and publicly testified and had a great deal of credibility, looked very, you know, believable in her story and in her testimony, he could easily decide right then. >> at that point do it. >> tom, appreciate the insights there as this controversy gets kicked around, thanks for joining us on "inside politics." have a great day. hello, i'm jim acosta in for wolf blitzer, it's 1:00 in washington. the woman accusing supreme court nominee brett kavanagh show up and testify or we vote. this as she demands an investigation first. the president giving no sign dhs that he'll give the fbi orders to reopen the background check on kavanagh. so as the clock ticks toward the midterms, what's the standoff?

president trump bluntly says he gudoesn't have an attorney general. up first, there is no reason for further delay, that is what senate judiciary chairman charles grassley says about the supreme court nomination of brett kavanagh, but christine blasey ford wants the fbi to investigate the claims before senators hold a hearing on the matter. grassley says that's not necessary, in a statement he said dr. ford's memory would reflect her personal knowledge and memory, nothing the fbi or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what dr. ford tells the committee, so there's no reason for any further delay. our senior investigative correspondent, manu raju. how risky is all this? >> reporter: it's certainly a roll of the dice, but republicans will privately say

that they believe the chances of brett kavanagh getting confirmed probably increase if she does not testify and they do not have that hearing and it probably gets a little bit harder if she becomes a compelling witness and delivers testimony that would make it hard for some on the fence republicans to vote for the knock natinomination. so all this incredibly intense standoff that could influence the vote. chuck grassley is doing his own investigation, talking to people that were allegedly involved in this incident from the 1980s, but they also want to talk to ford herself, they have reached out to her today, her attorneys to see if there's any way to meet with her, including sending some staffers out to california to interview her. no word yet if ford has responded. earlier i had a chance to ask senator grassley himself what do you agree to the demand by ford

to allow an investigation to occur before any hearing, he said the judiciary committee should be the one investigating. >> where i'm focused right now is doing everything that we can to make dr. ford comfortable with coming before our committee, either in an open session, or a closed session, or a public or a private interview. that's four different ways she can choose to come. and so i'm not worried about anything other than just focusing for the next few days on encouraging her to come. >> now ji >> reporter: i also asked him will you have a vote in the committee next week? he did not answer, but republicans do want to push for a vote no matter what happen s t that meeting on monday. president trump says he

wants to hear from brett kavanagh's accuser, the president says the fbi has already investigated kavanagh and he downplayed any further investigation. here's what he said. >> well the fbi's been very involved with respect to justice kavanagh, they know justice kavanagh very well, they have investigated him i guess six times and they have investigated him for this hearing. look, if she shows up and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we'll have to make a decision. but i can only say this, he is such an outstanding man, very hard for me to imagine that anything happened. >> cnn's senior white house important jeff zelani joins us live. jeff, it seems unlikely but the president could theoretically direct the fbi to do an investigation into kavanagh. >> reporter: that is indeed within the white house's purview to do it because it's his

nominee. and this is the fourth time he has nominated calve nauf. this is the first time this white house, this president has nominated him so he certainly could ask the fbi to look into some of his background. it wouldn't be a criminal investigation but a background check based on this new information. there is precedent for this back in the 1991, in the first bush administration, the clarence thomas nominee, once the allegations came forward from ms. anita hill, at that time, the white house asked the fbi to look into all of that, they wrote a report, and the white house stood by it, and then of course we know what happened after that in history, so the president is able to do that. but there's no indication at all he's going to do that. we have seen him edge day after day. he is still holding out, he said he would like to hear from the accuser. but the sense here at the white house is that judge kavanagh is

more in the clear than they thought he was earlier this week, but it all still hangs on whether she testify, will there be a public hearing, a private hearing? so he as we speak is still preparing for that meeting, judge kavanagh is. >> it's hard to escape the parallels between what we are seeing between brett kavanagh and what we saw 27 years ago with clarence thunderstorms. >> once the blood is in the water, the sharks are going to swim for that blood. and if it's delayed two more days or a week or whatever, people, more sharks are going to be swimming. and i think that my own view is that the time has come to end this. it is for sutorture for a human

to go through this. this is the 100th day and from beginning to end this has been a brutal process. >> that was senator john d danforth who helped shepherd the clarence thomas confirmation. you were against a delay then, do you think a delay now is out of order? is it unacceptable in your view? >> you know, i'm just not into the nitty gritty of what happens when. i mean what i said back then and it definitely was true, the whole thing was torture for a human being. clarence obviously controversial but he was a friend of mine and he was everything that he lived for was under attack. it was really awful. and he was just humiliated by the whole darned experience.

so this is like reliving that. and i'm sure the same is true, i don't know judge kavanagh, but for him, here's a man who has had just a sterling reputation and clearly his reputation means a great deal to him. he's got a family and now questions about his reputation. he's been lauded for serving food kitchens for the poor and coaching kids and so on and so forth. so people generally recognize that whatever you thought of his jurisprudence, here's what an excellent human being. now all of that is in the trash. i think, what i thought back in the days of clarence thomas and what i really think now, is that there's got to be some reasonable end to the torment,

and the longer it goes on, the more hurtful it is to a human being. what about the torment like christine blasey ford has gone through years of torment, in dealing with all of this, dealing with all of the memories that happened to her 35, 36 years ago when she was in high school. doesn't her story deserve to be told itch she wants to tell it, if she wants to talk about what happened? >> yes, of course. and i think everybody has made that clear i'm saying from the standpoint of someone who's been nominated to the supreme court. all the background checks that have gone on for a long period of time to vet this person and

people are proud of their reputations, it's what they live for, being respected by their colleagues, being respected by other people, certainly being respected by their little daughters, which is the case with judge kavanagh and then all of that is put in jeopardy one person makes a charge about something that happened 36 years ago. she's written her letter, it's out there, and the fbi has had that letter for one week, i don't understand, i mean they're in charge of background investigations so they have had it, so have at it if they think it's worth investigating. but my own thought about this is exclusively about the harm that this causes an individual, the hurt that it causes. >> senator, let me ask you this,

there's been some talk from the senate judiciary committee that these are delay tactics. anita hill's hearing took just three days. we pulled up an old statement from 1991 from a white house deputy press secretary said that george w. bush ordered the fbi to look into this, it took plthe days, and it found at the time that anita hill's claims were unfounded. why can't the same process play out this time around? >> i think it can. and i would expect that it is or has, you're right, it's not complicated, it doesn't take much time, there's very few people for the fbi to talk to. they have had the letter for the last week, the fbi's job is to conduct background chks and go through all of the information they receive, so they receive

this information so i don't understand what more has to be done. this is their duty to conduct these investigations, so have at it. >> so if you were asked by the white house for your advice on all this, you would say let this play out? >> this is not to allow it. this is what the fbi does, it conducts background checks. >> the president saying earlier today -- i don't mean to cut you off, but earlier today the president said that the fbi has conducted all these background c checks, why do they have to do another investigation into this claim? it sounds like the president and his team are closing the door on doing what was done with anita hill's accusations. and i'm just curious if your advise would be to go ahead and let that play out? >> i don't see why it isn't p y

playing out. i don't think the fbi which has the responsibility of background checks has to be reauthorized to do what it's already authorized to do. i mean they have been given the letter, they certainly have the power to do whatever they want by way of background checks. it's not that an old background check is closed, at least this is my understanding, and then they have to reopen an entirely new one. so i don't get that particular thing, but i do think this, this is more than just, you know, the sprrk supreme court, i mean that's obviously important who's on the supreme court, but it's also a human being and a human being who's suffering greatly and to just keep it going for the sake of keeping it going, really isn't fair, something awful has happened to these confirmations. i manner bourque, thomas, now

kavanagh and it's totally out of control and it causing great harm to people and i don't think it's serving the country. >> let me ask you this, you talked about this being a political and not a legal process, do you believe the senators on both sides of this case care more about how this affects their next election, how this is going to affect the midterms, than how it affects the people involved? brett kavanagh and christine blasey ford. >> yes, i think it's very important that judge kavanagh be represented by counsel and that an experienced lawyer be able to conduct the questioning, not the senators. because lawyers have an ethical responsibility to zealously represent the interests of their client, whereas members of the senate are looking over their shoulder, how is this going to affect the next election. i know that after the thomas

confirmati confirmation, allan dixon, who was a democrat from illinois, who voted for thomas, lost his next primary election on this issue, at least that was his view that it was on this issue. so there's a tremendous pressure on politicians to do what advances them or helps them out politically. and in the me too era, a politician is going to be very, very reluctant to either ask probing questions or vote against or vote for judge kavanagh, it's a terrible position for him to be in. so the more it could be made like a court proceeding where there is presumptions of innocence, burden of proof and there are lawyers who are able to ask questions to witnesses not just politicians in ten minute bursts of time. i think that's very, very

important. the lesson that we learned from clarence thomas was that it was a free for all. not only no due process, there was no real process whatever. and the more that this can be made a process, the fairer it's going to be to everybody. >> all right, former senator john dan forth, we'll see if that happens, thank you very much for your time, good to see you again sir, we appreciate it. just ahead, i'll speak live with a former classmate of christine blasey ford from a friend who is defending her. and president trump saying he doesn't have an attorney general. and the president making his first public remarks about his former campaign chairman since paul manafort cut a deal with robert mueller, here what he said about telling the truth. with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast...

...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.

and it's also a story mail aabout people 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

president trump is in the carolinas today touring flood damaged areas and meeting with local officials. but before leaving the president stopped to take some questions on a host of topics including what he's worried paul manafort might tell investigators. >> if he's honest and he is, as long as he tells the truth, it's 100%. he was with ronald reagan, he was with bob dole, he was with mccain, he was with many, many people, that's what he did. paul manafort was with me for a short period of time, he did a good job, i was, you know, very happy with the job he did and i will tell you this, i believe that he will tell the truth. and if he tells the truth, no problem.

>> here with me now is kim wailly, former independent counsel on the watergate. kim, they're basically saying he has nothing to worry about. he keeps diminishing the time that paul manafort spent with the campaign, he was there during a critical time, he managed the convention process that was huge as that battle, ted cruz and so on, they were presenting a little bit of a challenge during the convention process, and manafort was there. but the question is, was he right? there are a lot of words you can throw around with paul manafort with all of these charges that he was convicted of and so on. i'm not sure honest is one of those words that everybody would agree on when it comes to paul manafort. >> he was convicted on eight counts of federal felonies as well as pleading guilty to additional crimes and i think what people really need to

understand, why does this matter? the white house is saying there's no connection, and that's just false in a very basic common sense matter, not only did he work for donald trump, but this is someone who pled guilty to basically sneaking around the united states on behalf of ukrainian interests that were pro putin pretending to represent someone who was legitimate and trying to advocate and lobby on behalf of pro pugh tutin interests and he at the july 2016 meeting where he was offered dirt on a presidential campaign that all national security intelligence agencies have agreed did actually take active steps to interfere with our electoral process. so the blinking of the reality coming out of this white house, people need to understand that the problem is it's actually eroding our constitutional structure. the implications are absolutely massive and we just have to call it out, it's just silliness.

>> you and i have asked about this many times over at the white house, in an interview with the hill, the president said, i don't have an attorney general, it's very sad. then when asked about possibly firing sessions, he said, we'll see what happens, a lot of people have asked me to do that, and i guess, i study history and i would say i want to leave things alone, but it was very unfair what he did, talking about sessions recusing himself in the russia investigation. he keeps talking as if he wants to get rid of jeff sessions but i wonder what he would do without him? >> the president has been talking about getting rid of jeff session since virtually the beginning beginning since he appointed him. no matter how many people are pushing him to do it, it cou's g to fall on him, and that could be another -- he's made it clear

that this e's unhappy with jeff sessions that he recused himself over russia. the president is not happy about the russia investigation. he doesn't even like mueller, so this does not bode well for the president. what is holding the president back? that is the issue. you know, what would he do without jeff sessions? he would be in trouble without jeff sessions. he could go down again, obstruction of justice, i don't know -- he would be happier, but he would be in --. >> he wouldn't have anybody to kick around. >> he has lots of people to kick around, he'll find someone to kick around if he hasn't already. >> the president ordering these documents documents, the fisa warrant for carter page and so on, let me ask you, as somebody who has worked in the federal law enforcement realm, does that send a chilling effect to federal prosecutors, to federal investigators if they're gathering this kind of

information as part of an investigation and the president can just say, out of nowhere, i want this stuff released to the public? >> there's a couple of things, one is these decisions should be based on national security and what's important for law enforcement. and he's not doing it, he's doing it based on his own self-interests. the other thing is this broad atta attack, on the justice department and public servants, i also teach law, and my first year law students yesterday were asking me why is it that we have so many unaccountable people in the justice department, and it turns out, actually, they're not, they all answer directory to the president of the united states,nd if he doesn't like how things are going, he should be doing it in a methodical, careful, manner. and if the baton gets passed on to a democratic president in the future, people who support president trump now are going to feel the effects of this damage. >> i want to get to a story that you and i have followed very closely, this situation down on

the border with migrant children coming across. there's news coming out that the federal government has lost track, and it's hard to get you're head around something like this, because wire just overwhelmed with the russia investigation and kavanagh and so on, but the government has lost over 1,500 children that were in their custody. how is that possible? and what does it say to the country? it just seems as if this is one issue we haven't paid enough attention to. >> our hearts and the nation and the world has sympathized with this, but when there is dysfunction in an administration, those are the things that are going to happen. and we as reporters kept asking those questions and we kept bringing it up that -- we talked to congressional leaders, that there was a fear these children would not be accounted for or they would not be back with their parents. now this is next what will the

administration do? sarah huckabee sanders needs to comment on this. >> i just hope i can find my way back to to the briefing room. >> i'll be two rows behind you. coming up, it's hard to laugh about this, because it's a very serious issue. consoler in chief, the president in north carolina, offering words of support. and we look at the different scenario that could play out from a confirmation note to a new nominee or even a vacant seat until 2021.

right now president trump is in the carolinas assisting the federal response to hurricane florence. the rain has subsided but the worst is yet to come. several rivers are still rising while thousands of homes and roadways are under water. look at these before and after pictures of top sail beach, north carolina, the lighter picture was taken in 2014, the latest one shot sunday shows the main thoroughfare, anderson boulevard covered with dark standing water. an incredible picture there. nick watt is in wilmington, north carolina. what is the president saying so far about the damage, we have seen him a lot today handing out

meals and so on to storm victims. >> reporter: we said he wanted to meet the people and see some of the worst damage, and that's what he's been doing, he's visited new bern, a community that was under six feet of water just a few daysing a and he was at a church providing aid. he also met earlier with state and local officials. let's take a little listen into some of what he had say to. >> we have had a lot of help from congress, and they're ready to do whatever we have to do to make this perfect, and that means, unfortunately, the money will be a lot, but it's going to come as fast as you need it. we're going to take care of everybody. >> n >> reporter: now remember it was just last week that the president was questioning that new high revised death total

from puerto rico in hurricane maria, suggesting it was some kind of democrat plot to make him look bad. >> coming up next, joining me live, a long-time friend of the woman accusing brett kavanagh of sexual assault come to her defense. why she says christine ford has nothing to gain except to get a clear conscience. coming up. cleaning floors with a mop and bucket...

...is a hassle. swiffer wetjet makes cleaning easy.

it's safe to use on all finished surfaces, ...trapping dirt and liquid inside the pad. plus, it prevents streaks better than a micro fiber strip mop. for a convenient clean, try swiffer wetjet.

er. this hour more than 200 people are coming to christine blasey ford's defense. the hundreds of supporters who graduated from the same high school as ford, and my next guest samantha gary is one of them who's joining us now. thank you for being with us. you were just telling us that you have known chris blasey ford for a long time. >> 40 years. >> what is she going through right now? >> this has been an agonizing period of time for her. she didn't ask to be in this position, she asked for confidentiality, and since that wasn't possible, apparently, we're in the throes of being a political football. she's a private person and she's a very substantial woman of great intellect and integrity.

she is a biostatusation, she's one one who doesn't put pen to paper unless she can prove it. so we have. >> so she knows the full weight of what she's alleging and what she's doing? >> absolutely. >> what's your sense of what she's going to do? because everybody is now waiting to see, is she going to testify? is she going to come out publicly and talk about what she had said in this letter to the committee. >> i don't know what she's going to do. i really don't. i think that she might not even know what she's going to do right now. this is all come on her very quickly since her name was released and there's an awful lot of things coming at her right now. i think that the careful consideration she's giving to

how she handles this should be a lesson to everyone involved in this process, that we all need to take a deep breath and consider how we're going to move forward with this information. >> and i'm sure you've been listening to all the political debate of her coming forward and so on. a lot of the republicans are complaining on the judiciary committee that this is an 11th hour, last-ditch effort to derail judge kavanagh's nomination, basically to get revenge form merrick garland personally, do you think that's what's going on? >> i understand this is highly inconvenient to the republicans' agenda right now. but what christine has done, she wasn't part of any of the decisions of how the information she put forward was handled. that's all been part of the

democrats having to really honor her decision to remain confidential. and whether it was revealed two months ago, or last week, i'm not sure how relevant that is. i think that's what we're focusing on right now because that's sort of, you know, the dynamic that we're in. but we, regardless of the timing, we can't get sidetracked on that, we need to focus on the fact that this is a very serious allegation. by a very substantive, incredible person. >> and you're seeing a lot of the republican senators bob corker, jeff flake now susan collins coming forward and says essentially if she doesn't come forward and speak, if she doesn't talk to the committee or speak publicly at this hearing, they just need to move on and vote. what do you think of that? >> i'm a little disappointed to hear that. she has said that she will talk

to investigators. but my understanding is having the proper fbi investigation would be only done at the request of trump and i'm not sure how likely that is. which really puts christine in a very uncomfortable position because appearing in a public forum in front of thousands of cameras and people and congress people, it just seems really like an inappropriate forum for this kind of discussion. at least for the next step. and we have already seen that done. i mean no one can say that the anita hill hearings were a great success. >> she doesn't want to go through the same thing that anita hill went through? >> why would she want to go through that? no one wants to go through what anita hill did. >> do you know brett kavanagh at all? >> i did, he was an acquaintance of mine in high school. >> did he have this reputation

for excessive drinking at that time? >> i can't really speak for that because he wasn't directly -- >> what about what dr. ford is alleging, had you ever heard anything like that about judge kavanagh? >> it's not the first time i had heard it, in terms of the women that i know, not regarding him. >> but those sorts of things went on. >> one of the things that's surprising to me as i have got on involved in this in the last couple of days is how many women of my class have come forward to me in this last few days and said i had similar experiences in high school. and this hits me very deeply and i -- >> not with brett kavanagh, but with other boys? >> not with brett kavanagh but with other boys in our community and we all feel that if we were in her shoes, we would want to be taken seriously as well. >> we appreciate your time,

samantha guerry, obviously your friend has a big story to tell, but we appreciate you telling your story. and coming up, north korea and south korea announce a deal to achieve denuclearization, but there's a big catch involved. and later she made headlines for this photo of flipping off trump's motorcade. now she's running for office. hey allergy muddlers. are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. ♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi!

cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪ all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

endless shrimp is back at red keep those slobster.min'!

with all the shrimp you want, any way you want them. try delicious creations like new crunchy fiesta shrimp tortilla chip crusted then topped with a creamy blend of three cheeses and finished with pico de gallo. and there's new sesame-ginger shrimp. grilled and drizzled with savory soy-ginger sauce and sprinkled with asian seasoning. and don't forget the favorites you love, like garlic shrimp scampi! but endless shrimp won't last endlessly, so hurry in.

the era of no war has started, those are the words of the president of south korea

after he and kim jung-un sign an agreement to suspend any hostile acts against one another. in addition pyongyang is promising to destroy a key test facility for missile engines and a nuclear site if the u.s. agrees to what was already described as corresponding measures. president trump praised the meeting earlier today. >> we had very good news from north korea/south korea. they met and we had some great responses. i got a tremendous letter from kim jung-un. as you know, it was delivered three days ago. the relationships at least on a personal basis, they are very good. it has very much calmed down. he's consumalm, i'm calm. we'll see what happens. >> i'm joined by joseph uhn, thanks for joining us. as you saw the president there,

he is already excited about what is taking place. this agreement in pyongyang. but should he be excited? he is saying i'm calm, he's calm. okay, fine. people are calm. but does this agreement amount to anything? in i thi . >> i think there is something there. you mentioned there is the promise to get rid of missile site. there is a promise to given some measure from the u.s. side he will get rid of a major nuclear site. so there is a promise there. frankly what i'm worried about, this kind of binary reaction from the white house. on the one hand you have fire and fury. on the other hand, we're all calm, we're all nice. i like the guy. >> no middle ground. >> there is no middle ground. and there has to be middle ground. this is a very complicated issue. you and i are were in singapore together and optics were good, everything was good, but then

nothing happens. and this is two weeks ago he stopped secretary pompeo from going to pyongyang and now saying everything is okay. so this going back and forth between two extremes, and i feel like i'm being whip sawed. >> feels like nuclear whiplash. kim jung-un says he is waiting for president trump to take the next step, but what kind of reciprocal action does north korea expect and would want the president to agree to? because it seems as though we have two very different understandings of what denuclearization means. it sounds as though the president and what republicans would like to see democrats frankly and washington would like to see is a completely denuclearized korean peninsula. but still it just boggles the mind to think that the north koreans would ever commit to that. >> you are absolutely right, there is no way north koreans will completely verifiably,

irreversibly, denuclearizatie before we do anything. they want action for action. this is going to be a long process. i don't think that we will get a completely denuclearized north korea within one, two years. that is not in the cards. so what does it mean? can we take some steps? certainly i think we all agree that tensions have gone down substantially. north korea and south korea we saw in pyongyang just now building a political relationship. so what north korea wants to do is test the u.s., same as we want to test the u.s. so what with we really need is some quiet diplomacy to nudge each other along. if they are truly offering to get rid of the facility, let's see what do they want in return. for sure they will want what we call end of war declaration. quite frankly, personally, i

don't think that there is a problem giving to them. but if they want more like complete removal of sanctions before they do much, that would be a problem. >> that sounds like a nonstarter. joe, thank you very much. we appreciate it. coming up, the kavanaugh nomination chaos continues. we'll run through the different scenarios that could play out including the potential for a vacant seat until 2021. liberty d us almost $800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. with liberty, we could afford a real babysitter instead of your brother. hey! oh, that's my robe. is it? when you switch to liberty mutual, you could save $782 on auto and home insurance. and still get great coverage for you and your family. call for a free quote today. you could save $782. liberty mutual insurance. liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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.

i'm brooke baldwin. you are watching cnn on this wednesday afternoon. we begin with this high stakes ultimatum facing the woman accusing the supreme court nominee of physical and sexual assault. christine blasey ford must now decide whether she will speak to the senate judiciary committee on the time line republicans are demanding of her even though her own request is not being met. an fbi investigation of her allegations against judge kavanaugh. a judiciary committee aide tells cnn that chuck glassily will offer to send staffers to northern california to interview professor ford if that makes her feel more comfortable and president trump today said he hopes she