this bulge of water to get down not only this river but hundreds of other rivers and tributaries around the state before they can declare this disaster over. >> storm is gone, danger is still there. thanks for joining us today. ac 360 starts right now. good evening. we begin with breaking news you will only see here. the woman accusing supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her wants the fbi to investigate her allegations before talking to the senate judiciary committee about it. we know this because 360 has exclusively obtained a letter her attorneys have moments ago sent to chuck grassley. it lays out in stark terms the price she says she and her family are already paying. grassley wants her to appear before the committee. republicans want to speed the nomination along. democrats want to go slow. president trump says judge kavanaugh doesn't deserve this. until now, we do not know what

dr. ford wants. tonight, we do, reading from the letter to chairman grassley. earlier this summer, dr. ford sought to tell her story in confidence so that lawmakers would have a fuller understanding of brett kavanaugh's character and history. only after the details of her experience were leaked did dr. ford make the decision to come forward publically. the letter continues saying, quote, in the 36 hours since her name became public, dr. ford has received a stunning amount of support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. at the same time her worst fears have materialized. she's been the target of harassment and death threats. as a result, her family was forced to relocate out of their home. her e-mail has been hacked. she has been impersonated online. the letter says, while dr. ford's life is being turned upside down, you scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as judge kavanaugh in front of two

dozen senators to relive this incident. the hearing was scheduled for six days from today and would include interrogation by senators who appear to have made up their mind she is mistaken and mixed up. no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal. as the judiciary committee has recognized and done before, an fbi investigation should be the first step in addressing her allegations. a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner and that the committee is fully informed before any conducting any hearing or making any decision. we have just gotten this letter. so has senator grassley. we are seening king reaction fr them. one of the attorneys representing dr. ford joins me now. thanks for being with us. are you saying -- i want to repeat this line. as the judiciary committee has recognized and done before an

fbi investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. clearly, you want it to be the first step and so does your client. are you saying there has to be an investigation by the fbi or else professor ford will not testify? >> there should be and investigation. that's the right thing to do. >> if there's not an investigation, would she appear on monday? >> she is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation. that has been her position and it continues to be her position. she will cooperate with the committee in whatever form that takes. it remains to be seen. we have to talk with senator grassley's office and the other committee members to determine what form that will take. >> you want to engage in conversation with senator grassley and others to actually figure out what happens between now and then and whether this takes place monday. >> that's right. any talk of a hearing on monday is premature. she just came forward with these allegations 48 hours ago. since that time, she has been

dealing with hate mail, harassment, death threats. she's been spending her time trying to figure out how to put her life back together, how to protect herself and her family. there hasn't been an investigation. these are serious allegations. if the senators who have come forward and said they want to treat this seriously mean that, then they will have an investigation of these allegations so that we all go into this more informed. >> the senate does have investigators. it doesn't necessarily have to be the fbi. would that be acceptable to you? >> they have to be investigated. those are things we can discuss with senator grassley. whether it's the fbi or other investigators, it should be impartial investigators who are non-partisan. >> if you engage in these conversations, if senator grassley's staff reaches out to you, as we would assume they would and you have these conversations and they say point-blank, this is not something the fbi is involved with, the fbi doesn't want to be involved, we are going to have

the hearings on monday, your client can show up or not, would she show up? >> she is going to -- she will talk with the committee. she's not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on monday. this just came out 48 hours ago. >> point-blank, if there's not an investigation between now and then, she would not appear on monday in a public hearing? >> no investigation -- any legitimate investigation will happen between now and monday. this is going to take some time. what needs to happen is there shouldn't be a rush to a hearing here. there's no reason to do that. >> you are saying even if they said the fbi will investigation and begins an investigation, you are saying monday there's no way your client would sit down in front of a hearing, even if the fbi said, we have looked into it? >> it's premature to talk about a hearing on monday. people understand that. she has been dealing with the threats, the harassment and the

safety of her family. that's what she's been focused on for the last two days and will continue to be focused on that. so asking her to come forward in four or five days and sit before the judiciary committee on national tv is not a fair process. if they care about doing the right thing here and treating this seriously, as they have said, then they will do the right thing and they will properly investigate this. she will work with them in that investigation and also to share her story with the committee. however that happens. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. i want to drill down this and be as clear as possible. even if the fbi agrees to investigate, you are saying, a proper investigation can't be done before monday, concluded before monday. even if the fbi says they will investigate or if the chairman says the fbi won't investigate,

you are saying your client will not sit down monday for a public hear s hearing? >> there's no reason to have a public hearing monday. this is being rushed through. it's too important. it's not a game. this is a serious situation. >> senator cornyn said that your client is not in a position to be making conditions here. >> she's made her allegations known. she said she will cooperate with the committee and with any investigation. she remains willing to do that. we have reached out to senator grassley tonight and indicated that and will continue to talk with him about ways in which we can have her communicate to the committee so that they have all the information they need and to assist law enforcement or other investigators in following up leads on witnesses, facts and anything else. >> if the hearings on monday were not public, would that make a difference in her willingness to sit down and appear before the committee. >> no. it's premature. it's 48 hours ago she came forward. for the last 48 hours, she has

been deflecting death threats and harassment and trying to care for her family and determine where they are going to sleep at night. right now, she can't focus on having a hearing that hasn't been investigated and where nobody has talked to her. >> there are republicans who say this is a stalling tactic by democrats that the democrats had this information, had her allegations previously and have delayed releasing them or delayed moving them forward. >> the democrats, senator feinstein in particular, respected her request for confidentiality initially. that was the right thing to do. victims of sexual assault have the ability to say whether and when those allegations should be made public. i have no problem with the way senator feinstein or the democrats handled this. she came forward after these

allegations were leaked. her fears, unfortunately, have been realized. since coming forward, her life has been turned upside down. rushing forward into a hearing when she's under this much pressure isn't the way to do it. there's no reason to do it. it's not that there's a stalling tactic. she's more than willing to talk to the committee in whatever form that is and to assist with law enforcement in their investigation. >> just not by monday? >> nothing of substance and nothing legitimate can happen by monday. >> would your client also like to have anybody else with information testify if there's a public hearing, whenever it takes place, also be called in to testify? the other people who may have witnessed it, may have been involved in any incident, may have known about it or been told about it in previous years. >> a hearing is not a substitute for an investigation.

>> it's under onath. >> it is. the hearing should be as a result of the investigation. it shouldn't be a substitute for it. if there are other witnesses, absolutely, those witnesses should be investigated, their testimony should be heard, the committee should hear from them. all of the information should be gathered so that we can get to the truth here. >> given all that you said she and her family have been going through, does your client regret at all coming forward? >> i think that she felt strongly that this was the right thing to do. she had to weigh the ritz beisk herself and her family in doing so. i think she feels it was her civic duty to come forward. that said, she's under a tremendous amount of pressure right now and is going to work to try to put her life back together and move forward. even as she does that, she's willing to cooperate with the committee and with investigators. >> as we leave tonight, you are now the -- the ball is in the court of senator grassley.

you want to hear from him or his staff. >> yes. we intend to talk to senator grassley, feinstein, anybody else on the committee so we can work out a process by which she can share her information and we can move this forward in a fair way. >> i appreciate your time. thank you very much. we just got this story. chairman grassley just got the letter. kaitlan collins has been working her sources at the white house. what are you learning? >> reporter: we know that brett kavanaugh spent the day here mounting a defense and getting prepared and briefed by his confirmation team ahead of what was expected to be that public hearing on monday. now with this breaking news, that really seems to be thrown into doubt. what we have learned from what republicans have been saying all day is they have been getting more forceful in their defense of brett kavanaugh. they seem unwilling to negotiate an alternative date for the hearing on monday. we heard from multiple of them. not just people on the judiciary committee but senator lindsey graham and others who say that on monday, that would be her

opportunity to come forward, to tell her story. they were going to move forward with a vote. if they are unwilling to go forward with that testimony on monday, there's a chance here, a really good chance they could move forward with this and have judge brett kavanaugh confirmed as a supreme court justice possibly by next week. for white house, you know back here we have been discussing with president trump, asking if he thinks there should be an fbi investigation into this. for two days, he has rejected that idea saying the fbi doesn't need to do so. the white house's perspective is that the fbi received this information from senator feinstein when she sent that allegation over to them. they added it to brett kavanaugh's file and they sent it to the white house counsel last thursday, which is whethn they learned of the allegation. they say that they don't need an fbi investigation because the senate has investigators and they can have staff look into this because if you go in front

of congress and you lie, that's just like lying to the fbi. that is their position here. that's really unlikely to change. it's not likely they're going to go along with this fbi investigation simply because this woman who has come forward with her allegation now decides that is what they would like before they move forward with any testimony. >> kaitlan collins, thanks very much. if you get a response from the white house, we will come back to you. want to get perspective from someone who was here when anita hill came forward in the fight over clarence thomas. she was the first woman to chair the federal equal employment opportunity commission, congresswoman norton, thanks for being with us. >> of course. >> you heard from the attorney for the professor. is it reasonable that she not appear at this hearing on monday until there's an investigation? >> anderson, i'm not surprised. but i'm relieved she still wants

to testify. it's very important that she be able to testify. on the other hand, i don't see how you could throw her cold into a hearing. it's an almost cruel thing to do with senators -- very powerful senators there, no investigation, against kavanaugh and then have what would amount to a swearing contest between an unknown woman and a candidate for the supreme court who has occupied the bench for decades. >> it's an unfair situation you are saying? >> it's an unfair contest. all she's trying to do -- because in any case that's going to be very difficult for her is to get what we in the house of representatives call regular order. do what you do before you have a

hearing. there is no such thing, anderson, as a hearing without the proper investigation. why should this be any different? let me give you a reason why this is not a slowdown tactic. first of all, the senate is not gone. even the house is not gone. there's time to do this. the court already has a 5-4 republican majority. there's no reason to rush. to rush in this way, if they do it this way, the hearing will be seen as a sham satisfying neither side. >> you know, there are many republicans who see this and say, this seems like an 11th hour surprise put forward by democrats. >> what's put forward by democrats? >> well, the accusations being made by the professor. >> then what they are saying is -- remember how this got out in the first place.

it was leaked. after it was leaked, she could have still said, i'm not going to come forward. but she said, all right, this is something i did not want to come out. it's come out and i'm going to try to be as brave as i can and follow through. that's pretty brave in my judgment. >> so -- it does seem like from what lisa banks is saying -- there's no way she is going to appear as of now on monday before either -- there has to be an investigation, is what the professor is saying, and her attorney is saying, there has to be an investigation. even if the investigation begins immediately, lisa banks is saying, there's not enough time for a thorough investigation to occur before monday. >> i must say her attorney would have been guilty of malpractice if she had not advised her client that she is putting herself into an untenable situation with no investigation,

throwing herself into the senate with no investigation, no preparation. i think she advised her correctly. >> obviously, you were involved in the anita hill investigation. do you see -- has a lot changed since then in terms of how this hearing would be run? has a lot changed since then on the hill? >> it changed in this way. along with other members of the house, i didn't have to walk to the senate this time to get a hearing. we owe that to anita hill and the senate response that you can't let this go without a hearing. actually, i think anita hill received more due process. for example, witnesses were allowed to testify. there were witnesses who said that clarence thomas had done the very same thing to them. they put in affidavits, they were able to testify. you don't see anything like that being brought forward here. if anything, this is a more

serious allegation with not as much due process as anita hill had. >> do you think attitudes have changed since then? back then people were saying, they just don't get it. do you think the senators who would be involved in this get it? >> i think the country gets it, me too. i think this is the worst time with elections coming up to have this hearing and not have due process for a woman. that is what is being put on the table. that is what she is saying she will not abide. she's not saying she will not testify. that's very important. they want her to say she will not testify. then they will say, see, she was afraid to testify. >> do you think the hearings will go ahead without her? >> i think they are going to try to go ahead without her. if they do, they are making a serious mistake. because then everyone is going to say -- if it was a sham to have a hearing with no investigation, you can't have a hearing with no witnesses.

i think they will be forced to rethink what they are going to do. >> i appreciate your time. thank you very much. joining us now is david gergen along with john dean as well as laura coates. david, now that we know that ford will most likely not testify to the senate judiciary committee until an fbi investigation is conducted, whose move is it next? where does this go? >> it probably goes back to senator grassley and senator feinstein and the committee to decide what steps they are going to take next. i must say, i think that -- from my point of view, the fbi background investigation is a routine for every major confirmation. the fbi collects information and here is a new allegation under -- one would just assume that it would be right and proper and fair to judge

kavanaugh as well as professor ford if there were a thorough investigation that's impartial, because for both sides who are convinced they are right. they should believe that the investigation is going to support them. in other words, if judge kavanaugh says it didn't happen and the investigation occurs and that no evidence it did happen, he then is spared this cloud over him. that's what's fair to him. he deserves that. so does she. i would think that a routine fbi investigation could be don fehrl done fairly quickly. didn't this president call for investigating anonymous? that had nothing to do with the crime. he thought it ought to happen. >> the president said the ffbi doesn't want to be involved. >> i would find that shocking to know the fbi was not interested in doing that which it does with

every single judicial nomination to date. you saw this happen with rob porter, with every single person who they are charged with actually trying to find out is there any reason to believe this person is not qualified. they hand that over. what the president is trying to do is be dismissive because it ended up in a background file. the amount of time they have to do so is going to be crucial. this is a decade's old allegation. they need time to investigate. whether they want to do it in a week, they probably have zero interest in that. not not investigating entirely. >> senator hatch said the hearing for monday will proceed, even if ford doesn't show. what happens if the committee follows through on that and only kavanaugh participates? >> i think they hurt themselves. there's obviously going to be an empty chair.

i also think the arrangement, if i heard correctly in the letter, she thinks she's going to sit there with judge kavanaugh if she honors the invitation. >> she said at the same table. didn't necessarily mean at the same time. >> i think that's awkward. even at the same table is awkward. this is a woman who while she's a professional, she's not trained as an attorney, she's not been in a courtroom or hearing room. this is all -- this is new territory for her. there's an unfairness. here is a judge who has been before murder boards, before his own courtroom. he is used to this atmosphere. there's an inequality in the way they are setting up. that's why i think they are smart to ask for the investigation. >> we have to take a break. we will have more on this conversation. we will dig deeper on this when we come back. ♪

take us downtown, waze. waze integration- seamlessly connecting the world inside... with the world outside... making life a little... easier. introducing the well-connected lincoln mkc. be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real.

bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪ breaking news, attorneys for brett kavanaugh's accuser say she will not testify publically before the senate judiciary committee before the fbi or

other investigators investigate her sexual assault allegation. the letter they sent to chuck grassley speaking of death threats directed at dr. ford, e-mail hacking, online harassing. we are hoping to hear from chairman grassley or other members tonight. so laura, if both ford and kavanaugh stick to their stories and there isn't some kind of investigation, it basically just -- both testify publically, it ends up being a question of who do the senators believe. >> correct. again, this is not a fact finding investigation. they are a political panel. their role is supposed to be in this event to say who do we believe, a credibility assessment. when you have a he said she said, what would help if you had corroboration to bolster the credibility of the accuser or of the person who is accused. the investigation as the attorney for dr. ford said was the hearing should not be a

substitute for an investigation. it should not be the only source that the senators have to assess the credibility. in fact, we do this all the time in courtrooms. i used to specialize in delayed reporting sexual assault cases where you had he said she said or he said he said. what you had to do was do bolster your case and the credibility of your witness' memory and the occurrence by saying, what else can i use to corroborate? that required -- it wasn't just a whim. it required a full investigation. it took time to do so. >> john, doesn't the senate have its own team of investigators that theoretically could investigate this? they can put people under oath. lying to congress is a crime. would it be acceptable for the judiciary committee to handle the investigation? >> it's possible, anderson. these are also partisan staff. the majority has its staff. the minority has its staff. never does the twain meet. that would be a partisan investigation inherently. to follow up on laura, there is

corroboration here. we have prior consistent statements by dr. ford when she talked to her analyst. there's something there. she told her husband as well and naming kavanaugh by name. there is some corroboration. >> this call from democrats for an fbi investigation is a delay tactic some say. there are other bodies that could investigate besides the fbi. the president has made the point the democrats could have brought this up earlier, senator feinstein. >> i think it's clear now anderson that the republicans have a point. this should have been brought up earlier in some fashion. so it could be done as part of the regular process. we wouldn't have this strange, odd episode right now. i think the republicans generally have said, let's have a hearing. nobody expected that 48 hours ago. but they want to have a hearing. i do think they have taken some steps. this vital last step about who is going to investigate is

crucial to the outcome. what's most important for the country here is when this is all said and done, if judge kavanaugh is going to be on supreme court and it's going to tip the balance of the court for years to come, it's really essential that he go forward without a big cloud over him and without a sense he was ramrodded through on a partisan basis. both judge kavanaugh, in fairness to him and in fairness to her, that there is some kind of thorough, impartial investigation to get at the facts and get as far down the road as we can to determine the truth. we may not get there. but that's why an investigation, which is routine again, by the fbi, is so crucial here. i cannot say often enough that when all is said and done, to have judge kavanaugh go up there and join clarence thomas and have two people accused of sexual harassment on the court deciding whether roe v. wade should be sustained, that's not

a helpful situation. it's really important so that for judge kavanaugh and for the court that they clear away this and getting the investigation is in judge kavanaugh's interest as much as in professor ford's interest. >> senator harris is on the judiciary committee. she said, i support dr. ford's request for an fbi background investigation before a hearing. she should not be bullied into participating in a bias process. we should not rush forward before facts are gathered. how do you think this resolves? >> first of all, you have to wonder why the rush. for people to understand the supreme court's calendar, it's not just a partisan discussion. beginning october 1, supreme court has a lot of weighty issues. they packed their calendar. issues that involve endangered species, labor unions, death penalty. not the least of which will involve women's rights at some

point in time. the haste involved here, if they do not have a confirmed supreme court justice by the term in october beginning, you are going to have 4-4 splits. the haste is much less about the decision to go forward, it's more geared towards getting somebody who can be in the supreme court to have these liberal judgments that were rendered in the lower courts not stand. that will be the case. >> this may be a dumb legal question. what if kavanaugh is confirmed and then there was an investigation and if something was determined to have been improper or that he had committed some sort of a crime, would that there be action after that. >> to date, there hasn't been that impeachment process on somebody who would have a prominent role on the judicial bench. >> i don't know what it would be, but a statute of limitations would probably be expired. >> in maryland where montgomery county is and where this was

alleged to have occurred, you don't have limitations on sexual assault cases, if it's a felony. often when you have a lapse in memory and 30 years has gone by, often those cases are downgraded to eye misdemeanor so you can have a bench trial, as opposed to a jury. there could be a method to remove if somebody has done s g something egregious. the idea of a retroactive application of justice should satisfy no one, especially someone vying for a spot on the supreme court. >> it does put senate republicans in a difficult spot. they have to walk a line here. >> absolutely. with the midterms just over the horizon, that's why again i think it's not just in the nation's interest but in the republicans' interest to be seen as leaning over backwards to be fair. after all, you cannot go through this without appreciating how much -- how brave it has been

for professor ford to come forward and just what she feared has materialized, as we heard from her attorney. she's been chased -- forced out of her home. she's basically in hiding. there have been awful death threats. one is quoted in "the new york times" tonight. she's paying an awful price. that's why she didn't want this to go public, her having to get into the arena like this. having said that, it seems there ought to be compassion for her as well as for judge kavanaugh. both people are going through hell right now. >> david, john, laura, thanks. we have new reporting on what would be needed to trigger an fbi investigation. we will bring that to you next. how do you top mac & cheese? start with 100% clean ingredients. like vermont white cheddar. then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be.

adults are just kids with much, much better toys. [ giggling ] introducing the 2018 c-class sedan, coupe and cabriolet. the thrills keep getting better. lease the c300 sedan for $399 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

the breaking news tonight, the woman accusing brett kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her wants the fbi to investigate her allegations before senators hold a hearing on this. earlier her attorney said there should be an investigation. now the question is, what happens next? what would actually trigger an fbi investigation? jessica schneider joins us with details. the president said, the fbi doesn't want to do this. >> reporter: there's a distinction here between a federal investigation and the background check which is what this instance was. the fbi is in charge of doing

these background checks for different agencies, including the white house. they did this. they have done this for brett kavanaugh. they did it for him during this nomination. they have done it for previous nominations. that's something that the president has alluded to. this is not a federal investigation as to a crime. the fbi made that clear. i talked to an fbi official last week. they said there was no criminal investigation. the department of justice has also tried to clarify. they release ad a statement sayg the letter was put into kavanaugh's background file last week. at this point, it's up to the white house to determine whether or not there should be a subsequent investigation. i want to point you to the department of justice's brief statement that they gave last night. they said that this allegation does not involve any potential crime. then this spokesperson for the doj continued on to say that the fbi does not make any judgement

about the credibility or significance of any allegation. the people that i have spoken with said that at this point it's in the white house's hands. they would have to say whether or not they wanted the fbi to continue with more background investigation. we heard from the president today. he said that the fbi is not interested. i'm not sure that that is the case. it really does seem here -- it is the case that the white house needs to direct the fbi to do further investigation if that is warranted here. really, it's important for viewers to know that there's a distinction here. one is a federal criminal investigation. that's not the case here. this was a background investigation. the fbi did its due diligence. it passed on the information to the white house. now it's up to the white house to decide what happens next, if anything. >> appreciate the clarification. diane feinstein just weighed in saying, we should honor dr.

ford's wishes and delay the hearing. jo carrie, let me start with you. it's been a long day. what do you make of this desire by the attorney for professor ford and clearly professor ford to essentially say, look, no matter what, monday is a no go. there should be an investigation. even if there's an investigation that started, it's going to take more time than monday. >> i think what we have seen is a pattern of delay. this seems to be a moving of th most. they were talking about the normal process. the regular process is you update the background file with the background investigation.

they have done one of those to update it. they did one yesterday. the democrats boycotted the call. we have seen, we want this process. senator grassley has bent over backwards. would you like to have a hearing in front of cameras or a phone call? would you like to have it public? would you like to have it confidential? there's options to give her the flexibility she needs. they want her to testify and be comfortable testifying. i think what democrats are hoping is that they can trigger some kind of long investigation. they keep on inventing new processes that are not what is normally done. i still think that the fbi normally -- this is not their normal course of aaffairs. if she doesn't show on monday, it sounds like -- from what i have heard, they will probably move forward without going into it. it's too bad. i think it would have been better if she would have been

willing -- >> if it's the fbi's job to do a background check, can they accurately say they have completed a background check if there's this allegation out there? >> i think it's reasonable they should do follow-up to previous background cheb checks. i he has been through several of these. what i think we're getting up against are the limits of me too. everyone wants to hear her story. tried to accommodate her. i don't know what's going on with the lawyers at this point. they said she was willing to testify. they said, okay, let's do it. now they want to put everything on pause. i completely understand that she may be in a terribly challenging situation. this is where we are today. i also wonder, at what point does brett kavanaugh tell his story? he has had to sit back and take this. if she doesn't want to come on monday, i think they should go through with the hearing and

have brett kavanaugh speak about his college experience. that's been in the press more than it was previously. at some point, we have to get to a resolution on this. we should all be willing to listen to women, but if women are going to make allegations like this, they there does havee evidence. i think she's unwilling to go in public because she doesn't have evidence to change people's minds. >> i think that's really speculative. i don't know how you would know that. can't the motivation be what she said, that she thinks there should be a real investigation? i listened to you. i think this isn't any attempt to get to the truth. you can't -- you have a person who is alleged to have been present when this happened, mark judge, who said he doesn't want to testify. guess what? there's something called a subpoena. they could subpoena him. at a minimum, you subpoena and you investigate at least with this one person that has alleged

to have been there. the fact that republicans aren't interested in doing that says they're not interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. the other thing is, i do think this complaint about process is rich after what the republicans did with garland. i don't even understand how republicans with a straight face can bring up complaints about the way the senate works and how we're supposed to follow process after what happened. you reap what you sow. you know, the rules of the game were changed. now you are talking about process. >> i wonder what is the accuser's goal? if it's to get her story out, it's out. if she wants to go to congress with the goal of changing votes, if that's the purpose of testifying, which may be fine, she may think he should be disqualified because of what he allegedly did, but if her goal is to go to congress and do that, there has to be more

information. >> there can only be more information if there's an investigation. she can provide her story. she can't provide the information from the other person that was there. >> it sounds like to me that there's an accusation made. you can't back it up. you want other people to find evidence for you. nobody knows. >> the challenge is, what information are we going to get? aside from -- i have no idea what she's talking about. there's only so many questions you can ask. >> why won't he say that under oath? >> there's -- we don't know what it happened or where it happened. you can't go and dust for fingerprints when you don't -- it's 30-some years in the past. that's the challenge with the nature of this process. how much is -- >> would it be that hard to find -- if it's a party, there's a lot of people there. i don't know how many parties there were at this school. when i was in high school, there weren't that many parties. would some people remember there was a party where she was

wearing a bathing suit? that seems -- >> i agree. i think this is very difficult. i'm not trying to make it out that this is so easy. 35 years is a long time. people's memories are not great. if you were to ask me to recall parties i went to in high school, i would probably have a hard time doing it. she had a traumatic event. her memory is different about the traumatic event of what happened. if you are going to ask other people who were there, i think that's going to be a lot harder. mark judge -- i don't understand why he can't go under oath. >> i'm confused why he should. >> if he knows it didn't happen, then why doesn't he go under oath and clear -- >> who wants to get hauled before congress? i thought it was crazy when the accuser said i'm willing to go do this. who would put themselves in that situation without a full command of the facts? >> somebody who wants to change the country so we take sexual assault seriously. >> i think there's other venues for that. she could talk to a member of

the media. sitting before congress under oath being grilled by partisans -- >> i don't think she want -- >> but she offered. >> i think she was willing to do it. but i don't think it's something she desires to do. >> no one should. that's why they should have pursued something else first. i think nobody thought this through. >> we have to go. >> i think this is all part of the problem with the timing that we saw with this being held for so long. there wasn't time to go through this process correctly. i think at this point, they are giving her every opportunity. our problem isn't mark judge. it's that we don't have the key person making the allegations in the first place. >> thank you very much. president trump is making a decision to declassify various documents and text messages related to the russia investigation raising some alarm bells about the injection of politics into intelligence materials. coming up, i will talk with the

former director of the cia about what the consequences might be. . i'm actually closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. schedule a complimentary goal planning session with td ameritrade. yaaaayyy!!! aww. yaaaayyy!!! aww. yaaaayyy!!! aww. we hide hotel names, so you can find four star hotels at two star prices. h-o-t-w-i-r-e

hotwire.com ♪ south l.a. is very medically underserved. when the old hospital closed people in the community lived with untreated health problems for years. so, with the county's help we built a new hospital from the ground up and having citi as an early investor worked as a signal to others to invest. with citi's help we built a wonderful maternity ward and we were able to purchase an mri machine. we've made it possible for the people who live here

to lead healthier lives and that's invaluable. ♪ there's no question president trump is shattering precedence. he's ordered the justice department and national intelligence to declassify portions of a highly secret surveillance application on former campaign aide carter page. he's ordered text messages about the russia inquiry from former fbi officials including james comey and lisa page be declassified. all of this for one reason -- to support his political allies in congress who said that a deep bias against the president by some in the intelligence

community exists. the president said he's doing it for transparency. the author of "the assault on intelligence: american national security in an age of lies" is with me. is this about transparency, do you think? >> no, of course not. and, anderson, thank you for having a few moments here tonight. i know how important the kavanaugh question is to the future of the country, but this is an important issue as well. >> why is this important? >> it's important, number one, you said it's unprecedented. for folks like me and my personal e-mail network has lit up, it is breathtaking. it is chilling to see such raw politics inserted not just into intelligence but the fisa process is the holy of holys. that's compartmented within the intelligence community. not everyone gets to play in fisa applications and we even from time to time limit who gets to see intelligence reports that are derived from fisa warrants.

and now you have the president demanding an additional 20 or so pages of a fisa application be made public. and that's an application that has already been redacted and made public, so he's actually asking for the redacted portions of these 20 pages to be made public. we've never seen anything like it. >> completely unprecedented. for those who believe there's a plot against the president, this certainly seems to be an offshoot of that. >> sure. and it plays into that conspiratorial view of the federal government. but you asked me before, is this transparency. so let me be a little harsh here in making a judgment. this is a president who will not release his tax returns because they're undergoing a routine audit. >> allegedly. >> and now he wants to release a fisa application, interview notes, and the text messages of fbi officers involved in an

ongoing counterintelligence investigation in which he is at least a person of interest, could be a subject, and ultimately could be a target. >> so what is the danger here? >> so, number one, you've got the corruption of this process which we have always worked very, very hard to keep pure from any political influence. look, i was really aggressive at nsa. we had the program stellar wind which some people called domestic surveillance and the accusation made against us is we use that for political purposes. that never happened. even the program's worst critics now admit it was never used for anything other than the original counterterrorism purposes. we have an argument over here about aspects of it. fine, we'll have that argument. but no one claims it was misused. this is the misuse of intelligence information for raw political affect, and admitted political affect. you have the president's surrogates in congress saying

this is about the midterms. >> so, moving forward, it's unprecedented. it sets a new precedent. does it have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to communicate in the intelligence community? >> so we're not done yet. if you look at the white house press announcement, it calls for the release. but what you've heard from the department of justice, the fbi and the director of national intelligence is that they're going to conduct a review. and we'll see now what the institutions of government do with what seems to be a very broad direction that this information be pushed into the public domain. look, i have the highest regard for the people who are still in government doing these kinds of things in this kind of atmosphere. but, you know, this is so dramatic, anderson, we're edging closer to fall on your sword time. >> can the president, though, demand this? >> the president has the absolute authority to do it but, again, if it is so egregious that might call on current

leadership to do some heroic things. >> you say fall on your sword, you mean resign in protest. >> i've been reluctant because i know how difficult that decision is and people in those jobs are trying to do the right thing. i'm just trying to emphasize to you and your viewers this is a really big deal. >> general hayden, i appreciate it. thank you very much. i want to check in with chris cuomo with what he's working on. that was a very good take from the intelligence perspective. we're going to take it on from the political perspective tonight. we have a congressman who supports the trump move, and he'll make the case and be tested on the obvious and our big take on the news you broke on your show, anderson. this has changed everything. to hear professor ford say i will testify but there's a major condition and it goes to exactly what the gop does not want and exactly what the democrats do. we will take you through all the permutations that can happen between now and monday and beyond. >> that's about five minutes

from now. chris, look forward to it. (thomas) nice choices! you see, now verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plans like you mix and match your flavors. so you get what you want, without paying for things you don't. number 6. i know. where do i put it? in my belly. (vo) one family. different unlimited plans. starting at $40 per line on the network you deserve.

you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't.

it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

california had the worst wildfire season on record. scientists say, our weather is becoming more extreme and we all have to be better prepared. that's why pg&e is adopting new and additional safety precautions to help us monitor and respond to dangerous weather. hi, i'm allison bagley, a meteorologist with pg&e's community wildfire safety program. we're working now, to enhance our weather forecasting capabilities, building a network of new weather stations to identify when and where extreme wildfire conditions may occur, so we can respond faster and better. we're installing cutting edge technology to provide real-time mapping and tracking of weather patterns. and we use this information in partnership with first responders and california's emergency response systems. to learn more about the community wildfire safety program and how you can help keep your home and community safe, visit pge.com/wildfiresafety

more reaction to the breaking news we began the broadcast with. lawyers for brett kavanaugh's accuser say she will not testify publicly until the fbi investigates her sexual assault allegations. republican panel member mike lee just now saying he fully supports going through with the hearing whether christine blasey ford testifies or not. ranking democrat member dianne feinstein saying the testimony should be delayed. a quick reminder don't miss full circle on facebook. if you haven't seen it, we'd love you to check it out. you can pick the stories we cover week nights at 6:25 p.m. eastern. the news continues right now. i want to hand it over to chris cuomo. big news thanks to you, anderson cooper.

the breaking news about professor ford has changed everything. there are so many new considerations and potential outcomes. the big question, did monday just go away? the big hearing of accuser versus accused, a generation of jurisprudence hanging in the balance. it just took a major twist. here's the headline that anderson brought you. the supreme court nominee's accuser says she'll testify, but, first, there must be an investigation of the facts by the fbi. you can argue that will boost her credibility, perhaps, but it's a blow to her chances of ever addressing the senate. this is exactly what democrats wanted and what republicans do not. but the one who decides is the president. and today he gave us a big clue here. we also got a big clue from one of the friends of professor ford, the first one you'll hear from on tv here at night to make