that's right for you. (beeping) huh. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! good evening. we begin with breaking news you'll only see here. christine blasey ford accusing brett cav flaug of assaulting her wants the fbi to investigate her allegations before talking to the senate judiciary committee about it. we know this because 360 exclusively obtained a letter her attorneys moments ago sent toept chuck grassley. it lays out in stark terms the price she and her family are already paying. chairman grassley wants her to appear next monday before the

committee. republicans want to speed the nomination along. democrats want to go slow. president trump says judge kavanaugh doesn't deserve this but till now, we did not note what dr. ford wants. tonight we do reading from the letter to chairman grassley we just received. as you know earlier thisser? dr. ford sought to tell her story in confidence so lawmakers would have a fuller understanding of brett kavanaugh's character and history. only after the details were leaked did she make the decision to come forward publicly. the letters "saying in the 36 hours since her name became public, she has received a stunning amount of support from her community and fellow citizens the country." the letter goes on saying "her supports o worst fears have materialized. as a result of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of her home. her e-mail hackett and she's been impersonated online." quoting again, while dr. ford's

life was being turned upside down you and your staff scheduled for her to testify at the same table as judge kavanaugh on national television to relive this traumatic incident. the hear would go include interrogation bay senator who's appear to have made up their minds she is mixed up. dr. ford wants to cooperate with the the committee and law enforcement officials. as the judiciary committee has recognized and done before, an fbi investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations, a full investigation by law enforcement officials insure the empty crucial facts are assessed in a nonpartisan matter and that the committee is fully informed before making any decisions. again, we've just gotten this letter. so has senator grassley. we're seeking reaction from him if and when they come in during the hour. first one of the attorneys

representing christine blasey ford, lisa banks. i want to repeat this line. as the judiciary committee has recognized and done before an fbi investigation of the incident should shb is the first step in addressing her allegation. 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? >> what we're saying is there should be an investigation because that's the right thing to do. >> she is prepared to cooperate with the committee and any law enforcement investigation. and that has been her position and it imcoulds to be her position. so she will cooperate with the committee in whatever form that takes and 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 conversations with senator grassley and others to actually figure out what happens between now and then and whether or not this takes place on monday?

>> that's right. any talk of a hearing on monday is premature because she just came forward with these allegations 48 hours ago. since that time, she has been dealing with hate mail, harassment, death threats. so she's been spending her time trying to figure out how to put her life back together, how to protect herself and her family. and therein hasn't been an investigation. these are serious allegations. so if the senator who have come forward and said they want to treat this seriously mean that, then they'll 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. and again, those are things we can discuss with senator grassley. whether it's the fbi or other investigators, it should be impartial investigator who are nonpartisan. >> if you engage in these conversations if senator grassley's staff reaches outs to

you and have you these conversations and they continue to say there is not something the fbi is not involved with, we are going to have these 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 4 hours ago. >> so 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 is going to 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. >> so you're saying if even they say the fbi will investigate and begins an investigation, you're saying monday there's no way your client would sit down in front of i a hearing even if the fbi said okay, we've looked into it? >> it's premature to talk about

a hearing on monday. i think people understand that because she has been dealing with the threats, the harassment and the safety of her family. and 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. and 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 properly investigate this and sheal work with them in that investigation and also to share her story with the committee. however that happens. >> so i don't want to put words in your mouth. i do want to drill down this and be as clear as possible. even if the fbi agrees to investigate, you're saying proper investigation can't be done before monday, concluded before monday.

so and even if the fbi says they will investigate or if the chairman says the fbi won't investigate, you're saying your client will not sit down monday for a public hearing? >> there's no reason we should have a public hearing given what has occurred and whether he. this is being rushed through. it's not a game. this is a serious situation. >> senator cornyn said today that your client is not in a position to be making conditions here. >> she's made her allegations known. she said that she will cooperate with the committee and with any investigation and she remains willing to do that. we have reaped out to senator grassley tonight and indicated that. and we'll continue to talk with him 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, again, it's premature. 48 hours ago she came forward and for the last 48 hours she has been deflecting death threats and harassment and trying to care for her family and determine where they're going to sleep at night. and 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 will say look, this is a stalling tactic by democrats that democrats had this information, had her allegations previously and have delayed releasing them or delayed moving them forward. >> it the democrats senator feinstein in particular respected her request for confidentiality initially. that was the right thing to do because victims of sexual assault have the ability to say the whether and when those allegations should be made

public. so i have flow problem with the way senator feinstein or the democrats handled this. she came forward after these allegations were leaked and her fears unfortunately have been realized because since coming forward, her life has been turned upside down. and 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 at play. she's more than willing to go forward and 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. >> the -- would your client also like to have anybody else with information testify if there was 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 or known about it or been told about it in previous years? >> hearing is not a substitute for an investigation. >> it is under oath though. >> it is but the investigation should occur before the hearing. the hearing should be as a result of the investigation. it shouldn't be a substitute for it. so 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 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. and she had to weigh the risks to herself and her family in doing so. and so i think she feels that it was her civic duty to come forward. that said, she's under a tremendous amount of pressure right now and 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. >> so as we leave tonight, you are now the ball's in the of senator grassley. you want to hear from him or his staff. >> yes, we intend to talk to senator grassley, senator 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 fairway. >> lisa banks, i appreciate your time. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we just got the story. chairman grassley just got the letter. cnn's kaitlan collins has been working her sources at the white house and joins us now. what are you learning? >> reporter: we know brett kavanaugh spent the day 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 the breaking news, that seems to be thrown into doubt. what we have learned from what will republicans have been saying all day, they've been getting more forceful in their

defense dfz kavanaugh and seem unwilling to negotiate an alternative date for the hearing on monday. even senator lindsey graham and others 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're unwillito go forward that testimony on monday, there's a really good chance they could move forward with in and vin judge kavanaugh confirmed as a supreme court justice possibly by next week. for the white house, we've been discussing with president trump asking him if he thinks there should be an fbi investigation into this. for the past two days, he's roundly 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 the allegation over 0 to them. they added to his file and sent it to the white house council don mcgahn last thursday which is when they learned first of this allegation made against

him. they say they don't need add fbi investigation here because the senate has its own investigators and they can have their own staff looking into this if they want to because of course, if you go in front of congress and lie, that's likelying to the fbi. so that is their position here. that's unlikely 0 to change. it's not likely they're going to go along with this fbi investigation because this woman who has come forward with her allegation decides that is what they would like before they move forward with any testimony. >> kaitlan collins, thanks very much. if we get a response from the white house, we'll come back to you. someone who was here when anita hill was here in the fight over clarence thomas. eleanor holmes representing the district of columbia and the first woman who chair account federal equal employment opportunity commission. thanks for being with us >> of course. >> you heard from the attorney lisa banks 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 actually 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. windchill 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 and you fair situation you're saying? >> it's and you fair contest and all she's trying to do because on in any case it's going to be

very difficult for her is to get what we call in the house of representatives regular order. do what you do before you have a hearing. there is no such thing as a hearing without the proper investigation. why should this be any different? let me give you a reason why this is not a slow down tactic. first of all, the senate's not gone. there's even the house is not gone. there's time to do this. the court already has a 5-4 republican majority. so there's no reason to rush. and 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 sue this and say this seems like an 11th hour surprise put forward by democrats and. >> what's put forward by democrats?

>> well, the accusations being made by the professor. >> then what they're 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 could 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 you -- if -- it does seem like from what lisa banks was saying -- it seems like there's no way she is going to appear as of now on monday before either there has to be an investigation, this is what the pro fesser and her attorney is saying there has to be an investigation. even if an 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. and 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, the -- has a lot changed since then? >> it's 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 hear. we owe that to anita hill and the senate response that you can't ever let this go without a hearing. but actually, i think anita hill received more due process, for example, witnesses were allowed to testify. there were witness who's said that clarence thomas had done the very same thing to them.

and they put in affidavits, they were able to testify. you don't see anything like that being brought forward here. so 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. i there this is the worst time with elections coming up to have this hearing and not have due process for a woman and that is what is being put on the table and that is what she is saying she will not an besibide. she is not saying she will not testify and that is very important. they want her to say she will not testify and they'll said she was afraid. >> do you think the hearings will go ahead without her. >> i think they'll try and if

they do, they're 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're going to do. >> i appreciate your time. thank you very much. joining us now, senior political analyst david gergen along with legal analyst john dean as well as laura coats. david, now that we know that ford will most likely not go testify to the senate committee till an fbi investigation is conducted, whose move is it next? where does the process go? >> probably back to senator grassley and senator feinstein and the committee to decide what he steps they're 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 goes out and collects

information and here's a new allegation under -- one would just assume that it would be right and proper and fair to judge kavanaugh as well as to professor ford if there were a thorough investigation that's impartial for both sides who are convinced that they're right, you know, 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 concurs and there's no real evidence that it did happen and he then is spared this cloud over him, then that's fair to him. he deserves that but doe sos she. i would think that the routine fbi investigation could be done fairly quickly. it doesn't matter a couple weeks. i don't think it's a big delay. isn't this president the one who called for the fbi to investigate anonymous and who was anonymous? and that had nothing to do with the crime but he really thought strongly it ought to happen.

>> the president said the fbi doesn't want to be involved in this. i mean, is that. >> i would find that shocking to know that the fbi was not have had in doing that which it does with every single judicial nomination to date. their job is to conduct the background inquiry to figure out if this person has any skeletons in their closet. you saw this happen with rob porter and every person they are charged with actually trying to find out, is there any reason to believe this person is not qualified and they hand that over. what the president is trying to do is be dismissive because it ended up in a background file. it doesn't mean it's not relevant to the fbi or they want to the investigate it. the amount of time they have to do so will be crucial. this is a decades old allegation. they need time to investigate. whether threw want to do it in a week or less than that, they probably have zero interest in that but not not investigating entirely. >> john, senator hatch said is the hearing scheduled for monday

will proceed even if ford doesn't show. what happens if the committee follows through and only kavanaugh participate inside. >> i think they hurt themselves. there's obviously going to be an empty chair. i think the arrangement if i heard correctly in the letter, she thinks she's going to be sitting there with judge kavanaugh if she honors the invitation. >> she said at the same table. >> yes. >> didn't necessarily meantainment. >> well, even at the same table is pretty awkward. this is a woman while she's a professional, she's not trained as an attorney, not been in a courtroom or hearing rooms, this is new territory for her. so there's and you fairness. here's a huge who has been before murder boards, before his own courtroom. he's very used to this atmosphere. so there's an inequality in the way they're setting up. that's why i think they're very smart to ask for the investigation. >> we've got to take a quick break. we'll dig deeper on this when we come back.

story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪

they seem to be the very foundation of your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical. that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet?

whhe's happy.im? your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. augh! (family giggling) oh my. birds eye voila! so veggie good. (honking) when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. ( ♪ ) no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut. the breaking news first on 36, attorneys for brett kavanaugh's accuser christine blasey ford say she st. louis not testify before the fbi or other investigators investigate her sexual assault allegation. the letter they sent to chuck grassley speak of death threats directed at dr. ford e-mail hacking online harassing, we're hoping to hearer from grassley or other committee members

tonight. back with david gergen, john dean and laura coats. if both forward and cavanaugh stick to their stories and there isn't some kind of investigation it, basically just -- and both testify publicly, it just ends up being a question of who do the senators believe. >> correct. again, this is not a fact finding investigation. they're a political panel. their role is supposed to be to say who do we believe a credibility assessment. when you have a he said, she said, what will help everyone if you actually had corroboration on either side to bolster the credibility of the accuser or the person accused. so 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. we do this all the time in courtrooms. i used to specialize in delayed reporting sexual assault cases where you had he said he said or

she said he said scenarios. you had to bolster your case and credibility of your witness's memory and the kurps by saying what else can i use to corroborate. that required, it wasn't just a whim, it required a full investigation and 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 staffs. the majority as its staff. the minority has its staff and never does the twain meet. that would be a partisan investigation inherently. to just follow up on laura, there is an corroboration here. we have prior consistent statements by dr. forward when she talked to her analyst. so there is something there. and she told her husband, as well. and naming kavanaugh by name at

that time. there is some corroboration. >> david is, there credence this call from democrats for an fbi investigation is a delay tactic? there are other bodies that could investigate besides the fbi. the president made the point the democrats could have brought this up earlier. >> i think it's clear now, anderson, that the republicans have a point. this should have been brought up earlier in some fashion. so that it could be done as part after the regular process and we wouldn't have this very strange odd episode right now. so and i think the republicans generally have said let's have hearings. 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 who is going to investigate is crucial to the outcome. what's most important for the country here, anderson, is when this is all said and done, if judge kavanaugh is going on the 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 that both judge kavanaugh in fairness to him and fairness to her that there is some kind of thorough impartial investigation to get at the facts and get as far as down the road as we can to determining the truth. we may not ultimately get there. that's what 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 join clarence thomas and have two people accuses of sexual harassment on the court deciding whether roe v. wade should be sustained or not and ruling, that is not a helpful situation. it is really important for judge kavanaugh and for the court they clear away this and getting a investigation issings in his interest as much as it is in

professor ford's history. >> kamala harris just tweeted out i support dr. blasey ford's request for an fbi background investigation. she should not be bullied into participating in a biased process and not rush forward before facts are combatingered. how do you think this resolves, laura? >> you have to wonder why the rush. for peopletom understand the supreme court's calendar, this does play in. beginning october 1st, the court has a lot of weighty issues day after day, they've packed their calendar in october of this year. a few weeks away, anderson on issues that involve endangered species, labor unions, death penalty. a whole host of cases not the least of which involves women's rights. if they do not have a confirmed supreme court justice by the term in october beginning they'll have these 4-4 splits. the haste is much less about the decision to say let's go forward

out of expedience. it's geared towards getting somebody on the court to have liberal judgments rendered in the lower courts not able to stand. that will be 9 case. >> laura, what if kavanaugh is confirmed and then there was an investigation and if something were determined to have been improper or that he had committed some sort of crime, would there be action after that? >> to date there hasn't been that sort of impeachment process on somebody who would have a prominent role on the judicial bench in this capacity. you can remove judges. >> i don't know what it would be but a statute of limitations would probably be expired. >> in maryland which is where there technically was alleged to have occurred, you don't have limitations period on sexual assault cases if that's a felony. oftentimes when you have a lapse in memory and 30 years has gone by, oftentimes those cases are downgraded to a misdemeanor and

you can have a bench trial who are not receptive to hearing it cases long since past. there could be a method to remove. but the idea of a ret retro active application of justice should satisfy no one especially somebody vying for a spot on the supreme court. >> david it, does put republicans or senate republicans in a difficult spot. they have to walk a line here politically. >> absolutely. with the midterm just over the horizon, it's not just in the nation's interest but in the republican's interest to be seen as leaning over backwards to try to be fair because 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 forced out of had her home, beak in hiding. there have been these awful death threats one of them as

quoted in the "new york times" tonight. and you know, she's pay agawful price. that's one of the reasons she didn't want there to go public with her having to get into the arena like this. it seems to me there ought to be a lot of compassion for her as well as judge kavanaugh. both are going through hell right now. >> david, laura, thanks. what's with him? he's happy. your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. augh! (family giggling) oh my. birds eye voila! so veggie good.

i'm all about my bed. this mattress is dangerously comfortable. when i get in, i literally say ahh. introducing the leesa mattress. a better place to sleep. the leesa mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. read our reviews, then try the leesa mattress in your own home. order during our extended labor day mattress sale and save. for a limited time get 150 dollars off and free shipping too. sale prices are available right now. go to buyleesa.com today. you need this bed. [ upbeat music ] i'm ready to crush ap english. i'm ready to do what no one on my block has done before. forget that. what no one in the world has done before. all i need access, tools, connections. high-speed connections. is the world ready for me? through internet essentials, comcast has connected more than

six-million low-income people to low-cost, high-speed internet at home. i'm trying to do some homework here. so they're ready for anything. a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! the breaking news tonight, christine blasey ford accusing brett kavanaugh of assaulting her wants the fbi to investigate her allegations before senators hold a hearing on this. earlier on the program, her attorney said there should be an investigation. now the question is what happens next and what would actually trigger an fbi investigation. our justice correspondent jessica schneider joins us now with details.

jessica, how would this work in the president has said the fbi doesn't want to do this. >> there's a distinction here, anderson, 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. so they did this. they've done this for brett kavanaugh during this nomination and 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. and the department of justice has also tried to clarify here and released a statement last night saying that the letter from christine blasey ford was put knew the 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 just want to point to you the

department of justice's brief statement they gave last night. they said that this allegation from christine blasey ford "does not involve any potential crime." and the spokesperson for the doj continued on to say that the fbi does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation. the people i've spoken with said at this point it's really 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's not interested. i'm not sure that that's the case. it really does seem here, and it is the case that the white house needs to direct the fbi to do further investigation if that is warranted here. so really you know, it's important for viewers to know that there's a distinction here. one's a federal criminal investigation. that is not the case here. this was a background

investigation. the fbi did its due diligence and passed on the information to the white house. now it's up to the white house to decide what happens next if anything. >> jessica schneider, appreciate the clarification. dianne feinstein just weighed in say "we should honor dr. blasey ford's wishes and delay this hearing." joining us kirsten powers, political canadien eight tater matthew carpenter, also a supporter of kavanaugh chief counsel and policy director of the judicial crisis network. carrie, let me start with you. i apologize for that. 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 and even if there is an investigation that started, it's going to take more time than monday? >> i think what we've seen is a

pattern of delay. this seems to be a moving of the goal posts again. the democrats are the ones who seem to be doing it the most. we were talking about the normal process and the regular process is, you update the background file with the background investigation call. they've done one you have those to update it. the democrats boycotted the call. they say we want this process. senator grassley has bent over backwards to offer every possible thing they want. would you like to have a hearing in front of cameras or a phone call? would you liking to having it public and confidential? there's lots of different options to try to giveler the flexibility thee sneeds. they want her to be comfortable testifying but what democrats are hoping is they can trigger some kind of long investigative process. they keep on inventing new processes that are not what is normally done as -- i still think that the fbi normally -- this is not the normal course of affairs it's frustrating.

if she doesn't show on monday, it sounds liking from what i've heard senator graham suggested they'll probably have to move forward without going into it. it's too bad. it would have been bet fer she would have been willing. >> to her point, if it's the fbi's job to be do a background collect, can they accurately say they have completed a background collect if there is this allegation out there? >> i think it's reasonable they should do you some follow-up to previous collection. he's been through several of these. i don't think they would get a lot of new information. imambivalent on this question. what we're getting up against are possibly the limits of me, too. everyone wants to hear her story. like you said, have tried to accommodate her in every way possible after she and her lawyer, her previous or new one, i don't know what's going on with the lawyers at this point said she was willing to testify. they said okay, let's do it. they want to put everything on pause. i understand she may be in a terribly challenging situation

but this is where we are today. and i also wonder at what point does brett kavanaugh get a chance to tell his story. he's had to sit back and take this. shoo f she doesn't want to come on monday, they should have brett kavanaugh speak about his college experience because that's been in the press more than previously. we have to get to a resolution on this. we should be willing to listen to women. if women are going to make allegations like this, there has to be some degree of evidence. i think she's unwilling to go in public because she doesn't have the evidence to change people's minds definitively. >> i think that's speculative. i don't know how you know it. can't account motivation be is what she said it is? this isn't any attempt to get to the truth. you have a person who has been alleged to have been present when this happened. mark judge. who has said that he doesn't

want to testify. so guess what, there's something called a subpoena and they could subpoena him. so at a bare plim if you're trying to find out what happened, 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 to me 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 a little rich after what the republicans did with merrick garland. so i don't even understand how republicans with a straight face can bring up complaints about the way the senate, would and how we're supposed to follow process after what happened. you reap what you sow. if the democrats are doing that, they a they're not, i say the rules of the game are changed. now you're talking about process. >> that may be true. i wonder what is the accuser's goal. if it is to get her story out, the story's out. shoo 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 it be disqualified because of what he allegedly did. 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 but she can't provide the information from the other person. >> it sounds like to me that there's an accusation made. you can't back it up and now you want other people to find evidence for you. >> i don't know how you can know that. >> nobody knows. that's the thing. >> what information are we going to get. >> aside from the judge's testimony, 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. >> we don't know when or where it happened. you can't dust for fingerprints when you don't know where and it's 30 some years in the past. that's the challenge with the nature of this process. >> would it be that hard to find

out -- i mean, if it's a party, there's a lot of people there, i don't know how many party there were at the school. when i was in high school, there weren't that many parties. i mean, would some people remember there was a party where allegedly she was wearing a bathing suit? >> i agree. i think this is very difficult. i'm not trying to make it out this is so easy. 35 years say long time. people's memories are not great. if you were to ask me to recall parties i went to high school -- >> i can't remember last week. >> i would have a hard time doing it. she had a traumatic event. her memory will be different about the event of what happened. but if you're going to ask other people who were there that's going to be a lot harder. but mark judge i don't understand why he can't go under oath. that doesn't make sense to me. >> i'm confuse why he should. >> if he knows it doesn't happen why doesn't. >> who in the world wants to get called before congress.

>> i thought it was crazy when the accuser said i'm willing to do this. who would put themselves in a situation. >> somebody who wants to change this country so we take sexual assault seriously. >> there's venues for that. she could talk to a member of the media. sitting before congress under oath being grilled. >> i don't think she wants to do it though. >> she offered. >> i'm saying i think she was willing to do it but i don't think it's something she desires to do. >> i think they should have pursued something else first. nobody thought this through. >> carrie. >> i think this is all part after the problem with the timing we saw with this being held for so long. there wasn't time to go through this process correctly. i think at this point, you know, they've been giving her every opportunity. our opportunity isn't that the mark judge doesn't want to talk. we don't have the key person making allegations in the first place nice carrie, amanda, kirsten, thanks very much.

president trump is making another decision, his decision to declassify various documents related to the russian investigation raising alarm bells about projection of politics noose intelligence materials. i'll talk with a former member of the cia what the consequences might be. -computer, order pizza. -of course, daniel. -fridge, weather. -clear skies and 75. -trash can, turn on the tv. -my pleasure. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered.

-what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media. he'll be fine. -[ laughs ] -will he? -i don't know. -will he? oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles.

do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you.

with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future.

there's no question that president trump is shattering precedents. and now he's done it again. he's ordered the justice department to declassify things on carter page. he's ordered that text messages about the investigation can also be declassified. all of this for one reason, to support his political allies in congress who says a deep bias on the president in the part of the intelligence community exists. the president says he's doing it for transparaphernalency. is this about transparency? >> no. of course not.

anderson, thank you, for having a few moments tonight. i know how important the kavanaugh question is to the country. this is an important issue, as well. >> why is it important? it's unprecedented. for folks like me when my personal e-mail lit up. it is breathtaking and chilling to cese see this in the intelli community. not everyone gets to play in fisa applications. and we limit on who gets to see intelligence reports that are derived from fisa warrants. and now, you have the president demanding that 20 or so pages of a fisa application be made public. that's an application that's been redacted and made public.

he's asking for the redacted part to be made public. >> completely unprecedented. >> absolutely. >> for those who believe there's a deep state plot against the president, this seems to be an offshoot of that. >> and it plays into the con conspiratorial view. 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 and interview notes and next messages that are involved in an ongoing counterintelligence investigation in which he is at least a person of interest, a subject and could be a target.

>> what's the danger here? >> you have the corruption of this process that we've tried to keep pure. some people have called solar wind to domestic surveillance. and the accusation against us was that we used it for political purposes. that never happened. even the worst critics admit that it was used for the worst counterterrorism purposes. no one claims it was misused. this is the misuse of intelligence information, for raw political effect and admitted political effect. you have surrogates in congress saying this is about the midterms. >> so, moving forward, it's unprecedented. does it have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to participate in the intelligence community? >> we're not done yet.

if you look at the white house press announcement, it calls from the release. what you have heard from the department of justice and the fbi and the director of intelligence, is they will conduct a review. we'll see what the institutions of government do with what seem to be a very broad direction this information be pushed into the public domain. i have the highest regard for the people still in government doing these kinds of things in this atmosphere. you know, this is so dramatic, anderson. we're edgie ining closer to fal your sword time. >> can the president do? >> he can do it. but if it is so egregious, that might call on current leadership to do certain things. >> you say fall on your sword, you mine resign in protest. >> people in those jobs are trying to do the right thing. this is a really big deal.

>> general michael hayden, appreciate it. want to check in with chris cuomo for what he's working on at the top of the hour. >> that was a good take from the intelligence perperspective. we have a congressman who supports the trump move. and our big take will be 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 exactly what the gop does not want and exactly what the democrats do. we'll take you through all of the permeations that can happen between now and monday and beyond. up next, on the hour's "360" exclusive. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada,

the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? we distributeus, i'm the owner environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it?

what's in your wallet? you see clear skin. cosentyx can help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx.

ask your dermatologist your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

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. "cuomo primetime" starts right now. 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.