trying to refresh other people s memories prior to that new yorker story. a new nbc story says basically his team was apparently trying to do the same. the nbc story based on a memo about texts between kavanaugh and yale classmates. it also says this, the texts demonstrate that kavanaugh and ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that ramirez was uncomfortable around kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding ten years after they graduated. the efforts of one of the yale classmates show that some potential witnesses had been unable to get important information to the fbi. how does the fbi determine whom to contact, greg? generally, in my experience in managing the legal aspects of these background investigations, one witness will lead to another witness. it starts with the names of the people that the applicant, in this case, the nominee, lists on their paperwork, but it doesn t
telling the truth, she s going to the fbi s going to see that. if she s lying, the fbi s going to see that. what are they scared of is his point of view. how did she explain the differences between what she said to you and the claims that she made in that sworn statement? i think she would say she s just being more descriptive now. for example, on the punch. everybody s heard about the notion that the punch was spiked at these parties. in her statement last week, she said she had awareness that mark judge and brett kavanaugh, mark judge s friend were spiking the punch. in my interview with her, she didn t go that far. she said, well, i saw them around the punch bowl. and i asked her directly, did you see brett kavanaugh spike the punch and try to get girls, you know, drunk or put quaaludes in the punch, and she said, no, i never saw that. there s a discrepancy between the two things. but i think part of it is she s telling her story. she s sitting and describing it in the way you
moment. we start with the ever-shifting definition of a comprehensive fbi investigation into brett kavanaugh. just moments ago, some breaking news, nbc news reporting that the fbi has completed its interview with mark judge. that s according to judge s attorney. that means the fbi has completed interviewing the four names initially approved by the white house, and after much criticism, the white house has okayed enlarging that list, but neither party is exactly sure of the goal posts here, especially as senate majority leader mitch mcconnell reiterated his demand to hold a vote this week. let s start on capitol hill with msnbc s garrett haake. mcconnell really seems to think there s going to be a vote sometime later this week. what s he betting on here? reporter: well, he s betting that the fbi will not find anything particularly new or damning about judge kavanaugh, and he s betting that the republican senators who asked for this investigation will be
put the brakes on some of these investigations or not. the agents in the course of their interviews would want to pursue allegations that appear to contradict what the judge said, if it s this suitability inquiry. we re not really clear on how they re being directed and guided, but i know where they d like to go as investigators to get to the truth, to try and make a determination or to provide the facts that corroborate one way or the other what the judge s position is. thank you. greg, thank you. betsy, thanks to you as well. do appreciate your time. we re going to have much more on this story including speaking out. a kavanaugh accuser whose claims are being investigated by the fbi. just spoke to nbc news about her allegations saying she felt, among other things, disposable. trump on the trail, the president s message to voters, his knocks on democrats and how the party s doing as it stares down the midterms. and obama s picks, president obama just releasing his latest
her, not i want to boof with her. should the fbi investigate the voracity of kavanaugh s claim? and i ask that because earlier this week it was former fbi director james comey who said little lies point to bigger lies. you know, i think that going back to is this a suitability inquiry, is this to determine whether judge kavanaugh is suitable to sit on the supreme court or not, and if he made statements that were misleading, mischaracterized or out and out lies, would that be a disqualifying factor. we heard senator flake say, yes, that certainly would be. i think when you re talking about a position like a supreme court justice, certainly voracity and credibility are pretty key ccharacteristics. in the course of this investigation, if people come forward with allegations that seem to contradict what the judge said, i think that those are the types of things that they would look at as part of his ability to be on the supreme court. whether they re allowed to do that or not is the ques