recusal direction so if i answer that question in either direction, i would be violating my judicial independence in my view by committing in this context i've explained -- >> with all due respect, sir, i have shared with you that other nominees sitting at that desk or some desk like that have committed to recusing. there have been circumstances where they have committed so is it your opinion then that they violated somet ethical code or rule? >> i don't know all the circ couple stances butible they wi e they were required recuse sal. a discretionary recusal is a requirement to get a job or nonrecusal as a commitment to get a job, either direction, would be violating my independence as a judge, as a

sitting judge and as a nominee to the court. >> okay. it is clear you're unwilling at this point to recusal so we can move on. one of your mentors, justice kennedy, wrote landmark opinions in the area of lgbtq rights that have had a major impact on the lives of many americans. let's discuss one of those cases and that's the obergerfeld case. they have the same right to marry. my question is whether that case was correctly decided in your opinion? >> senator, justice kennedy wrote the majority opinion in a series of five cases, romer versus evans -- >> if we can just talk about obergerfeld case. >> i want to explain it. >> i know the history. can you please address your comments to obergerfeld. >> i would like to explain it. he wrote in romer versus evans,

united states versus windsor obergerfeld and master piece cake shop with a statement -- >> no, please don't because i actually have read it and i'm sure most have. my question is very specific. can you comment on your personal opinion on whether obergerfeld was correctly decided? it's a yes or no, please. >> in master piece cake shop, this is i think relevant to your question, justice kennedy wrote in the majority opinion joined by chief justice roberts and justice alito and justice go gorsuch and others are over. >> are over. >> do you agree with that statement? >> that is the precedent of the supreme court agreed with by -- >> sir, i'm asking your opinion. you're the nominee right now so it is probative of your ability

to serve on the highest court in our land so i'm asking you a very specific question. either you're willing to answer or not and if you're not willing to answer it, we can move on. do you believe obergerfeld was correctly decided? >> each of the justices have declined as a matter of judicial independence, each of them to answer questions in that line of cases. >> so you will not answer it? >> following the precedent set by those eight justices, they've all declined when asked to thaens question. >> thank you. i have limited time. >> but it's important be -- >> i'd really like to move on. you've said that brown v board of education was one of the greatest moments in the court's history. do you believe that obergerfeld was also one of those moments? >> i've said, senator, consistent with what the nominees have done, that the vast swath of modern case law, as justice kagan put it, you can't as a nominee in this seat

give a thumbs up or thumbs down. >> do you think obergerfeld was one of the great moments in the history of the supreme court of the united states? >> for that reason those nominees have declined to comment on the cases. >> is it a great moment? not to comment on the legal analysis. do you believe that was a great moment? >> justice kennedy wrote the opinion saying the days of treating gay or lesbian couples as second class citizens are over in the supreme court. that's a very important statement, senator. >> i agree, that's why i think you repeated it. thank you. let's move on. over the last several months we have all witnessed the inhumane and heartbreaking separation of immigrant children from their families by this administration. despite a court order requiring the administration to reunite them over a month ago, nearly 500 immigrant children are still separated from their parents.

do you believe that constitutional rights of parents, specifically fundamental due process rights are i78 pmplicated in such fami separations? >> senator, that is a matter of pending litigation i believe and as a sitting judge on the d.c. circuit or as a nominee i of course can't comment. >> have you watched the coverage of any of these cases on television or have you read about the experience those parents and those children have had? >> i have seen some television. >> in the 1889 chinese exclusion case the government banned chinese people from entering the united states. they said the chinese people are impossible to assimilate with our people, end quote, and said they were immigrating in numbers, quote, approaching an invasion. this case has never been explicitly overruled. you've said you'd be willing to talk about older cases so can

you tell me, was the united states supreme court correct in holding that chinese people could be banned from entering our country? >> senator, the cases in the 1890s as you know -- >> 1889 to be specific. >> okay, in that era reflect discriminatory attitudes by the supreme court. of course, that's the era of klessy versus ferguson. >> would you be willing to say that was incorrectly decided? >> senator, i don't want to opine on a particular case without looking at it and studying the discrimination. >> are you aware that that case has not been overturned? >> senator, i know that with a number of the cases like horamatsu. >> we've discussed that earlier. in this particular case were you aware it had not been over turned? >> i realize there are cases in the immigration context -- >> have you ever written about any of those cases and your

thoughts about whether they should be re-examined or potentially over turned and sometimes obviously they should be over turned? >> well, there is a swath of cases. >> have you talked about this case ever? >> i do not -- i do not believe. i'm happy to be refreshed if you have something that suggests i have. >> no, it's actually a question. >> okay. >> and under the constitution, judge, do you believe that congress or the president can ban entry into the united states on the basis of race? >> senator, that was of course one of the issues that was just in litigation and there's still litigation about the immigration laws and how exclusions -- >> you're not going to answer. >> that's pending litigation so i think i as a matter of independence and precedent -- >> will not answer that. that's fine. let's move on. in 2013 texas passed a law on health care facilities to provide abortions. after the law was in effect half

of the facilities closed which severely limited health care to women in texas. in 2016 whole women's health decided that the supreme court invalidated the texas restrictions. were they correctly decided? yes or no. we can keep it short and move on. >> senator, consistent with the approach of nominees -- >> you will not be answering that? >> following that nominee precedent. >> i'd like to ask you another question which i believe you can answer. you've said repeatedly that roe versus wade is an important precedent. i'd like to understand what that really means for the lives of women. we've had a lot of conversations about how the discussion we're having in this room will impact real people out there and so my question is what in your opinion is still unresolved. for example, can a state prevent a woman from using the most common or widely accept medical

procedure to -- >> i don't want to comment on hypothetical cases. roe v wade is an important precedent. it's been reaffirmed many times. >> are you willing to say that it would be unconstitutional for a state to place such a restriction on women for roe v wade? >> senator, you can -- the precedent of the supreme court was -- in roe was reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey and that's precedent on precedent and there are other cases applying the undue burden standard and that's applying precedence. >> we've discussed that many times. i've had the benefit of sitting through most of the hours of your testimony the last two days. >> thank you. >> i know you've talked a lot about that. can congress ban aboriton nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy? >> senator, that would require me to comment on potential

legislation that i understand and, therefore, i shouldn't as a matter of judicial independence following the precedent of nominees. >> i'm going to ask you about unenumerated rights. you gave a speech praising former rehnquist's dissent in roe. you wrote celebrating his successes stemming the general tide of free willing judicial creation of unenumerated rights. that is what you said in celebration of justice rehnquist. uh-uh numerated rights, i want to make sure i understand what we're talking about. they're not in that book that you carry. so what we're talking about is the right to vote. that's an unenumerated right. the right to have children. the right to control children. the right to control the upbringing of your children. the right to refuse medical care. the right to love the partner of your choice. the right to marry and the right

to have an abortion. now putting those unenumerated rights in the context of the statement you made, which was to praise the stemming of the general tide of freewheeling creation of unenumerated rights, which means you were -- the interpretation there is you were praising the request to end those unenumerated rights, my question to you is which of the rights that i just mentioned do you want to put an end to or roll back? >> three points, i believe, senator. first, constitution, it is in the book that i carry. the constitution protects unenumerated rights, that's what the supreme court says. >> but that does not explicitly protect the rights that i just listed. we both know that that's the case. >> that's point one. point be two is gluxberg which

is the case you're talking about. they specifically cited planned parenthood versus casey. casey reaffirmed roe. casey is cited in gluxberg. three, she pointed to gluxberg as unenumerate the rights. i agree with her description of that in her hearing. >> thank you for that. let's put the rights that i mentioned which are unenumerated in your context of your praise of justice rehnquist as having stemmed the general tide of freewheeling unee numb mer aba r merable -- unenumerated right. when you praise a justice that tried to end those, which rights

do you think are praise worthy of ending? >> that was the test that was set forth by the supreme court going forward for recognition of additional unenumerated rights. that was cited as authority in that case, planned parenthood versus casey, which reaffirmed roe. >> let's talk about the right to vote. do you believe that that falls in the category of having been caught up in the general tide of freewheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights? >> what i was describing with the chief justice. his role -- >> specifically the reference was to unenumerated rights. >> in other areas i've described five different areas of jurisprudence where he a dheefd a mad dern -- modern area.

the gluxberg case is the case that the supreme court has relied on for forward looking future of unenumerated rights. >> thank you, sir. i'm familiar with that. i think you're not going to address the specific unenumerated rights or not? if not, we can move on. >> i think i've addressed it. >> in 2011 you were one of the judges to the affordable care act. you dissented on procedural grounds on the court which upheld the act. one of your former law clerk described your opinion as a, quote, thorough takedown of the original mandate. he went on to clerk that year or the next year and then the supreme court heard the argument

for the affordable care act. your argument was the roadmap for striking down the affordable care map. given the roadmap could one reasonably conclude that you would have voted to strike down the affordable care act had you been on be the supreme court? >> couple of points, senator. i concluded -- in one case i defended that. in the case you're referring to i did not reach the merits. i discussed the rates being argued. i had what -- >> they described it as a takedown. >> i speak for myself and my own opinions speak for themselves. >> out of bounds. chairman wants to close this questioning so we can leave it

with that. thank you, judge. >> thank you for your time, senator. >> before i call on senator gordon -- >> good evening, everyone. i'm kate bolduan in for erin burnett. you have been listening in to senator carmella harris questioning brett kavanaugh. another day of marathon questioning and another day marked by high drama. this hearing is heading into its tenth hour today. first i do want to get to phil mattingly who has been watching the hearing all day long. phil, let's talk about carmella harris. she is at it again right where she started off with the questioning after she sparked somewhat of a mystery in her questioning over kavanaugh's contacts with a law firm first. what's this all about? >> kate, last night after we

were -- just past 12 hours of yesterday's testimony, this is one of the things that made everybody sit up in the chair. what she was asking is had he had any discussions with the personal attorney trump about moller. they were confused. they were trying to identify who worked at the firm. it was a large law firm, one he wasn't aware of. that exchange went viral and did she have some kind of documents or evidence? we haven't gotten great evidence. brett kavanaugh and others have been asked about that. they said no conversation happened. senator harris said throughout the day she believed there was still information that one existed. you just saw it play out again in the questioning at the committee where senator harris

made clear what the question was and brett kavanaugh after seeking a little bit of clarification, said the answer was no. this moment, viral as it was, sit up in your chair as it was, was senator harris. now brett kavanaugh is on the record saying firmly, no, it didn't happen. senator harris noted that she had good reason to believe that that happened. what that information is we still don't know, kate. as you said, phil, another big drama moment was over releasing documents and it all really centered around democratic senator cory booker. what happened? >> let's start with the micro and then we'll pull out a little bit. the hearing kind of devolved into a partisan shooting match. sarah booker started talking

about ours. they couldn't be released publicly. if they are released publicly, that is against senate rules if broken to expulsion of this senate. senator booker was talking about the need to release these e-mails and he was willing to do it. take a listen. >> i understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting from the senate and if senator co core nin believes i violated rules, i openly invite my team. >> here's the interesting piece of that. those had already been cleared for release. so the demonstration you saw wasn't necessarily in line with the morality, the broader picture here is that brett

kavanaugh is enormous. a lot haven't been released at all or are only privy to u.s. senators. that is keeping key issues away. rick have rick. >> appreciate it. "out front" jerry nadler, top democrat on the committee. >> pleasure. >> let's start with where fill took off. republicans are calling him out now for really making a total show of it and this is what republicans have for 2020 aspirations. was that all a show in your view? >> no. they made clear they weren't going to release some of the

documents. booker assumed they would not have been released at the time they were released. >> don't you think that's something you'd check on if you had the okay so you don't have to have this moment? >> i don't think though had the okay in advance. i think it came through in what i was hearing. in any event, the real issue is republicans are still holding and rushing the hearing despite hundreds of thousands of dollars whampt do they have to hide? this is being rushed forward when we're told that hundreds of thousands of documents cannot be released until even october i think. >> there is a lot of documents that our tribe. so the real question, why do we have to hide.

we got to know everything about the nominee. the nominee is sitting there refusing to answer any question. you can't go that farr. >> almost that far. he's ducking everything that's hypothetical. the hearings are a farce. >> what do you make of caramel la harrison's back and forth, that he was talking about that very same russia investigation. >> i don't know what to make about that. i have no information. >> i mean, do you think it's another -- well, you don't think that's a show. is this a show? >> no. i assume she knows -- she has something to base it on when she's talking about. in the end, brett kavanaugh the firm. >> do i see what?

>> he's going to get drawn to a 4 yard conclusion. very destruck tief of rights of health care. people, he will be very solicitous of letting the corporations run politics by unlimited campaign contributions and he won't let congress regulate them. i think it's going to be a very disruptive supreme court justice. i am afraid that if the republicans won't stand firm, i have to say i think susan collins and senator murkowski, they are really pro choice, they should know that by voting to approve senator kavanaugh, they'll be voting for the end of abortion rights in the country ee sepgs bely and they have to know that regardless of his invasions. >> i want to turn right now to this "new york times" opinion piece, congressman. the number of cabinet officials

and others denying it. it keeps growing and growing and growing. do you take them at their word when they deny writing the opinion piece? >> you have to take at their word all of them are denying it except one. >> do you think the identity of the writer matters? >> yes, i think it matters in how serious we take this piece. if he were a low level person, that's one thing. if it were a high ranking person it becomes a much more important piece and you have to take it seriously. >> john kerry says it's pushed us into a constitutional crisis. do you think we're there? >> i think we're getting into a constitutional crisis. we now have a lot of evidence that the president is incapable of performing his duties, that maybe the 25th amend.

issue should be invoektd. people around it are saying it. >> do you think so? >> i don't know. i don't have the evidence, but people around him are telling bob woodward. one of the people that wrote it said he's irrational. he has the understanding of a sixth grader. it will be very, very dangerous. >> what more evidence do you need to see? >> since he's got his fingers on the nuclear button. >> if you think we're going that direction what evidence do you need to see where you're going to be calling for the 25th amendment? >> i don't know. i'm not in a position to see that evidence, but if more people come out and say -- let me just say this. whoever wrote that anonymously, not as a matter of patriotism, they should say so publicly. so we have the evidence and know what type of crisis we're

dealing with. >> do you think this person is a patriot or a gutless coward as trump puts it? >> he's a patriot but he's also -- i don't know about a gutless coward but they're not showing -- >> he or she. >> he or she. someone who talked about woodward. someone who sees the president ought to come out and say so so we can deal with it. >> out front next, following some breaking news. national security advisor john bolt continue and christopher wray are also denying that they wrote the anonymous "new york times" op ed. they are droawing it out and th witch hunt for who wrote that speech. one top aide saying they should

figure it out. burt reynolds dead at the age of 82. a look at his extraordinary life and career. if you have psoriasis, ... little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe

plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. you want things done right. that's why we test all of our paints and stains for months. or even years. we dedicate 175,000 square feet to getting it wrong... ...because you deserve paint that's done right. that's proudly particular.

benjamin moore. the standard for paint professionals. only at local paint and hardware stores. rewards me basically aeverywhere.om so why am i sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse? because hotels.com lets me do me. sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com. you do you and get rewarded. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar.

new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. your hair is so soft!rotein. did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one. agent beekman was one step ahead of them.dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today. like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. tonight breaking news. fbi director christopher wray

and john bolt continue denying they wrote the anonymous "new york times" op ed. this comes as the white house is really struggling to get ahead of the scathing piece by a senior trump administration official. the white house wanted a quote, unquote, coordinated response to the piece according to another administration official. instead we are seeing one denial after another, a flood of them really. at least 27 denials now from the highest echelons of the trump administration. vice president mike pence moving very quickly to say he did not write the critical essay. his office releasing a statement first saying this, the vice president puts his name on his op eds and he is not alone. i'm going to show you the list so far of everyone who has issued a denial including secretary of state mike pompeo, director of national intelligence dan coates, attorney general jeff sessions. james mattis. a white house official printed and hand delivered to the president but here's the thing.

history has shown just because someone denies they're not the source, denies they're the source, doesn't necessarily make it true. take watergate 1974 washington was consumed with another whodunnit. mark phelps denied he was the source. here it is in black and white from the wool street journal. june 25th, 1974, if you drink scotch, smoke and read, maybe you're deep throat. mark phelps says he isn't now nor has he ever been deep throat. flash forward 30 years it's revealed he was the washington post source. lesson there tonight, if you want to know who's behind this whodunnit, maybe wait just a minute or 30 years. let's get to caitlyn collins at the white house. what are you hearing inside the white house tonight? >> reporter: well, we're seeing these denials continue to roll in. of course as you make that great point there, just because

someone denies writing the op ed doesn't mean they didn't write the op ed. the highest ranking officials in our government are tripping over themselves to say it wasn't them who trashed president trump in that op ed. it's because they know the president is getting all of these denials hand delivered to him and printed out by aides. he is paying attention. that is why we are seeing so many official say they didn't write the op ed. even the vice president, defense secretary, labor secretary as you showed that extensive list. that's because they know the president is keeping an eye on those people. that's because this manhunt here to find out who it is who wrote this is still very much underway, still very much a guessing game with the president who even isn't here at the white house, he's in montana for a rally just a few minutes ago asked them if they were going to figure out who wrote the op ed.

who is the anonymous letter writer? that is certainly something we want everyone to know. and then you have the president's biggest allies, senator rand paul, suggesting that those white house officials who have security clearances should be taking lie detector tests to figure out who it is that's talking to the media. while that seems like a farfetched idea, kate, you have to keep in mind that it was senator rand paul who suggested revoking john bolton's securities about it. this is clearly something that is very much at the top of the president's mind and he wasn't thinking that anyone is working against him. he has the notion confirmed. >> at the same time sarah

sanders. out front david brody, chief political analyst for the christian broadcasting network. also author of "the fate of donald trump." and eliana johnson. jamie, this list of cabinet officials and other officials putting out a denial, it just keeps growing. i feel like i miss it if i haven't looked at my e-mail in the last two minutes. what are you hearing? do you think people should take this as gospel or a grain of spark? >> your mark seemed seilly but since only one person as far as we know wrote "the new york times" op ed, but what is stunning here is this demand for denials. it does have the feeling of a loyalty test. and even if they are making

these denials, it doesn't mean that some of these people don't have concerns for the president, kate. >> alayana, some of them share the fears and concerns laid out in the 37b piece about the president? what is the impact and most share the concerns of the op ed writer and most republicans, both in the white house and on capitol hill have worked to rein in the president and to harness, corral his worst instih lawmaked republicans in the white house i'm hearing a lot of concern and trepidation that if the goal of this op ed was to actually rein in the president and continue doing that, it's gl to have the

opposite effect. the president is acutely aware of that. somebody told me that when the president's advice horse broke agreements with him and it will make him less likely to hear differing points of views and increasingly koerntd about finding advisors. >> and if that was the goal. they could become more reckless when it comes to that. david, democratic senator, a frequent trump critic, frequent trump target, senator elizabeth warren. she said the op ed is further proof that it's time. >> if the senior officials think the president of the united states is not able to do their squoob, then they should invoke

the constitutional flyer. >> you've been talking to many in the ee van gelling call community. what is the reaction to all of this? >> more you poer to 'em. i think it's that simple. they don't believe anything that's coming from what they call a mole, and that's an exact attributi attribution, a note of some of the moles. they think this is what evangelicals were saying. let's be honest, oh, by the way, hosni mubarak, he's right. and i don't think there's any question about it. this is a perfect storm if you think about it politically. you have the fairly "new york times" where that's anonymous,

throw in the deep state. >> it is a perfect storm for mid term elections. >> you could see it working for him. jamie, the quest to find the author of the piece, it's definitely happening inside the white house and outside of the white house. people weren't focusing on anything to figure out what this is. not in everyone's vernacular. one person used it many times we've all found is vice president mike pence. >> it seems to me, mr. speaker, that the lodestar. >> that will be a lodestar. >> must once again be our lode star. >> vigilance and resolve will be our lodestar. >> it will be our lode star.

if the impact of this has already been felt though, either damaging or beneficial, depending on how you look at this, does it matter who wrote it in the end? >> i think it does. i just want to say when you parse the letter, and i confess i am guilty of having gone through it. i have never used the word lodestar but i had to wonder if there were several things in there to disguise who did it. there was national security economic policy. what matters is not only who the person is but how high up does this person go? after that the question i think will be do other people come forward, kate. >> alayana, what are you hearing

from your other contacts. >> this was not an isolate the incide incident. this came from experts released in bob woodward's book. essentially his exile which brought together the rest of washington including the cabinet. that had him exirsies as well. one administration official described to me with white house officials caught flat footing and trying to contain the president but with how to respond themselves. so i think they are really trying to come up with a plan and also they are trying to find who the author of this op ed was. they've come up with a short list of people who they believe it is and there's going to be a really -- a real effort to ferret out the author. >> david, does this strike you as a turning point that will

soon are forgotten. >> the trump administration, give it an hour and we'll be on to something different. it's a blip and we need to find out the rest of it. i mean, i just don't know if any sustaining power, we've heard these words before, witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt. now we're going to hear it about what's going on here in washington, deep state inside his administration. so once again whoever this anonymous, mr., miss -- >> jamie, you have new reporting about bob woodward's book. i want to play for you what donald trump said about that document yesterday, which was a

draft letter on a trade deal. it's been done for about two minutes. but that was another thing in the book that was just totally false. >> totally false and no documents. >> right. he said it was phony. here it is. here's the letter. i've read the book. it's in the book. it's absolutely real. >> look, what's critical about this is that it explains, it makes the case as you said according to woodward's book. this wasn't just one person, this was a group of white richd. by the way. and said he stands by all of your reporting in the book. >> thank you all so much. i really appreciate it.

>> thank you. >> out front next, one sir pricing short track note. plus, remembering one of hollywood's most popular leading men. burt reynolds. >> where are we going? no, don't tell me. let me guess. we are a bride in search of a wedding. ♪ but when it matters most, you count on tracfone to keep you connected for less. ♪ our smartphone plan gives you talk, text and data with unlimited carryover starting at $15 a month, no contract. all with nationwide 4g lte coverage. get top smartphones or bring your own phone. tracfone. for moments that matter.

essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr,

and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

tonight both sides of the aisle for very different reasons would like to know the identity of the senior administration official who penned that bombshell editorial in "the new york times", but how do we figure it out, do you ask? republican senator rand paul has an idea.

he says, let's -- let's all put them on a lie detector. thought i had a sound bite but i don't. he said polygraph. are we seriously going to see a polygraph rolling into the west wing now? let's see. rob, are you with senator rand paul, libertarian on the lie detector tests. >> no. i think it's silly. honestly, i mean, look, this is an executive branch function. this is a personnel matter. we can get into what we do about whether the times should have or should not have published it. i do not think they should have anonymously. there are a lot of dangerous situations. would you tell us the level of the person that it is? >> no.

>> would you tell us the name of that person? >> i think that would be significa significant. however, if you read the times intro nowhere does it say this person is a person. >> that was a republican. that can be to throw off everything. this person could literally -- >> sure. i was laughing because everything is a possibility, i guess. >> that's the intrigue here. i think it's really dangerous that the "new york times" did. i think their criticism is warranted. >> look, rob, i'm going to say this. if this comes out and this person is a home owner right here with kate, book it, but i have to pick this as a news making senior white house administration official. if this is somebody lower than that, we will all be disappointed and i will say it's

wrong. this is what we've been hearing for a long time. we've heard from our own there have been pacts between -- they're gone, rex tillerson, jim mattis -- we heard people are staying on their jobs -- >> there seems to be one more possibility about what this is, all made up. along with the denials, you have the president questioning if the person actually exists. the president tweeting does the so-called senior administration official really exist? mike copompeo saying very simil. >> if this piece, if it's true, they described it as a senior administration official, they should not well have chosen to take a disgruntled deceptive bad actors word for anything, and put it in their newspaper.

>> it's a lot to accuse the "new york times" of taking something from somebody who doesn't exist. i'm a liberal and i have criticism of the times all the time. i think this was vetted very carefully. >> i think somebody wrote this, i just question why there's anonymous attached to it. have the guts to come forward and take a stand. there's really bad accusations in there. in all due respect to burt reynolds who i love, his movie "the end," go watch that movie that had to do with mental incompetency what they're making this to be, the white house. we're getting into very dangerous territory. take donald trump, the person, makes some people vomit by saying donald trump, the resistance. go to president 46, 47, 48, you cannot have subordinates taking

the president's papers off the president's desk like gary cohen did because they disagree with him. that is subverting the executive branch. >> i am interested in the impact even before you find out who the identity who this person is. listen to david brody and lindsey graham, he says back home in his state it will have zero effect, it does not matter at all. do you think that's the case? >> no. i think it continues. it backs up so many things already. >> it has no impact? >> no. his approval rating is falling. >> no. >> yes, it is. >> the rasmussen poll is -- >> rasmussen is always the best poll for him. >> for the representatives in the economy -- >> this is about republican -- this is about republican office holders, this is about swing voters, this is about independents, continuing -- >> would you also make the case

this could help him? >> it could help him with his base. >> he doesn't need help with his base? >> the "new york times" is like -- >> this is what we heard from so many people already, rob. this is one more piece of evidence. you may not like it but -- >> this is a big deal or no big deal? because lindsey graham makes the case this is not a big deal. >> i don't think it is a big deal. >> you have sarah sanders saying this clearly is a big deal in the white house. >> it's a big deal. >> welcome to washington, everybody is trying to have it every way. up next, jeanne moos has a piece about one of hollywood's biggest stars, burt reynolds, dead at the age of 82. i've bking blades here at gillette for 20 years. i bet i'm the first blade maker you've ever met.

there's a lot of innovation that goes into making our thinnest longest lasting blades on the market. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. it's about delivering a more comfortable shave every time. invented in boston, made and sold around the world. order now at gilletteondemand.com. gillette. the best a man can get.

suffer from a heart attack.s it can happen anywhere, anytime. but during a suspected heart attack, immediately calling 911 and chewing bayer aspirin can help save a life. carry bayer aspirin. help save a life. a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

berg tonight, reremember a hollywood icon. >> reporter: from clean shave tone mu stashio to bearded was burt reynolds, good old boy. when he made it big at the box

office. cool behind the wheel and cool with the ladies. he called sally field the one who got away. burt was married twice, his second marriage to lonnie anderson ended in a nasty divorce fodder for the tabloids and earned burt a consoling call on "larry king live" from a fellow actor. >> forget all this crap that's going on in your life. you're a superman. >> reporter: years later. >> you loom large in my mind. you're burt [bleep] reynolds. >> reporter: in his memoir, burt said i wasn't interested in challenging myself as an actor, i was interested in having a good time. but he did challenge himself in deliverance. >> you don't beat it. you don't beat this river. >> anything you turned down you regretted? >> women-wise? >> either way? women or film? >> that was crude sexist remark and i apologize to everyone for

it. >> he did turn down films that became huge from "star wars" to tears of endearment to pretty woman and said yes to the heights movie. his role as a porn filmmaker won him a golden globe. then, there was the time he bared all on a bear skin rug on cosmo magazine and later said he regretted it taking away from a serious film like "deliverance" and boy, did he deliver all with their whipped cream battle. burt reynolds didn't just play a good old boy, he lived it. jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> a lot of cleaning up. burt reynolds, at the age of 82. we celebrate him tonight. thank you all so much for joining us tonight. anderson cooper is in "ac 360"

starts right now. >> good evening from washington, where one by one today, senior administration officials spoke up and denied being the senior administration official, the one who wrote the opinion for the "times," and one thing he does not fully grasp is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. i would know. i am one of them. it has rocked this town and with bob woodward's new book has shaken in anyone's imagine nation this