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
deciding vote. i would note what republican senators have said all along, the reason they were averse to an investigation holds. the reason they did not want this is because it s pointless. the fbi does not come to conclusion, they do not make credibility determinations. they interview witnesses and hand over trips what is called 302s citing what it is witnesses have. we have that testimony. can they take that information, hand it over to those who can make judgment calls and discuss it further, saying hey, look, this is what the fbi uncovered, if there is anything to uncover. why who republicans in general be oppose just being armed with as much information as possible to completely repudiate the claims or to potential hold the judge accountable? because we already have that information. dr. ford and mr. kavanaugh before the senate yew dishary committee were sworn under oath. it is the same consequence to
particular situation and need to be able to reach a conclusion on it because they are going to have to live with their votes. and rushing this to judgment, having the hearing on monday with an empty chair for dr. ford and then going to a vote in the senate judiciary committee and a vote on the senate floor, would be just a terrible thing for the institution of the senate and for the supreme court ultimately if he s confirmed and further information comes out. i have just received a written statement from chuck grassley, the chairman of the committee, and my speed reading of it, i do not see chuck grassley saying that this hearing will take place on monday. i m going to rely on the control room to read this closer than i have been able to. but i want to read to you, lisa, this passage that chuck grassley has in here about the fbi s role in senate confirmation. chuck grassley in his written statement says, the fbi has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it consider
grassley saying that this hearing will take place on monday. i m going to rely on the control room to read this closer than i have been able to. but i want to read to you, lisa, this passage that chuck grassley has in here about the fbi s role in senate confirmation. chuck grassley in his written statement says, the fbi has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed. the fbi does not make credibility determinations. the fbi provides information on a confidential basis in order for decision makers to determine an individual s suitability. the senate has the information it needs to follow-up with witnesses and gather and assess the relevant evidence. lisa, your reaction to that? well, i think it s possible senator grassley hasn t read that many fbi investigations themselves. i ve read dozens of them.
it s one man s story. it s not just the memo. is will the fact that sessions and pence were asked to leave the room, they will be asked publicly about it. you there are lots of cases that involve differing versions of the facts and juries are ultimately designed to make those credibility determinations. i think, you know, if one person has contemporaneous records of what went on in a conversation, that s usually pretty good evidence. this is a political situation. impeachment is more a political event than a criminal event so there is no beyond a reasonable doubt or anything that would need to be proven at this point?