was it possible the fbi is going to get a corroboration for sexual assault allegations. >> the fbi does not render opinions or conclusions, something reports facts and to get straight what is going on. these are called special inquiries. they are not investigations in the traditional sense of the word. they are called special inquiries or spins to draw the distinction. they are interviews and background checks, wiretaps, grand jury, no subpoena, no compelled testimony, not full on investigations. ed: when the senate said this is about current credible allegations, publishing a story on uncorroborated, not current last friday. and he specifically says there is drunken violent behavior in college by brett kavanaugh allegedly but he wants to talk to the fbi about it. will that be part of this? >> it will be part of this and that is why this supplemental spin is necessary so we don't have these spurious reports from all directions, we get it from fbi interviews, documented interview summaries, not some washington post reporter or new york times reporter or any reporter at all. these are str

nor did the fbi interview dr. blasey ford. what we have heard from numerous people over the last few days seeking to provide information to the fbi, we have seen even more press reports of witnesses who wanted to speak with the fbi but were not interviewed. deborah ramirez's lawyer said he was unaware of any corroborating witnesses who were interviewed. candidly, what we reviewed today in a very limited time, i was there. i had to leave. the report is in part, and had the opportunity to read some but not all of it. it looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house. i don't know. but the white house certainly blocked access to millions of documents from judge kavanaugh's record. i know that. and insured that 90% of his e-mails and memos weren't available for the senate or the public in the hearings. it now appears that they also blocked the fbi from doing its job. democrats agreed that the investigation's scope should be limited. we did not agree that the white house should tie

i'm just passing it on to the fbi. now the next step logically would be to say well, i gave the fbi a week and they've not come up with anything new. it's important for the public to understand they might not come up with anything new if they're not allowed to do what they do best, which is to thoroughly investigate this. >> and is a week enough time, four more days enough time to do that? >> so the fbi does amazing things in one week. i can name case of after case where they surged hundreds of agents and their resources are phenomenal, but they have to be allowed to do that. there is trouble things they can do. they can reconstruct scenes. they can find the house in bethesda, maryland. they can pull all the dorm records at yale. >> right. >> but none of that will happen until they're told they're allowed to do that. >> former fbi director for counterintelligence, just the man i wanted to talk to about this tonight, thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> and if you're wondering what happened to the arizona prosecut

the fbi doesn't usually do that. they don't usually release their interview notes from talking to people as part of an investigation. so this was a strange thing to do at any time, let alone at the height of the political campaign. but they did. and the fbi put out a statement at the time explaining why they were doing this very unusual thing. they said it was, quote, in the interest of transparency. and in response to numerous freedom of information act requests. hey, you know, there was a lot of interest. people really wanted to know. we, the fbi, we felt pressured to do this very unusual thing, because the public desires to see us do it. and so, i guess we'll do it, even though it's kind of weird. if you really want us to, we will. the fbi does have their typical by the book way of doing things. but it's also true that they sometimes do things that aren't necessarily by the book. and they do those things in response to public pressure. and in response, in particular to political pressure. at that point in the 2016

if we had a real fbi investigation as opposed to a sham fbi investigation, the fbi would be interviewing the yale cla classmates. for example one said after a big drinking bout started an argument and someone went to jail. we know about that. if you had a real fbi investigation we would find that out. but we don't really have one and it looks like unless that nice little lady who yelled at jeff flake calls him again and pressures him to open up a fbi investigation we won't have one. >> nice little lady, very strong woman. thank you so much. i appreciate it. >>> we got a lot to cover. next, president trump praising a new deal as a big win ahead of the midterms. we'll find out what is really in the agreement with canada and mexico. first, here's a live look at the dow. up more than 200 points on the trade deal news. you are watching msnbc. can be relentless. tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works bette

limiting the fbi. the white house expects to get the new fbi report on the supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh at any moment. and it denies limiting the probe, even on kavanaugh and his accuser have not been interviewed. what will the investigation reveal? denying disparagement. president trump was, quote, stating the facts when he mocked kavanaugh's accuser at a rally. republican senators critical of the confirmation are condemning his remarks. is the president hurting his own cause? >> the key three. senators collins, murkowski and flake will decide the fate of kavanaugh and the nomination and cnn has learned they've been consulting with the white house and the scope of the fbi investigation. will majority leader mitch mcconnell hold off on a vote until they're satisfied? >>> and trump's declining wealth. his place on a list of the richest americans falls for the third straight year following a bombshell report claiming the trump fortune was built on tax schemes and fraud. is the trump brand taking

either called or tried to talk to the fbi or talked to the fbi, it seems the fbi is very interested in what happened in dr. ford's allegations, not so much what is taking place at yale in those days. >> thank you for that report, drew. >>> we are getting some more breaking news on the fbi investigation of brett kavanaugh. let's go right to our congressional correspondent phil mattingly. he's up on capitol hill. phil, democrats on the senate judiciary committee just sent a new letter. tell us about that? >> reporter: yeah, just to give you a sense of how heated things have gotten on capitol hill and really the divide between republicans and democrats, at least eight democrats on the judiciary committee seizing on a tweet from the republican staff of the judiciary committee that said in the tweet that in previous background checks with brett kavanaugh, he's had six during his time in government service, there had been no whiff of sexual impropriety or alcohol allegations. woo the democrats said in a response in a letter to chairman chuck grassley said was this. each of us has reviewed

not the fbi. who will be blamed? probably the fbi. >> this fbi reeached out to ten people. interviewed nine. we don't any why the tenth wasn't interviewed. it may be those nine are plenty. our reporters here with far fewer resources interviewed nine people in a few days. it's possible to have done a mu much broader sweep of information even if it may or may not be helpful in the end. one ofrt thing of the things t to do was look at the allegations that dr. ford and deborah ramirez brought up. none of these other allegations about did he fully tell truth about his level of drinking. the last few people have talked about whether judge kavanaugh was a stumbling drunk or would have blacked out in contrast to his testimony. that was not part of the fbi's mandate here. >> i know that chuck rosenburg wants to jump in on that. the news in north dakota, we can report. this is from wday. a local affiliate in north dakota who sat down and did a one-on-one with senator heidi heighkamp. she says she will vote no on the supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. that means that's one o

we learned the plan for distributing that fbi report. republicans say it involves a safe on capitol hill. mike emanuel is live at the senate building on capitol hill. mike? >> shep, good afternoon. i'm told one copy of the fbi report will come here to capitol hill after it goes through the white house. it will be kept in a safe in the senate judiciary committee. all 100 senators and nine starters will be authorized to read it. some democrats are complaining that it's not going to be thorough enough. >> it's perfectly reasonable to ask that there be a full fbi investigation and the people that are going to make the decision about whether brett kavanaugh goes to the supreme court have a chance to see what the fbi says. >> one leading republican told us this afternoon that he wishes the fbi could release a summary for all to read. >> i know this is going to leak. i know that each side is only going to leak the stuff that benefits their side of the argument. so i still hope there's some summary or something that you and all americans could s

as we noted by the white house, the fbi did not interview brett kavanaugh, nor did the fbi interview dr. blasey ford. it looks to be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house, i don't know. >> harris: chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel has more from capitol hill. might? >> several of the republican votes sound upbeat after an initial review of the fbi report. the three senators at all are watching at this point, susan collins, jeff flake, and lisa murkowski of alaska. collins told reporters the fbi probe appears to be a very thorough investigation but she says she will go back later to read more. blake says he saw no additional corroborating information in terms of the allegations but he is reading more. a key republican on the judiciary committee praised the work of the fbi. >> they interviewed ten witnesses, they followed leads from interviews that made sense to me. it's a complete report, background check, i am confident the fbi did a good job. they were not hindered in any way. the focus of the background check is on credibl

the night they say they're not limiting fbi agents in the investigation, but the fbi is concentrating on four key witnessed, singled out by republican senators, p.j. smith, leland keyser and mark judge, who were all at the party where christine blasey ford says she was attacked, and they're investigating a second accuser, deb ee ramirez, who came forward with a second allegation from college. the most important is judge, brett kavanaugh's high school friend who put his own hard-partying exploits in a book called "wasted" and posted this of georgetown prep. >> let me tell you something interesting. i spent a lot of time in the dean of students office. >> reporter: while judge admitted to heavy drinking in high school, he sever he never saw kavanaugh act in the manner dr. ford describes. no other witnesses have corroborated ford's story. the fbi has already interviewed debbie ramirez who claims kavanaugh in a drunker stupor flashed her at a college party. no other witnesses call recall that event either. at the center of both, allegations of excessive high school and college drinking wh

well now, such an fbi investigation is pointless. a noncriminal fbi investigation has less power to compel testimony in the senate judiciary committee. we can't force people to testify. they can't come the findings on allegations. the same statement already given under penalty of perjury by witnesses who don't actually back for the count. if the witnesses changed their testimony, they may be perjured themselves. an fbi investigation with completely superfluous. a transparent attempt to race time, but all democrats have to do with peel off one among the republican. enter senator jeff flake. on friday despite ready having dated he would support cabinet cabinets nomination the absence of any corroboration of evidence. protesters screamed at them in an elevator. i'm not kidding at all. >> you're telling that my soul doesn't matter, that what happened to me doesn't matter. you're going to let people who do these things in positions of power? that's what you're telling me when you vote for him. ben: that is not actually jeff flake was tell

the fbi has done their job. now it's up to the senate "the five is now. >> jesse: i'm jesse watters with judge jeanine pirro, juan williams, dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 5:00 in new york and this is "the five" ." the fbi probe into brett kavanaugh could be finished in a matter of hours. the bureau expected to wrap things up as early as today. sources telling fox news a single copy of the report will be sent to capitol hill and the white house to read and then it's going to be kept in a safe. this all comes as senator chuck grassley is demanding answers to starti

you have to put it in context, it's may am the fbi just had fbi director fired, james comey. we know for good cause from the ig report, and looks like they're trying to get retribution from the president. that's not what the fbi and justice department is supposed to be doing. focusing on counterintelligence crimes and threats, i go back to what the agent said to me today, the federal bureau of politics, all ought to pause and think how dangerous that is if the fbi sees itself that way now. lou: frightening to think how the fbi must consider itself. if truth has gone to die, truth has gone there to die. the fbi doesn't do reports. they don't give you conclusions. they don't prosecute the bad guys, and by that i mean the bad guys within their own ranks. >> right. lou: do you think that will change in the next few months? >> i think the inspector general's report, there's a lot of evidence that there's a criminal case built against mccabe. that would be historic. you have the question of whether james comey leaked classified information ala hillary clinton, that's a big issue an

she was interviewed by the fbi. she told the fbi she has people to corroborate her account. they did not interview those people. in the course of the normal background investigation which you are familiar with, would they have interviewed those people or do you say we have enough information. we hear your testimony. we can't go on endless fishing expedition. why would they make this choice? >> you hit on it. there is no federal statute or crime. it is not like the government would open an investigation. what is happening here and i hope the viewers understand this at the end of the day and this is my opinion based on the information i have seen. you have politicians attempting to blur the lines between the fbi brand that is associated with criminal investigations and this very specific unique role they play in background investigation which as you say is not the same. in a criminal investigation, the fbi can follow leads wherever they go. it is up to them. they will give the white house the heisman and any politician who attempts to interfere with the investigation. this is

the way this process works, because this is not an fbi criminal investigation, but instead an fbi background investigation, the white house is in the driver seat here. the fbi really takes its direction and instructions from the white house counsel's office. i can tell you in just the last five minutes or so as i was walking out here to talk to you, my colleague and i confirmed that the white house has expanded the scope of this investigation to allow the fbi the free rein that president trump told me on saturday he wanted the fbi to have as long as it wraps up by the end of the week. susan collins is telling nbc news that she was consulted about the white house authorizing this expanded fbi approach so long as the work will be completed within the original one week time line. i asked susan collins what jeff flake said about all of this and he signaled where he stands. take a look. >> we certainly want the fbi to do a real investigation and we are working to make sure that that happens. i've had discussions many yesterday with my colleagues with the white house counsel's office, my staff is

. >> john january rely, tell us about your fbi career. >> had a great career in the fbi. start thed off over 20 years ago where i worked bank robberies, terrorism, everything in between and did a term as spokesperson for the fbi during the 9/11 time of our lives. >> host: tell us about a specific case that you worked on. >> guest: i've had a lot of great cases in the fbi. probably one that i'm most proud of, inherited a case that had been around for a number of years. we don't close cases until they're solved. 9-year-old girl who was taken -- excuse me, 4-year-old girl that was taken, nine years this case had begun on with the fbi. i was able to the work case, actually found this girl alive at age 13, arrested the person who kidnapped her, reunited her with her family. >> host: you've written a book now about terrorism. >> guest: i have. >> host: what was your career in terrorism in the fbi? >> guest: no agent today can go through the fbi without working terrorism. on 9/11 i was working bank robberies, on 9/12 i was working terrorism, it's the number one priority for the

the fbi. we're learning new details of who the fbi interviewed in an effort to corroborate allegations of sexual misconduct against kavanaugh were potentially key witnesses left out of the process. >>> and with the domination heading toward a vote this weekend, protesters flood the streets making their way to capitol hill and the supreme court. will their demonstrations impact the outcome. >>> and russian spies targeted. the u.s. and governments around the world are going after russia's intelligence agency for attempts to disrupt world affairs through aggressive cyberattacks. have the russians been caught red handed. i'm wolf blit rer and you blit "the situation room." >>> we're following breaking news, a remarkable process unfolding right now up on capitol hill. senators there are taking turns reading the single copy of the fbi investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against the u.s. supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. this confirmation will be decided by a handful of senators. tw

can the fbi and you work with the fbi for a long time, can they do the job in a thorough way? >> maybe. it depends on the scope. the president said that is so important is the senate essentially is driving the process. so if it's grassley and graham who are setting the parameters of the investigation, that could be done in two days because they only want them to talk to three or four people and be done. if flake and coomb coombs is dr the process, each ends with the person being asked, is there anybody else we should speak to? that's the last question of every even. if names are given and the fbi is given the authority to ask the other people, a week may be too short. if they are not asking that question or given authority to investigate, this will be wrapped up and it's really just then pretext. this is not real and not a true investigation. >> isn't this up to the white house? the president said it's whatever the senate wants. we know don mcgahn is very involved in this. he could say deal with other than senators and say this is really what we want. don't the instructions al

>> i think the fbi is doing what we have tasked the fbi to do. that's all i can ask for. >> now, the senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley tried to make the case that the republican senators are not doing anything to interfere with that investigation. >> i don't think i should question what the fbi is doing because it would raise a question of political interference. >> now, undoubtedly, you can hear there's so much riding on this fbi report. how do those key senators judge it? will that be enough to turn their vote one way or another? it will be up to those three senators in particular to determine how quickly the republican senators move forward. but clearly, the majority leader has friday at the end of the week on his calendar right now, trying to push forward the end of the week vote. how will that fbi report affect that, kate? >> keeps it on the calendar until he has to change it. we'll see what happens. >>> joining me to discuss, asra, a cnn legal and national security analyst, chris cillizza, politics reporter and editor at large, and j

and also the fbi, i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. at the same time, just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really, you know, you look at his life, until this happened, what a change he's gone through. what his family's gone through. the trauma for a man that's never had any accusation, any -- he's never had a bad statement about him. i think he was number one in his class at yale, he was number one in his law school at yale and then what he's gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. so i want the fbi, this is now their seventh investigation. so it's not like they're just starting. i want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the senators and the republicans and the republican majority. i want them to do that. i want it to be comprehensive. i actually think it's a good thing for judge kavanagh. i think it's actually a good thing. not a bad thing, i think it's a good thing. but with that being said, i would like it to go quickly. and the reaso

the fbi can talk to anyone. this is someone in kavanaugh's tight circle of friends that has text messages dating back to july, not the more recent ones that need to be reviewed that call into question how much kavanaugh knew and when he knew about when the allegations may come out. one, most important point, why aren't these people being talked to who say they have credible information? two, the content of the text messages. based on what we saw, brett kavanaugh clearly knew because her friend, who is the wife of a man who allegedly witnessed the incident, you know, was texting about brett. >> i'm going to have you finish that thought. i want to get to the senate floor because mitch mcconnell is talking about brett kavanaugh. we are going listen in for a minute. >> mere hours after judge kavanaugh was announced, the announcement is now famous. i will oppose him with everything i've got, he said. and not long after that, another democrat on the excommittee sai anyone supporting the confirmation was, quote, listen

many senate democrats agree. >> white house didn't limit what the fbi does on the fbi checks. seems they did, limited number of witnesses or so many witnesses who weren't called, should have been. make it public. reporter: the white house though is describing the kavanaugh nomination as the most thorough vetting after supreme court nominee in history. they say they were hands off and they let the fbi and the senate set the guidelines. >> we allowed the fbi to do exactly what they do best. we haven't micromanaged this process. we accommodated all of the senate's requests. the president was very clear about that. >> what critics want is a never-ending fishing expedition into high school drinking. that is not what the senators requested. that is not where this investigation's scope went. reporter: after president trump was briefed this morning he sent out the following tweet writing quote, the harsh an unfair treatment of judge brett kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. the people get it far better than the politicians. most importantly this great life canno

seven fbi investigations. so what did we learn? what are the facts and the evidence tell us after seven fbi investigations. the fact is that these allegations have not been corroborated. none of the allegations have been corroborated by the seventh fbi investigation. not in the new fbi investigation, not anywhere. so none of these last minute allegations have been corroborated. as is confirmed by the seventh and latest fbi investigation. neither the judiciary committee nor the fbi could locate any third parties who can attest to any of these allegations. no backup from any witnesses, including those specifically named as eyewitnesss by the people who brought the allegations in the first place. let me say that again, no becomeup from any witnesses including those specifically named as eyewitnesses by the people who brought these allegatio allegations. in addition, one person has completely recanted their whole wild story. another accuser went on television and back pedalled from many of their own ridiculous cha

thank you. >> do you trust the fbi to do a thorough job this week? >> well, i trust the fbi. i hope they have the latitude, the time, in order to get the job done right. they need to interview all witnesses that know anything about what happened in regards to the three allegations that have been made. to be able to give a thorough report to the president and to the congress. so i trust the fbi's professionalism, but i'm worried that they may not have the time or they may be under certain restrictions that would not allow them to do a thorough job. >> the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, says the senate will vote this week, final vote on confirmation. your reaction. >> i think senator mcconnell has handled this issue wrong from the beginning. the process that he's used. the fact that we had a vote in the judiciary committee before the investigation was done by the fbi. the fact that he's already told us we're going to be voting this week when we don't have the fbi report back. we don't know what that's going to entail and what we might need to follow up on that. it's clear to

is this selective storytelling so that the white house can paint the fbi as a villain and the fbi can paint the white house as a villain? >> that's the public message that the white house and republicans need to give, this is a very extensive investigation. that's what susan collins, jeff flake and lisa murkowski need to hear in order to say this is a legitimate investigation. they expanded the investigation a little bit and went beyond the four people. they talked to nine people. are those the nine people that could actually corroborate some of the claims made by these women? >> very quickly, shannon, you're reporting that fbi director christopher wray is documenting meticulously every single interaction with the white house that he can't then be -- >> do you think 18 months of tweets have taught him a lesson or two? the white house has painted the fbi as hillary clinton supporters. >> get back to the hill. we need you over there. thank you for coming out and hanging out on set. the senate is expected to start in 30 minutes. watch mitch mcconnell put things in motion for a final vote

the fbi is full of them. joining the conversation, msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor paul butler. let me start with you. your reaction to jim comey's words. >> you know, the fbi has 35,000 employees. if they are allowed to do their job, they can get this done in a week. this is a background investigation, not a criminal investigation. and so president trump is the fbi's client. he gets to dictate the terms. but i've never heard of an investigation being micromanaged in this way. originally four witnesses. one week. it creates the unsettling impression that the republicans in the senate and president trump don't want an objective investigation. they want one that will clear judge kavanaugh's name. it kind of sounds like the fix is in, unless the bureau is allowed to do its job. >> and so it sounds like there was an understanding at the white house today that that was the impression that set in over the weekend. do you think the correction to expand it and say the fbi can talk to whoever they wa

. >> the fbi, it is a disgrace! >> narrator: from frontline'n's award-wig political team. >> tru viewed the entire intelligence community and the fbi as enemies. >> narrator: a two-hour specialg inveation. >> and the team muellehas assembled may be the a team ofr prosecutors an entire generation. >> you should be afraid, you shld be very afraid. >> narrator: inside thel. tu. >> president trump, the "cloud" as he calls it, hangs over his entire presidency. that he doesn't really understand where it's going or what's comi next. i a's coming for him. >> nrator: the politics... >> no collusion! no nothing. >> this president may feelto empowered ove to either fire bob mueller, or fire jeff sessions or fire rod rosenstein, or find some way to shut this investigation down. >> narrator: and the showdown with the 45th president... >> the way that the president can be removed if that's the goal is through impeachment and conviction by the senate or through elections anat's why it's the american people who are going to decide

mcgann tells the fbi just that. the senate and the american people deserve to know what is the scope of the investigation. because this investigation must be done in a manner that allows the public to have confidence in its findings. whether you are for or against judge kavanaugh going to the supreme court, it will only benefit the country if the investigation is regarded as fair, clear, and not constrained, particularly bipartisan means. for that reason we hope the fbi will be available to brief the senate on the results of the investigation before a final floor vote. democrats are not interested in delaying for the sake of delay. this can all be completed quickly, but it must be done right. mr. president, we are a society based on the rule of law. it's crucial that the american people have faith in the judiciary, especially the supreme court. our job as senators is to decide if someone has the intelligence, the temperament, the independence and the credibility to earn the title of justice for a lifetime. character

the president ordered the fbi to conduct a supplemental fbi investigation. kavanaugh adamantly denies all of the allegations against him. the white house claims they are not micromanaging the fbi investigation. dianne feinstein sent a letter to the white house asking they provide a copy of the written directives sent by the white house to the fbi, and in addition, she writes if the fbi requests any expansion beyond the initial directive, please provide the names of any additional witnesses or evidence. the fbi did speak to deborah ramirez, she claims kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party in college. kavanaugh strongly denies the allegation. agents interviewed ramirez today, she detailed allegations and gave the agents names of other individuals she says can confirm her story. ed? ed: ellison, appreciate that report. at the top of the show, we promised to give you the new look at harvard-harris poll where the public stands on the kavanaugh nomination. mark penn posting analysis at the hill.com. he shared it with fox first. bad news for kavanaugh. after

president trump orders the fbi to reopen the investigation >> donald trump orders the fbi to reopen the investigation into supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. after a republican senator wavers on support for the judge. >> i will move it out of committee, but i will not move for sure until the fbi has done more investigation and they have. >> reporter: the shocking develop and after a day of dramatic testimony from both sides. >> what degree of certainty do you believe brett kavanaugh assaulted you? >> 100%. >> none of these allegations are true, no doubt in your mind. >> 0, i am 100% certain. >> new investigation into claims of sexual misconduct hurt his chances for confirmation? we will ask sarah sanders. plus. [chanting] chris: supreme court confirmation battle in the age of me too. >> someone could say 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 5 years ago he did a horrible thing to me. a very dangerous period. chris: we will discuss what the showdown means for allegations of sexual assault with the president of the national women's law center and we will ask our sunday panel will the burden of

politics lead, one fbi report, two interpretations. republican leaders say there is no additional corroboration of the allegations against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh and no hint of misconduct. democrats disagree and are taking issue with the investigation, saying it was not thorough enough and democrats are calling for the report to be made public. what really matters here are the key senators who have yet to say publicly how they're going to vote and what they think. red state democrat heidi hei heitkamp breaking news she say no on kavanaugh. republicans need two of these four senators to vote yes on kavanaugh. that will make it 50/50, allowing vice president to break a tie in a potentially huge consequence, two of these senators have expressed confidence in the fbi report, senator susan collins of maine, saying the investigation appears very thorough. senator jeff flake of arizona agreeing and saying we've seen no additional corroborating information. there are major protests. sunlen, what's going on there? >> reporter: th

deborah ramirez did speak with fbi agents. she gave them information, contact information for other witnesses who she says can corroborate what she has to say. according to ramirez's attorney, the fbi has not been interested in following up with any of those witnesses. is there a bright line where relevance ends and how many degrees of separation you can get from the immediate subject before you're talking to people who aren't related to this investigation? >> well, you know, it's like the last story you had, about the things going on in new york right now. in an investigation, it doesn't matter if it's criminal or a background. you pull on the strings until the string runs out. and so, you know, in terms of bright lines or red lines, the only thing i can think about, in that regard, is that there have been very severe restrictions placed on how the fbi can proceed with this thing, that it can only focus on certain kinds of things and not other kinds of things. but that, again, it betrays why we do background investigations in

has the fbi contacted you on that? >> no. >> what would you tell the fbi? >> i would tell the fbi that i knew debby, that i knew her to be an honest person. that i have no memory of my kind of her misleading or lying. i would say that i saw brett kavanaugh drink to excess with frequency and that beyond that it would be conjecture. my only point in this is not to say that this happened, that he is wrong and she is wrong. and i can't know that. i wasn't there. the people that were there seem to be too afraid to come out or seem to be aligned with him in some way. so i can't say that to the fbi honestly. what i can say is that he drank and he drank a lot and that is inconsistent with what he's saying now. >> just to with clear, the one thing you did say there was i wasn't there. and supporters of brett kavanaugh will say that why do we care what jaime roche is saying? he was not a witness to this. what is your response? >> my response is if we're going to have a trial, then we should be a proper investigation. right? i would not stand up and say that i'm an ey

and although we hear he loves the fbi, he respects the fbi, he treats the fbi like crap on a regular bass i. so i don't have a lot of faith in the white house and the fbi working hand in glove. >> i want to share the memo that outside counsel rachel mitchell put forth. she said, quote, he said/she said case is incredibly difficult to prove but this case is even weaker than that. i do not think a reasonable prosecutor would make this case. are we talking about the prosecutor or criminal case? i realize it's more than a job interview. but is she confusing us with a statement like that? >> she's conflating what's criminal. the point from earlier. think about the job of the senate hear. are they equipped with information to do a credible job of the american people? if you limit the scope, do we really get to that point? i take jeff flake's words at face value. at the end of this week, we may be right back where we started. it seemed from the interview you had people trying to wrestle is these issues. at the end of the day, they're going to fall on party lines, murkowski, collins, you kno

all, the fbi. i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. at the same time, just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really, you know, you look at his life. until this happened, what a change he's gone through. >> dana: mike emanuel is on capitol hill. mike, there's disagreement about the scope and time of this investigation. >> reporter: dana, you're right. republicans want to get moving as swiftly as possible. once the fbi has taken a closer look at these allegation. the original deal announced by senator jeff flake was that the fbi would get one week. so a deadline, this coming friday. but today democrats are seeking to expand the probe. >> we are demanding that 23 separate individuals be interviewed as part of this investigation. these 23 individuals have relevant knowledge to corroborate the credible allegations made by these survivors. they must be interviewed. and any other leads must be followed coming from those interviews. >> reporter: senator blumenthal is also accusing the white house of micro

and also the fbi. i think the fbi should do what they have to do to get to the answer. >> reporter: are you saying your white house has put no limitations on -- >> no, my white house is doing whatever the senators want. no, no. you don't -- >> reporter: -- who they should interview? >> my white house will do whatever the senators want. i'm open to whatever they want. >> reporter: the president was reminded, it is actually his decision. >> just for clarity, so that it's clear, in fact, it's up to you to instruct the fbi what to do. >> it is up to me. it is up to me. but i'm instructing them as per what i feel the senate wants. the senate is making this decision. and i'm instructing them as per what the senate is looking for. >> reporter: it is a stark reversal from his initial order, strictly limiting the scope of the fbi's new investigation. the president also repeatedly pressed about judge kavanaugh's drinking. >> i drank beer with my friends, almost everyone did. sometimes i had too many beers. somet

i don't know what an fbi agent or to whom an fbi agent could ask a request he to find out whether that's true or not. >> timeout here. let's be clear. the senate is trying to shift the responsibility for determining suitability here. the senate -- the senators who were there when brett kavanaugh described his background some of them are irritated or angry that kavanaugh appeared to mist represent who he was in high school and college. it's not for the fbi to determine whether senators should judge that kavanaugh is suitable or not. let me cut to the chase. i would bet that the fbi is going to give the senate a report and senators are going to say, this is not conclusive. and then senators are going to try to shift the blame for whether kavanaugh is suitable to the fbi. those senators coons, flake, et cetera, look in the mirror. if you don't like what he said, vote him down and go face your voters. it's not for the fbi to make the decision for the senate, it's for the senators. they are going to buck it, john. >> that was my point. there's not a question. you can't go ask a witness did br

senate judiciary committee that shaped the fbi investigation, it was the fbi. the president said they had free rein, but his spokesman said the white house limited its scope but also deferred to the senator's requests. doesn't clear it up. one thing is clear. the white house and most senate republicans are pointing with pride to the investigation. what no one seems to be doing is taking real responsibility for it. late today, senator heidi heitkamp, the red state democrat from north dakota, said she'll be voting no on judge kavanaugh. senators collins and flake both expressed confidence in the fbi probe but have not declared their preference. we'll have some late reporting on senator murkowski. and what would be her current state of mind in a moment. but first, a last-minute twist. we turn to cnn's manu raju with the latest. >> reporter: well, republicans have no margin for error, as they head into a critical vote tomorrow to advance the nomination, to a final confirmation vote saturday. and that is underscored by a republican senator who supports brett kavanau

fbi to do what they do best. we haven't micromanaged this process. we accommodated all of the senate's request. >> reporter: but democrats are accusing the white house of standing in the way of the truth. stopping the fbi from interviewing kavanaugh and his accuser. >> it appears they also blocked the fbi from doing its job. democrats agreed that the investigation scope should be limited. we did not agree the white house should tie the fbi's hands. >> reporter: ford's legal team fired off a letter to chris wray writing, the investigation conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the fbi and on our american ideal of justice. republicans say democrats are trying to stall. >> what we know for sure is the fbi report did not corroborate any allegations against judge kavanaugh. and the second thing we know is that there's no way anything we did would satisfy the democrats. >> reporter: still, the final vote could be close. one undecided democrat in a tight race for reelection, senator heidi heitka

the president may say i think the fbi should talk to whatever they want the the fbi is not interpreting their instruction from the white house counsel. they were made in consultation with senate republican. democrats are suggesting they want to have an fbi investigation that's just enough to cover their vote. >> i'm sorry so interrupt you. jeff flake is talking in boston. >> a lot of my colleague on both sides of the aisle have had the same experience. what dr. ford said really emboele emboldened a lot of women to come forward. i'm not sure that any of my colleagues had one quite like that but all of us have had experiences like this in the last week. >> after you found drchl fo. fo credible. how can you vote to confirm judge kavanaugh? >> those who heard dr. ford, everybody, said she offered compelling credible testimony. then brett kavanaugh came on and made an impassioned, very raw defense and rebuttal to what was going on. that was seen as effective as well. some people were turned off by the rawness of it, the anger. i said, at the time, had i been what felt was unjustly accused, t

fbi, why didn't diane feinstein bring this up? >> sean:>> why didn't she? america deserves an answer to that question. why didn't she tell her republican colleagues, say, we need time, we can crush this? we have plenty of time. democrats are continuing the political stall tactic if. last week, a narrow investigation, limited to only a week. i despite president trump ordering the fbi to investigate any and all legitimate claims, it is still not enough for the left. they want fbi investigations into every single claim made against kavanaugh no matter how unsubstantiated and some are even calling for investigations into whether or not kavanaugh lied about how much you drink in high school. he said sometimes he drank a lot, like a lot of kids in high school and college. that is called moving the goal post, that is called changing the game in the middle of it. as we've been saying for months, they want to stall the nomination, they want the midterm elections. these facts will matter because 36 days, you, we, the people, if you want to

are you going to release the fbi report? mr. president, did you put any limits on the fbi investigation? did you put any limits on that investigation? >> reporter: in a statement, attorneys for christine blasey ford said, "the investigation conducted over the past five days is a stain on the process, on the fbi and on our american ideal of justice." the fbi never spoke with ford. in fact, they only interviewed a total of nine people. ford's lawyers say they suggested eight other possible witnesses, but they were never con ticketed. and then there is deborah ramirez, who accused kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college when both were drunk. she did speak to the fbi, and said she submitted the names of more than 20 potential witnesses, none of whom, she claimed, were investigated. "we can only conclude," ramirez's lawyers said today, "that the fbi, or those controlling its investigation, did not want to learn the truth behind ms. ramirez's allegations." >> we allowed the fbi to do exactly what they do best. we haven't micro

if they're requiring the fbi to request permission, yeah, they can say the fbi can do whatever it wants. ultimately, they're the final arbiter. i believe believe it when i see it. >> mr. chairman, you used to conduct fbi background checks years ago during the george h.w. bush administration. let me ask you, this idea that the fbi has done six background checks on brett kavanaugh, therefore there can't be anything to find, is that accurate? usually i heard the fbi only starts looking at somebody's activities 18 and over and really college and after. no? >> yeah, that's right. i mean, they would have to reengage this notion they're going to go back into his adolescent years, high school, and college. to try to determine the veracity of the claims, if there is corroboration or other things. and i will say, they start with a review of the investigations they have. and i'll tell you why. it was very important that when we ask questions, we asked about drinking, you know, alcohol consumption and drug use. and the levels of alcohol use and did it ever impact them. so they'll have a strong reco

the fbi won't call me. hey, i can confirm what people are saying about his behavior at yale. the fbi won't call me. i think we're going to see whether fbi stands for fake background investigation. because we know that's what the white house was trying to get done. they were trying to do barely enough to satisfy senator flake, senator collins, and they got called on it today. maybe they've loosened the reigns. we do know there are people literally holding up red flags saying please, fbi call me and they aren't getting called. people have said this can't be done in a short period of time, the fbi has to do very little. but in 1991 the judiciary committee heard from 22 witnesses in three days of public testimony on anita hill. so the fbi can contact all these people, they can get it done by the deadline if need be, and there's no excuse for not doing a full investigation. >> barbara mcquade, james comey wrote a surprisingly confident op-ed piece what the fbi could do in this investigation, even in a limited in

and if we could do -- we're not the fbi, so i would think the fbi would be able to get to this group of people. and it's important, i think. i mean, the lesson we learned from the anita hill story, whenever that was, 27 years ago, the corroborating witnesses are important because you get to the situation where you've got this standoff between two credible seeming people maybe and it's very hard to know the truth. and so you need to talk to others who were involved at the time and who know these characters. >> jane mayer is doing great reporting. we'll continue to monitor throughout the week. >> thanks. >> for more who is calling the shots, the fbi investigation what they're looking for i'm joined by senator jeff markley of oregon. what is your understanding, senator, of who is in charge of this and who dictates the approach and the scope? >> well, chris, ultimately it's the president's direction. and clear he was trying to limit it as much as he possibly could. he's made a public statement saying he has this expanded vision. but who knows what his team is doing privately. and the fac