This is an inadmissible reporting of suspicions in the area of privacy. Cristiano ronaldo also appeared to deny the allegations in an instagram live. She is seeking damages for physical as well as emotional loss. Back to you. The details in the allegations are chilling, for sure. Thank you very much, nick watt. Well keep everyone posted on that as it develops. Thank you for being with us today. Im poppy harlow. Im jim sciutto. At this hour with kate bolduan starts right now. Hello, everyone. Im kate bolduan. Any moment now, President Trump will be live in the rose garden of the white house. After more than a year of high stakes talk that included many a standoff, many a breakdown, and many a threat, the president will announce a new trade deal, making good on an old campaign promise. Say goodbye to nafta and say
hello to the United States, canada, mexico agreement, otherwise known as the usmca, rolls right off the tongue. Whats changed and who benefits . Well bring you his comments live. And theyll be beginning any moment. But its not all good news at the white house this morning. The white house is facing a new investigation into Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh and facing new charges that theyre working behind the scenes to limit the scope of that investigation. And kavanaugh is facing a new accusation he wasnt telling the truth when he testified to the senate. Lets get over to the white house. Cnn White House CorrespondentKaitlan Collins is there in the rose garden, keeping an eye over your shoulder. What are you hearing, first, what are we expecting to hear from the president any minute now . Well, kate, were expecting President Trump to come out here and tout this as a big win for him. Of course, you know since he became president , he has repeatedly criticized nafta saying it was unfair to the United States. And thanks to some lastminute negotiations in the 11th hour before the midnight deadline last night, they have now come to an agreement where its still
going to be the same countries that were in nafta, just with a different name. So its canada, mexico, the United States. There are some key provisions in this that the United States is going to say is a big win. One of those being that canada has agreed to open up its dairy market to the u. S. More. Thats a really big Sticking Point for President Trump as well. As stipulations about automobiles and those tariffs as well. Expect President Trump to come out here and celebrate. Hes going to be excited about this. And this is something, kate, we werent exactly expecting to happen. Last week, we heard from President Trump when he was in new york at the United Nations meeting and he said he rejected a meeting with the canadian Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau and he didnt like their trade representative. So President Trump is going to come out here. That was a lot of late night work last night. Hes going to tout this as a big win for him, but of course, one big question is going to be, they have about 60 days or so to sign this, and then its got to go through congress. Now, if that Doesnt Go Through Congress until next year and its after the midterms and we see a lot of democrats win seats
in the house, thats going to be a big question for this white house, if that can even get passed in congress. So thats what were looking to see, but expect today there to be a lot of celebrating at the white house for President Trump on this big Trade Agreement. Something the president promised from the Campaign Trail onward, that he would tear it up or renegotiate it, and today hes coming out to announce its been both, torn up and renegotiated, i guess we could say. Also, i do want to ask you, though, about Brett Kavanaugh. The other thing that is bearing down on this white house. What are you hearing from the white house about who is controlling the fbi investigation now into his past . Well, kate, nafta is the big topic out here today, but of course, that Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and the drama surrounding it is looming pretty large over this white house because the fbi is in the middle of its investigation. That investigation that came at a lastminute request from some people who are going to be key votes if they do vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. Senator jeff flake, susan collins, Lisa Murkowski. We know that investigation is under way, but right now, there
are Big Questions about the scope of that investigation. And a lot of criticism from democrats who believe that the white house is interfering with that too much and theyre trying to limit the scope of that investigation and who the fbi can talk to, to talk about these accusations against judge brett kavanau kavanaugh. Of course, the white house is saying theyre not limiting the scope of it. President trump tweeting he wants them to interview and talk to whoever has these allegations so they can get this cleared up. But then President Trump, of course, tapping into that criticism from democrats saying essentially will be good enough for them and now theyre trying to complain this investigation may be too narrow. What were waiting to see, of course, and only people whose opinions matter are the key senators who will be key votes for Brett Kavanaugh. We could hear from President Trump out here while hes talking about nafta today. Well see if he answers our questions. And though this investigation, we would assume, started on friday when this all went down, its still a big Question Mark about the scope and scale of this investigation. Great to see you. Well see if he takes any questions as soon as he comes
out. From the white house now to this new accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. This time, coming from another former yale classmate who says that kavanaugh was not telling the truth when he answered questions before the Senate Judiciary committee about his drinking. Cnn politics reporter lauren fox is joining me from our Washington Bureau with much more. Lauren, this former classmate isnt just talking. Hes talking to the fbi and hes released a statement. Whats he saying . Thats right. Chad ludingten released a Statement Last night. Hes a former classmate, and he said Brett Kavanaugh was not honest in what he said before the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Last week. Now, this is exactly what he said in his statement. Quote, when i watched brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary committee on thursday, i cringed. For the fact is, at yale, and i can speak to snow other times, brett was a frequent drink sxr a heavy drinker. Can know because especially our first two years of college, i often drank with him. His statement goes on to say he was deeply troubled by what he heard from kavanaugh, that it was a blatant mischaracterization of his time at yale and his Drinking Habits there. He planned to share what he knew with the fbi. But hes not the only classmate we have heard from. We also heard from liz swisher. Heres what she had to say. Theres no problem with Drinking Beer in college. The problem is lying about it. He drank heavily. He was a partier. He liked to do beer bongs. He played drinking games. He was a sloppy drunk. He was more interested in impressing the boys than in impressing the girls. I never saw him be sexually aggressive, but he definitely was sloppy drunk. Now, kate, we talked to a wide range of people who knew kavanaugh in college, including friends who are saying this was not who kavanaugh was. I spoke with chris dudley, another former basketball player and friend of kavanaughs last week. He said this is not at all who he remembers. A lot of mixed messages out there this morning. Absolutely. Great to see you. Lets talk about the state of things. The scope of this fbi investigation, what the accusation means and all of it. Joining me now, james galliano, josh gamble, both retired fbi special agents, and mark preston is also here. Cnns political analyst, and cnn political reporter niamalika henderson. Great to have you here, keeping an eye on the rose garden. Josh, if youre back at the fbi and chad comes in with this statement this morning, what do you do with it . Looking at the statement, i read through it, there are some damning allegations that are in there, but we have to remember what they are now, simply allegations. It will be up to the fbi to determine the veracity of the claims. Questions youre going to ask yourself is this someone i believe, someone who seems to me at least to be truthful . And what is the motivation for this person, what is causing them to come forward to provide this information . Those will all be part of this calculus. The larger issue is if it is
corroborated what is in the reports, is that something the fbi will be able to look into further. We know we reported over the weekend that this investigation is very limited in scope, and the question, at least what were determining now is that does not include his overall drinking history. With allegations like we saw from mr. Ludingten, will it be a part of it. The last part, which is very interesting, the overarching issue for this investigation is theres this pattern i think i see where people come forward, witnesses, and theres this inclination to say there must be some ulterior motive, we cant trust them. Thats counter to what people in Law Enforcement try to do. I spent a decade in the fbi trying implore the public, if you see something, say something. We see people coming forward with allegations that are serious and the white house is handcuffing the fbis ability to look into it, what message does that send to the rest of the public. Being a sloppy drunk is not disqualifying for the job, necessarily. James, but when it comes to you
have people now coming forward from college saying that he was not telling the truth about describing the nature of his drinking, if he had ever blacked out or not during his senate testimony. If he was an aggressive belligerent drunk, would this have come up in the previous six Background Checks . It speaks to character reputation, certainly. When it comes to the six previous Background Checks, understand the difference between a Criminal Investigation and an fbi background check. People that are being investigated by the fbi for background, for suitability, fitness for office type of things like a judicial nominee, they supply the fbi with a list of names and contacts to contact and get in touch with. So youre going to give them people that are probably sympathetic to you. Thats a starting place for the fbi. Then they go from there. Now, i believe this whole thing about the white house trying to curtail or limit or the scope of this thing is a tempest in a teapot. Why . Because this is different again from a Criminal Investigationwhere the white house is not allowed at all to weigh in on. This is a Background Investigation of somebody that the president has put up. Of course, his counsel and he are going to have some concerns and issues and interest in this. They can supply whatever recommendation they want to. He doesnt have to listen to one of them. If an fbi interviews somebody and that somebody gives somebody elses name or gives something of criminal activity that potentially the judge had been involved in, no one is going to stand in front of an fbi agent and say you cant go talk to people. This is a tempest in a teapot. I would respectfully disagree. What you described is how we want the investigation to be done. We dont want the fbi to be handcuffed. Whats going to handcuff them . Ill explain that, a number of people over the weekend that are familiar with the investigation that say Background Investigations are different from Criminal Investigations. In this case, the white house is the client. These are people very familiar with Whats Going On who are saying the white house is setting the parameters on what is taking place here, and the white house, we saw who they should speak with grrb. And what theyre saying is the fbi comes up with Additional Information and they have to provide that to the white house and say this is beyond that mandate, can we go further . Thats going to be the question, if the white house permits them to. Can we take the next step . The president s tweet, well say right here, is absolutely untruthful. We dont believe what hes saying when hes saying the fbi has free reign. The president s tweet is inconsistent with our reporting. Thats a lie, right . Say youre in the fbi, and you go into a house, someone told you theres narcotics in the house. If you come in as the white house or some authority and say you cant look anywhere in this house but this bedroom, but in thas bedroom, you have free reign. Thats not a fulsome investigation. You believe Director Wray is instructing his agents, go out, ask these people questions. If anything comes out of that, you are not aalou you are not aaloallowed to take actionable lead. We get a lead, we follow that to another lead. You believe Director Wray i
dont believe he would ever say you cannot take the next step. Thats how Background Investigations work. Theyre different than Criminal Investigation. The white house as a client sets the parameters and then the fbi will take that to the white house and say we saw over the weekend that ms. Ramirez said here are a number of potential witnesses. The question is will the white house permit the fbi to go beyond that scope. Im going to go on record right now. The white house will not be able to restrict fbi agents from interviewing whoever they deem essential and necessary to the conduct of this investigation. The president can say what he wants. We know sometimes he can be intemperate with what he says and tweets. But i believe in my heart of hearts from what i have seen thus far of this director, the eighth director of the fbi, i cannot imagine him not immediately tendering his resignation if the president says youre not allowed to ask about this, youre supposed to look at character, associations, reputation, loyalties, abilities, finances, bias, and alcohol and drug usage. How can you restrict that and say you can talk to these eight
people, but if they give you more names, josh, which you know is what usually happens, youre not allowed to talk to them and you cant ask anything about one of the nine essential characteristics off a Background Investigation. When Chad Ludingten comes forward with a statement to the fbi and said its about Brett Kavanaugh, they have a responsibility as the bureau to apply that to his background . If its to be done right, absolutely, kalt. Thats right. You described a framework that we all hope is the case. Again, what im talking about is the reality now. What happens when something new comes up, in any conversation or interview, and they say to the white house, we need to go now this direction, what does the white house do in response . Thats how well know whether this is serious. I wonder if well hear about it until after the fact. Youll see it in the report. I want to talk about that in a second. Vice president pence is coming in, which means the president is shortly on his tail. Let me bring in mark preston on the politics of what were discussing. He said kavanaugh did fought
tell the truth in his testimony, specifically when he was asked about if he has ever drank to the point of blacking out. Jeff flake was asked about it on 60 minutes, the idea of lying. Hes obviously a key voice. I wont play the sound because were probably going to the president soon, but if he was lying, if he was shown to have lied to the committee, is the nomination over. And jeff flake says, oh, yes. Did flake paint himself into a corner here, do you think . I think jeff flake, you know, ever since he made that decision in the Committee Hearing to delay the vote basically on judge kavanaugh, hes kind of cut his path forward. I will say this, though, kate. I will say this, though, is that there is going to be a lot that comes out about judge kavanaugh. Who knows how much is true or false, but it is all going to come into play, certainly in the court of Public Opinion and in the minds of the three senators, susan collins, Lisa Murkowski, and jeff flake, as they are, you
know, when they have to vote on this later this week. Overarching, im so confused, again, why there is uncertainty about the scope of the nomination. It should be pretty straightforward, but you have the pr