cnn, new york. >> thanks so much for joining us tonight. tonight. ac "360" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com senate republicans are falling in step putting brett kavanaugh's accuser on deadline to say whether she will or not. they're telling christine blasey ford, talk to us monday about the sexual assault allegations you're making because a vote on judge kavanaugh is coming soon no matter what. there's breaking news from her as well. a new apply from one of her attorneys saying the rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth. the attorney lisa banks said multiple witnesses whose names have appeared publicly should be included in any proceeding. we'll have more on that shortly. as for the fbi investigation that many members want, first republicans chug the president are dismissing the possibility

for two key reasons. neither of which happens to be entirely true and of course the truth matters. whether you believe more investigations are called for or not, and it is not our position to advocate one way or the other, what is important is to point out inconsistencies. factual or otherwise. professor ford said her life has been threatened since coming forward. judge kavanaugh's future is on the line. so we're keeping them honest on all of that tonight. senator bob corker's tweet spells it out. after learning about it, we took immediate action to make sure they have the opportunity to be heard if public or private. republicans extended a hand in good faith. we don't hear from both sides on monday, let's vote. that was his response after this program broke the news that professor ford is requesting the fbi or others to investigate her allegations before she sits down

with the judiciary committee. >> we're saying there should be an investigation because it is the right thing to do. >> if there is not an investigation, will she appear on monday? >> she is prepared to cum with the committee and any law enforcement investigation and that has been her position and it continues to be her position. she will cooperate with the committee in whatever form that takes. >> the fbi as you know did a standard back ground choke judge kavanaugh as they have done several times for his various appointments. however the bureau was not aware of these allegations at the time. now they're saying no to any further investigation. the first is it is not the fbi's job. >> well, it would steam fbi really doesn't do that. they've investigated -- they've investigated about six times before and it seems they don't do that. >> that's the president earlier today. yesterday he said, and i'm quoting, it is not really their thing.

senator orrin hatch has said that he thinks the president is mistaken about what happened to her and tweeted, the fbi does not do investigations like this. the responsibility falls to us. the president has gone so far as to say the fbi has said they don't want to investigate. this keeping them honest, that's not the case. nor is it true that the fbi does not do investigations like this. what they do not do is choose investigations based on want. nor do they draw conclusions or make recommendations. as for a new back ground investigation, all it takes is to ask for one which is press sighly what it was with judge thomas. to then president george w. bush who then ordered the fbi to look into them. one committee member then and now was senator orrin hatch had this to say back then. >> i have to say, chairman biden, and the ranking member thurman, when they heard about this the first time, they

immediately ordered this fbi investigation which was a very right thing to do. they did what every other chairman and ranking member have done in the past. and the investigation was done and it was a good investigation. >> now, keeping them honest, that is the same senator orrin hatch who now says it is not the fbi's job to do what he once praised them for doing. whether it is an inconsistency is for to you decide. on another note, no judgment calls were made. others bringing in the fbi is a delaying tactic. again, anita hill comparison is telling. that took just three days which doesn't mean the fbi or other investigators can complete an investigation this time in so short a period of time but it is what happened in the past. for more on the breaking news and how the ultramate dlurm is playing out at the white house. there doesn't seem to be any

appetite from the white house to ask the fbi to investigate. >> there doesn't. and we've heard from the president for the second day that he has no interest in doing this. he has that it is not their they know but it is the president's purrview to do that. it is his nominee, after all. you got the feeling as the day wore long that things are moving much faster. we're learning that senator grassley is planning a mark-up, called the beginning of debate. in his committee next wednesday. show the could be a vote in the judiciary next wednesday morning on all of this. it might be postponed, of course. you got the expense morement on mix here at the white house. they still do not know if this is another accuser out there. >> to be clear, when you're talking about a vote on wednesday, a move toward a vote, you're talking about a vote on

judge kavanaugh. not on whether or not to have an investigation or anything. >> right. on judge kavanaugh. if there would be a hearing on monday. and there is still a very good chance there would be and he could speak, of course. the time for discussion is moving along. and republicans want to move this along. the white house wants to move this along. mid-term elections are moving and the president made it cheer. one of the reasons he was elected. at the same time the president left a bit of wiggle room. he said if she would come forward and something new develops, we'll have to see. so he is still trying to walk the fine line but day by day, virtually every time he speaks in public, inching closer to his previous position of politics and with the mid-term elections looming, look for this to happen soon. then the full senate is looming.

>> and what they are quick to uncover and how the fact finding process should be done and the constitutional framework for it. joining us for that, from harvard university law school, judge, thank you for being with us. if there is no nonpartisan investigation as it seems likely at this point. should ford agree to appear at a hearing on monday? >> well, on the legal issue, it is to some degree a political issue. i think that the best would be for her to appear under protest. people are saying this is em, she said. of course it is. but there are still corroborating details. the circumstances under which she first disclosed this, to whom, what was said. were there other people at the party. there are ways to broaden this from beyond em, she said. can i say something with this fbi investigation? it has been driving me crazy. when i applied to be a judge,

there was a lengthy, very intrusive questionnaire that asks everyone that you had ever lived with, every place you had ever lived, in particular, had you ever taken drugs. we knew then that if you had experimented with anything other than marijuana in your college days, it would be disqualifying. not because you would be a bad person but because it was a court position, a life tenured position and the fbi went into those weeds. the notion that the fbi could not return to that when we're not talking about a weed anymore but a serious accusation is just not true. >> you're saying they could essentially reopen a background investigation or expand on the investigation that they've already done. >> right. and these investigations, the back ground checks are unbelievably intrusive. so you go to the details of people's lives and these are details like any other. so there is no reason why they couldn't go back at all.

nor would it take ridiculous amount of time. >> it is interesting with background investigations. when i was looking for jobs, you are often asked to name several people for the fbi to talk to. and then the fbi agent who is talking to those people, they then ask those people for other people who you haven't named. so they try branch out from the people you've suggested so that they cast a wide net. >> right. we apply for judgeships in our 40s and 50s. they say name every address you have ever lived and the people with whom you lived. it is a very tall order. you do it because you're getting a life appointment. this is a life appointment on the highest court in the country. it seems to me it is not inappropriate to press the pause button and say are there corroborating details on either side. on judge kavanaugh's side or professor ford's side.

what else can we learn? otherwise you're setting this up for a he said, she said, where the determiners of credit brittle the lawmakers who have already expressed their scepticism. >> do you believe from a legal standpoint if professor ford did come before the committee, as judge kavanaugh would, that others should as well? anyone who was alleged to be in the room? anyone who may have been told about this by the professor earlier in past years? >> that would be the point. in an ordinary trial, you would have someone who said, x happen and somebody said y happened. then you look at all the corroborating circumstances. what do we know that the corroborating circumstances? you rarely get to a hearing where all sung what one side will say and the other side will say. there is no reason not to broaden this to see if corroboration is possible. or reputation is possible. refuting these accusations.

>> chairman grassley today said that because these allegations are in the public arena, there is no longer need for a confidential fbi investigation. does that make sense to you? >> it doesn't. if a judicial candidate had said when i was in college, i tried cocaine, there would be an investigation. in fact, it probably would have been disqualifying. if someone else said, i saw him do that as we've seen with other nominations, there would be an investigation. whether it is public or private, it is irrelevant. it is part of the responsibility which the president or the committee, i believe, could trigger. >> judge, if you can, just stay with us. i want to bring in jeffrey tubin as well as the chief counsel and policy director of the judicial crisis network supporting judge kavanaugh's nomination. both sides clearly seem to be digging in their heels here.

>> that's true. and i think there's a factual matter worth putting out on the table. if she refuses to testify monday, kavanaugh is getting confirmed. if she maintains that this investigation a sham and i'm not taking part, he is getting confirmed. that may not be a good thing or a bad thing. he may well be confirmed anymoreaway but everybody should be clear about the stakes of her decision to come forward before the committee. >> in talking to her attorney last night, the attorney made it clear that any fbi investigation would probably take longer than being able to be completed by next monday. you can argue whether that's true or not. she seemed to make it clear that without an fbi investigation, she didn't want to sit down and even if there was an investigation, it wouldn't be

monday because there's not enough time. do you think that's playing chicken here? do you think she would, if there is no fbi investigation, she would still and go sit down? >> i don't know. i don't know what the strategy is. i do know that there won't be an fbi investigation. senator grassley, the president, the republican party, this is a take it or leave it offer to miss ford. that's just what it is. she has to decide whether she wants to testify or not. it is a hard decision. she is a private figure. she has a high of she wants to lead. everybody should be clear about what the stakes are. if she does not testify, he is getting confirmed. >> as a sport of judge kavanaugh, why shouldn't there be a continuation or reopening of the background investigation if it takes a couple days or a couple weeks. why shouldn't there be? >> just going back to your parallel to the hill thomas

system, this is following precisely the pattern there. what was going on there was a pre disclosure investigation. that's what the fbi is for. talking to all the different sources while it is still, so they can preserve the witnesses own privacy. this would have been the right thing to do. that's not how the democrats chose to do it. they held on. they sat on it for six weeks. then they disclosed it. after anita hill's allegations were made public, there is no investigation. that's the phase you go to the senate. the only reason they had the fbi do it is because you can do it confidentially. it is ultimately the senate who makes those judgments. the fbi amasses the information. it is the senators who decide what to do with it. how to weigh it. that's part of the advice and consent. it is an exact thing. >> that's ridiculous. you just heard orrin hatch say

there was an fbi investigation. >> it was. go back and look it up. it was before the hearings. it was leaked. the hearings came about because the information from the very investigation was leaked to the media. then they said fine. >> it was before the second round of hearings. it was the round we're coming into. >> that was leaked to the public. my point is it doesn't make essential after it is leaked to the public. the whole point having the fbi do it as opposed to having the senators do the questioning is because of the confidentiality. they can ask the various witnesses untainted by each other. they can preserve the privacy of the people involved. preserve the reputations of both involved here. that's how it should have happen. if feinstein had handed it over, like senator biden did, properly, then we could have had the process. we didn't. now it is all out. let's go to the next phase which is what happened there. they had the hearing and that's how the senators came to their conclusions. >> do you buy that argument?

any fbi investigation, it is not in secret. you're asking neighbors, the fbi knocks on a neighbor's door and the fbi, people figure out, you're being investigated by the fbi. >> if the argument here, if the fbi were to investigate it, it would be tainted because the information has already come out. then surely a hearing without the benefit of any investigation is even more problematic. the notion here that the president could not pick up the phone and say, can you look further into this allegation? it just doesn't make sense. and the fact that it is public, she has made it public. that would mean people would be more prepared but that doesn't disqualify the investigation any more than this hearing does. >> i want you to respond to that. >> the allegations are vague enough. there's no other location to go. to you can't dust for prints.

this is 35 years ago. the key information are the allegations and her statements and reputation of that. that's something the senators, under penalty of perjury. this is a great way to go through that. i don't know what else you're going to find. >> why should mark judge testify? he is the third person. he is allegedly the third person in the room. let me finish. >> okay. go ahead. >> any reasonably serious investigation when there are three people allegedly in a room where a woman is assaulted, you would ask all three people to testify. it is crazy and irrational and indicative of how this is a kangaroo court that the republicans are not calling mark judge as a witness. >> they're not subpoenaing him or her. >> if she doesn't want to testify, they won't subpoena her either. that would be even more relevant than what he has to say. what he has said so far through his attorney is, i don't remember any of this.

this didn't happen pochbl goes to support judge kavanaugh. if you take him out of the room, it hurts kavanaugh and helps judge ford. i don't know why you would be complaining it. they're giving the same respect to dr. ford. >> your final thought. >> i can think of questions to ask. if you want to find out about the circumstances under which she told her husband and she told her therapist. what did she say and how did she say it? if that was long before judge kavanaugh was up for any post, that would have some sailence here. but all you have in this hearing room is what it was she communicated. i would love to hear from them. particularly the therapistherap. what was said and when? >> much more on the political dimensions including the political objections just raised over the timing of how these

allegations came to light. why wasn't it raised much earlier in the process. and it is without precedent. ahead, details. (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. touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz, the first and only treatment of its kind offering people with moderate to severe psoriasis a chance at 100% clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of people quickly saw a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz.

when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name yes, we are twins. of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves

and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people. being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com. 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. (sighs) i hate missing out missing out after hours. not anymore, td ameritrade lets you trade select securities

24 hours a day, five days a week. that's amazing. it's a pretty big deal. so i can trade all night long? ♪ ♪ all night long... is that lionel richie? let's reopen the market. mr. richie, would you ring the 24/5 bell? sure can, jim. ♪ trade 24/5, with td ameritrade. ♪ stand-off in the deadline in the brett kavanaugh nomination, chuck grassley wanting to know by 10:00 a.m. friday whether christine blasey ford will speak to the committee about her sexual assault allegations. now, a key republican socks how these allegations came to light. before we get into that, it bears repeating whatever you think of the politics of it, this is a human story first and foremost. a woman is in the spotlight over if what is true, is one of the most traumatic moments anyone can go through. she did not go through it by choice and now she is in the

spotlight. so is judge kavanaugh and the process. republicans are objecting to dianne finestein saying she sat on this information for weeks. she told the "washington post" she thinks it happened in the summer of 1982. she said she spoke of it in therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013. this july she contacted her member of congress, sending her a letter to senator finestein requesting she keep the letter confidential. she also took a polygraph which is not admissible in court. the results showed she was being truthful. she decided against going public because she believed he was a shoe-in. why go through the humiliation? it wouldn't matter. no mention is made of the allegations until september 12th when the intercept report that senator finestein was in that

letter. a day later she said she received information on kavanaugh and had referred to it federal investigative authorities. republicans want to know why she did not immediately hand it over to the feds. the belief is that she wanted to do damage to the nomination. one item, some democratic senators also wish she had come to them sooner with the allegation. the paper reports that some of the delay may have been due simply to efforts by the senator to keep the inquiry discreet. still, those questions are about the political brawl. and while some are overplaying their hand by scheduling the vote without testimony from christine blasey ford, there are many questions around the democrats and the timing of the whole thing. with us as well, the political analyst, margaret, senior white house correspondent for bloomberg news. grassley has said, okay, friday

10:00 a.m. that's the deadline. how do you see this playing out? >> well, i think that she originally boxed them in by saying she would testify and they recognized that they would invite a political fire storm that they didn't agree to hear her and they heard from several republicans, including senator collins and senator flake that they wanted to hear from her. now i think they would like nothing better than for her not to come. and not to testify. and they're making it as difficult as they can for her by saying, we won't do an investigation. so it will be a he said, she said situation. and i think their hope is that she doesn't come. let's strip all of this clear. this is about raw politics. just as they held up merrick's

appointment during the obama situation, he said that he would get this done by the beginning of october. why? the reason why he wanted to have the justices on the supreme court. there were eight justices during the ten months that he did not call a hearing or a vote. he is worried about another date. that's november 6. the mid-term elections and the prospect that democrats might take control of the senate which would complicate the confirmation of any justice the president would push forward. so this is what this is all about. so what i think will happen, they're not going to, if she doesn't testify as jeff tubin that, they will push forward and confirm judge kavanaugh and move on and take whatever political hit might come, come november. >> did the president or his allies in the senate have a good

answer for why they're in such a rush to get him confirmed? the republican controlled summit let scalise's seat go emfor more than a year in 2016 for the preen president obama was in office. >> sure. there are the public arguments that the process is underway. that the supreme court needs to do its work and all these things. but the reality is there are tremendous political stakes for both sides. and it is my expectation that she will have to testify. that all of these discussions about if she doesn't, or will democrats boycott, are to give her the space to set the terms for that testimony and to create the conditions to allow two different types of testimony. i would expect she would be preparing two types of testimony for monday. if writ to be delayed, a

capitulation with the fbi component and the second, the reality if she has to go forward on monday without that. you can imagine both sides scrambling to figure out who can they find who was around in 1982, or have been told about subsequently, who they might be able to bring to the athlete order monday and this friday deadline is really the deadline that becomes more important now for trying to line up who would appear on monday. >> in terms of why they didn't bring the letter up sooner, is there any good nonpolitically motivation for that? >> well, the good nonpolitical explanation was that she was asked to keep this in confidence. the last point that you made in your opening segment there makes sense to me. if you had this, you would want it to have been part of the

hearing. you would want to have seen this further investigated. i think the notion that they pulled this out of the back pocket to delay the hearing is specious just as she wouldn't want to come forward and subject herself to it for political reasons, is all that credible. i think she was respecting her wishes to remain anonymous at that point. it is she interesting to see the restraint in how he's responded. do you see him continuing that beyond monday? for one, he comes from the bush family world. and president trump has been excited about it. i'm not sure how closely wants to tie his fortune to him.

and both the republicans and the democrats can use this as a rallying cry ahead of the mid-terms the they play their cards right. the president is trying to strike the balance. >> i appreciate it. so far, and could it challenge, this is the case of he said, she said. it all comes down to memory. it is something that happened more than 30 years ago. how that will play a factor if there is a hearing on monday. we'll talk about the science of it ahead. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

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. 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 when mit rocked our world.ailed we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. before discovering nexium 24hr

to treat her frequent heartburn, lucy could only imagine enjoying a slice of pizza. now it's as easy as pie. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

chuck grassley has said 10:00 a.m. friday is the

deadline for christine blasey ford's legal team request to respond. meanwhile, ford's attorney has released a statement saying a rush to a hearing is unnecessary. the attorney believes it is unfair, unquote, to have a hearing with just her client and judge kavanaugh and believes multiple witnesses should be included in the proceeding. if a hearing does happen on monday or at a later date, it will center mostly around memory. what each person testifies to. what they remember. it will be something that allegedly happen or didn't happen more than 30 years ago. i want to talk with it. i'm going to talk with a memory research here is a professor at the university of california irvine. professor, when you look at the claim professor ford has made, if you were involved in an investigation, what more would you want to know? how reliable is a memory from

1982? >> first of all, there is a lot of decay that happens in memory over that very, very long time. that certainly doesn't mean that she isn't remembering something awful that happened to her. the real question in this case that i have is, not whether this happened so much. but who actually did it. because everything i've seen in the discussions of this case, one of the things i want to know is when did she attach the name brett kavanaugh to the episode that she is recounting from when she was 15 years old. and i wish somebody would ask that question because i think the answer to that question is pretty crucial. >> are you saying that it is not clear in the public record or that in a memory that old, in a traumatic incident, somebody can

attach somebody's name who was not involved? >> well, first of all, not only are there lots and lots of cases of delayed memory of sexual abuse or sexual assault. but there are also a whole other category of cases of eyewitness testimony where people have tried to identify the face of a perpetrator and they make mistakes. and the major cause of wrongful convictions in, let's say, the dna wrongful conviction cases is faulty eyewitness identification. so i think somebody ought to be investigating this case and find out, not only did this happen, which it may well have happened, but who actually did it. >> as a former prosecutor of sex crimes, there wouldn't appear to be a criminal matter, but as a

political matter, how much weight would you give on dr. ford's memory? >> it would all depend on what kind of corroboration it is. and certainly, i think we are in agreement that you have to have very good questioning. and actually, it begs the question, that's why we need an investigation in this case is we haven't had those questions asked by professional investigators. so i think we agree on that. i think while we disagree is the notion of taking memory fallibility in a vacuum. a good investigator doesn't take it in a vacuum. of course people's memories may be faulty. of course an investigator might be a bad investigator and ask leading questions. the point is, what kind of corroboration is there in a case? this whole notion we hear about with he said, she said, that's a fiction. in actual sex offense, it is never just he said, she said. somebody else knows something. there could have been someone

present. in this case, a third person in the room. someone saw them before the event, someone saw them after the event. it is never, these are the only two people and we have to weigh one person's word against the other. it is all in the corroboration. that's where the problem is with the idea of the false memory problems. it is all what kind of corroboration. if you don't have any corroboration, then you won't have a good case. >> professor, to that notion, corroboration, it is 1982. so it is unlikely there's physical corroboration. finger prints, other physical evidence. so you're probably relying on other people's memories. which again raises the question about the fallibility of memory, no? >> well, there could be some kind of other evidence. i don't know whether she kept a diary, whether she wrote in a diary, whether she produced the name of the person, the two

people who she says assaulted her. if you told someone, there is another issue of memory here. i very much appreciate the former prosecutor agreeing with me on some points and i agree with how many some as well. but i have seen cases where there's virtually nothing other than people's memories and there is no corroboration. they are very, very difficult cases. >> if you were advising professor ford on how to deal with the judiciary committee this week, would you tell her anything different than her current lawyer seems to be advising, not to rush into this? we don't know if they are saying it publicly and that's their upfront position and as a fallback they will agree to have their client testify even if there is an investigation? we don't know. >> i would strongly advise that

we need other expert testimony. we need expert testimony on the effects. it explains what happens with younger victims, they often disclose in an interval. something somewhat mild first and then more detailed later. and there's obviously science to explain why that happens in human psychology and that's really important for the senators to have so they can make an informed questioning. not just the attacking with the science behind it. and frankly, some of them might benefit on how to ask good questions. >> that's a good point. good discussion. president trump once again is attacking his own attorney general. what he said this time. it kind of raises the bar against his attorney general next. -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.

president trump is not stopping his attacks against his own attorney general, jeff sessions. if anything he's increasing them. the weapon this time was an interview in which the president

unloaded, i'm quoting, i don't have an attorney general. it is very sad. the president added some seemingly new criticisms going back to sessions' appointment. quote, he went through the nominating process and he did very poorly. for good measure he added, he was giving very confusing answers. answers that should have been easily answered and that was a rough time for him. this is in the wake of the new book "fear." he said that president trump called him a dumb southerner and mentally retarded. the president said he never used those terms. he denied it. the president piled on even further. >> i'm disappointed in the attorney general for numerous reasons. but we have an attorney general. i'm disappointed in the attorney general for many reasons and you understand that. >> all of this goes back to where he started with the decision by sessions to recuse himself by the russian probe being conducted by robert

mueller. it continues to plague him. here with my guests, michael, what do you make of these attacks on sessions? from a conservative standpoint, correct me if i'm wrong, sessions has been executing the president's agenda in terms of judicial appointments, really well, hasn't he? >> well, the president has been disappointed in jeff sessions for quite some time now and he deserves an attorney general who serves him well like every president does. unfortunately we have jeff sessions who doesn't seem to control his department at all. when it comes down to the identififisa warrants, especially with congressional oversight. i really wish it wasn't this wayful i don't think it will change any time soon but

hopefully it will change after the mid-terms. >> meaning you think jeff sessions will be removed. >> i don't know if he will. i don't work in the white house. i think it would be interesting to hear what jen says. i really respect her honorable service to the presidency. i really wish jeff sessions would serve our president as well as jen served hers. >> so jen? does this make sense? >> the reaccusal on the investigation, am i wrong? isn't sessions doing a lot on the president's agenda? >> absolutely. that's why many democrats despise him and have no sympathy for him even when president trump is criticizing him. he is seen as someone who has been a stalwart supporter of the president's agenda on the border and on anti-immigration tactics and getting federal judges and pushing them through. so a number of president trump's

priorities that he's been pushing through. it seems clear that president trump has made a decision that he wants to fire him. that seems obvious. we'll see what happens. and he wants to lay the ground work for that. what i heard were kind of suggesting that he was confused when he recused himself. that he maybe isn't up to the task. that he is ill prepared. maybe a little deranged. entirely consistent with the reports from the recent book that came out. so i heard that. i think many people in washington would be surprised if he isn't fired. people say his oath is to the country is that not to the president. is that fair? >> of course. but as i said, every president deserves an attorney general whose work they're satisfied with. and really this has come, you talk about a bit of an escalation this week and today. i think it has a lot to do with

the slow walking response they've had to these fisa warrants. to revealing little by little, drip by drip, these texts between the rogue fbi officials. now the president himself has had to order the deactivation of the fisa warrant. and these text messages. i don't think it shows us that jeff sessions doesn't have control over the people in his justice department. and they're slow walking this stuff. if i didn't obey a lawful order, i might have ended up in fort level enworth. this is disobeying a constitutional -- a president's constitutional authority. out here in fly-over country we might call that sedition. >> go ahead. >> ways going to say that was a lot wrapped up there. we should call this what it is. president trump does not like the fact that sessions recused himself and doesn't have control

over the russia investigation. it is actually not a definition of an attorney general's success that the president is satisfied with their work. if it's working effectively, there is a separation. and the person is serving, as you said, anderson, the public and justice. and this is a case where president trump is either confused about that or he just has no respect for the rule of law. i think it's the latter, but it could be a combination of both. >> you know, look, plenty of republicans will point to bobby kennedy as the attorney general for his brother, even eric holder for president obama and say, you know, there are politics involved and many republicans would argue those attorney generals were serving the president, not necessarily the country first. >> presidents do pick the attorney generals and do nominate them. that is absolutely true. there are people who had personal relationships of varying degrees. when a person is in their job they are acting independently

and not being pulled like a marion ette by the white house. when i was in the white house, we didn't even talk to loretta lynch or the attorney general's office about most issues. we didn't know where the process of things were in investigations. the only people who talked to them about certain issues was the coin's office. that's how it should be. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> last week we brought you an irregularity in a vote in georgia. a judge just ruled on it. we'll tell you what the ruling says in a moment.

you're in the business of helping people. we're in the business of helping you. business funding to help make a difference. another way we have your back. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it.

agent beekman was one step ahead of them.dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today. like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. hey, what do you guys want to listen to? ooh, hip-hop. reggaeton. edm. what about bubble trance? bubble what? bubble trance, it's a thing. my point is everyone's got different taste. that's why verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plan so everyone gets the plan they want, without paying for things they don't. and right now, the whole family can get six months of free apple music on verizon. oh. so let's play that reggaeton. old school reggaeton, not the new stuff. (announcer) get 45 million songs

with six months free apple music on us. only on verizon. switch now and get $300 off our latest phones.

it's back to the drawing board and back to the voting booth in a primary election in georgia. the judge will order a redo for a state house a district because errors in data called results

into question that were very close. our senior correspondent first brought this story to us over a week ago. we'll hear more from him in a moment. first here's some of the reporting he did after the mistakes were first discovered. >> reporter: on may 22nd, the only two people running for state representative district 28 in northeast georgia, squared off in a tight republican primary that would decide who would hold the office. state representative dan gasaway lost in a squeaker. >> at the end of the day i lost by 67 votes. >> reporter: remember that number, 67 votes. gasaway congratulated his opponent and thought it was all over, until the next day when his wife came home from her teaching job. >> and said, dan, my colleague came in and said she'd gone to vote for you last night and your name was not on her ballot, and she's in my district. >> reporter: his name wasn't on her ballot? how could his supporters vote for him if they couldn't even find him on the ballot? turns out it wasn't just one voter.

gasaway broke out maps, voting rolls, and found for each one of these dots, voters were assigned to the wrong district. >> let's get real specific. your district is district 28. >> that's correct. >> reporter: and these people were voting for district 10. >> that's right. i realized then we had a serious problem. i don't know how it happens, but it did. >> drew griffin joins me now. what exact through did the judge say, drew? >> the judge said so many voters got the wrong ballots in this election it could have actually affected the outcome. the wrong person may have won so he's ordered a redo, a new election, and tonight we are learning that new election is going to be held on december 4th, anderson. >> do we know how the mix up occurred in the first place? >> we really don't. the only explanation is that the lines have been redrawn in thighs districts so many times that there's some kind of screw up. that doesn't get a lot of confidence to voters in this state, in this county particularly. the county is going to do an

audit of all the voters, try to figure this out. the bigger question is what's happening in the rest of the state of georgia. these redistricting lines are done in partnership with the state and right now there is no clear answer how this got so goofed up. >> it is on the heels of another ruling of electronic vote in georgia. >> a federal case, that was a federal judge who was being asked to get paper ballots out for every voter in georgia. and though that judge denied that request for paper ballots, she offered a scathing rebuke of just how georgia's voting systems have been so mishandled. she discussed how the election system actually was opened up on the internet and called the electronic voting dated vulnerable voting system with no independent paper trail. she said basically the state has been burying its head in the sand over georgia election ands voting. >> drew, thank you so much. appreciate it. keep updated on that. reminder don't miss full circle

daily interaction cast on facebook. you can see it week nights 6:25 eastern facebook/anderson cooper full circumstance. i'll hand it over to chris cuomo. >> thank you, anderson. i am chris cuomo. welcome to primetime. you've got till friday. that's the new republican ultimatum to kavanagh's accuser. will the president bring in the fbi? the latest judgment call under review. and tonight we've got an a-list lineup including the president's own lawyer jay sekulow here to make the president's case on the mueller interview, fisa declassification, sessions sliets, and kavanagh as well. we also have watergate figure john dean here. he argues the fbi demand makes sense. now, dean already testified on kavanagh. should dr. ford, if there is no fbi involvement? and we're going to test who ultimately wins and loses in