Transcript for Senator reacts to scope of Kavanaugh FBI investigation

Whitehouse, member of the senate judiciary committee. Senator, you're a former prosecutor, as well. Are you satisfied now with the scope of the FBI inquiry and can they finish by Friday? I think I'm satisfied. We don't know all the details yet, but clearly if they have been given free range to interview whomever they want that's a good sign. The last thing we want is a sham in there's a fairly small universe of witnesses here and a very big FBI, so, yes, I think they probably should be able to get this done by Friday if they really put the effort into it. You say it's a fairly small grouof witnesses and I guess the question is what exactly are they investigating? Are they simply investigating the two incident, one with Deborah Ramirez and one with Dr. Into Brett Kavanaugh's drinking in college and whether he was truthful about it before your committee? I think probably a little bit of both. Clearly Ms. Ford's testimony is very important. She's the witness who has had her story aired very publicly and she's been subject to trained cross-examination and she came through with flying colors and 100% identified Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker. So that's got to be front and center. The Ramirez allegations haven't had the same airing but there are witnesses around that incident that need to be interviewed and then I'm not quite sure where they're going with respect to Ms. Swetnick's allegations, but ultimately do think when somebody is coming before the United States senate and want to be a supreme court judge they ought to tell the truth. If they're lying that's something that is disqualifying. Do you think he told the truth to your committee? I have very grave doubts at this point but that's one of the reasons we so badly wanted an investigation so we could get to the truth of that rather than have to deal with surmise or suspicion. One thing you're seeing from Brett Kavanaugh's defenders is that if he did, in fact, not tell the truth about those entries in his high school yearbook, even about this incident at a bar in Yale in 1985 it was about things long ago, about relatively trivial matters. How do you respond to that? Yeah, I think if these things are trivial and it's a minor, you know, miscue, if you will, if you're looking at a perjury case you require that the lie be material, same with a false statement case, so tiny little slip-ups, I don't think are the issue. But if he's lying about something significant, in a way that he would clearly be conscious that he was lying when he testified to us, that's pretty serious stuff. And you believe it happened I'm waiting to see what the FBI report comes back with. I certainly would not rule it out. There's plenty to disbelief in what he said but, again, it's very hard to sort through this until you have the investigation which is why we pushed so hard to make sure that took place. Senator whitewhite house -- When you have two witnesses who said they're 100% certain that means you should investigate. Thanks for your time this morning. Thank you.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.