investigation. number two, if he s not satisfied by the scope, would he still vote no for brett kavanaugh. he was a bit wishy washy on that. it seems like the president is working hand in hand with senate republicans to limit to a degree. are people like jeff flake still undecide or is this moving ahead regardless of what happens to the same conclusion it was before jeff flake put a wrench in things last week? reporter: i think that s the central question. this is aimed toward five senators.
we don t know how they feel on that issue of trustworthiness yet. they ve not had to say so. if the fbi suggests they have been dishonest on these small things, it could weigh on that decision. whether or not he lied about knowing about the treatment of detainees at gitmo. there are democrats who say he did and the allegations of senator lehey saying kavanaugh was not truthful about whether or not he saw democratic documents and knew they were stolen documents when he was testifying about a decade ago. this is all compoundsing with the democrats. big question is does it matter to any republicans.ing with the democrats. big question is does it matter to any republicans.
sf fra trafrank, is that based on y sourcing? yes. what do you think? this isn t an investigation. it s a fig leaf. we never told them they could only taublk to four people and couldn t look for documentary evidence. you have people on twitter saying i believe brett kavanaugh lied. please call me and they are not hear fing from the fbi. that s an investigation. if you re going to undermine the effort to find the truth, then what s the point of doing it. he said the democrats is going to ask for more, more. do you think he has a point? the democrats will want a much bigger investigation than the republicans will have or they will want a longer investigation, as of now allotted for going back into brett kavanaugh s past.
that is her speaking directly to him. we see people do that on the set and on fox news certainly. that is what is going on. and it will just be interesting to see at what point republicans finally say enough is enough. i feel like things have just changed even within the last 24 hours. this tornado of swirling faster and faster by the hour. maybe it will happen after the mid-term elections, republicans lose a lot of seats, but it is feeling like it will get stormy no pun intended. and what is bee fuddling but the lens, what is good for donald trump. what is good for donald trump is not donald trump giving more oxygen to this book. not tweeting out and picking this fight. let your surrogates go out and do your get into fist-a-cuffs with comey and fight it out. fine. but as the president as the president taking the step to tweet about this book, you are you are giving it a platform. and that is something that i think is beyond befuddling and
and the question we have to ask ourselves is what do they know? what is it do they fear, that they want to somehow put this entire investigation aside? bottom line, it has to go forward. the rule of law in this nation is absolutely essential. and whoever republicans or otherwise the president that are trying to derail this investigation, they ought to stop because it s extraordinarily damaging to this nation now and into the future. so now as a result, you and your fellow democrats are, you know, attempting to revive legislation, to protect mueller and his team. exactly. you ll need the support of some republicans, won t you, in order to make this work? do you believe at some point republicans will be on board to help cement a the passage of a bill that will protect the special counsel? well, first of all, why in the world do we have to protect the special counsel? the reason is the president is attacking the investigation, the counsel, the fbi, going after