wages for all u.s. employees to at least $15 an hour. amazon says it's going to affect a quarter million of its workers, full-time, part-time,

temps and oorths 100,000 seasonal hires. >> the raise takes effect november 1st, includes employees at whole foods as well. >> bernie sanders, who has been a critic, cheering this. we'll see if other companies follow suit. >> thanks for being with us. >> at this hour with our colleague kate bolduan starts right now. >> hello, everyone. i'm kate bolduan. the fbi investigation into brett kavanaugh, free reign, the president says. more names, democrats demand. which means more leads and very little time. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell proclaiming again this morning that no matter what, the senate will vote on the supreme court nomination this week. so investigators now have less than four days remaining, and it is still a huge question. let's be honest, in partisan washington, who is going to believe the eventual outcome of the investigation when it comes. the president now saying that the fbi, though, can investigate whoever they