evening tonight. senate republicans are falling in step putting brett kavanaugh's accuser on deadline monday to testify and 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 reply from one of her attorneys saying, and i quote, 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 professor ford and many democratic members want, first

republicans including the president are dismissing the possibility for two key reasons, neither of which happens to be entirely true and, of course, the truth matters here because 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 in the various arguments. professor ford said her life has been threatened since coming forward. judge kavanaugh's reputation is certainly on the line. so is the senate's as members exercise their duties tosses vet a nominee for life in what could be the most consequential supreme court. chairman 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 that's the right thing to do. >> if there is not an investigation, will she appear on monday? >> she is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation than 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 background check on judge kavanaugh as they've 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. they're giving two reasons why. their first argument is, it's not even the fbi's job. >> well, it would seem that the fbi really doesn't do that. they've investigated -- they've investigated about six times before and it seems that they don't do that. >> well, that's the president earlier today. yesterday he said and i'm quoting here, it's not really

their thing. senator orrin hatch has already said is he thinks the professor is mistaken about what happened to her, if quoted the responsibility falls to us. the president has said they don't want to investigate this. and keeping them honest, that's not the case nor is it true that the fbi does not do investigations like this. what they don't do is choose investigations based on want nor draw conclusions or make recommendations. as for a new background investigation all it takes is the white house to ask for one which is precisely what happened in the confirmation fight over justice clarence thomas. hill's allegations were relayed by the chairman and ranking member to then president george h.w. bush who ordered the fbi to look into them. one committee member then and now was senator orrin hatch who had this to say back then. >> i have to say chairman biden and the ranking member thurmond,

when they heard about this the first time they immediately ordered this fbi investigation which was a very right thing to do, it's an the appropriate 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 orrin hatch who now says it's not the fbi job to do what he once praised this many for doing. whether that inconsistency makes a difference is for you to decide. on another republican objection, no judgment call is required. only a look at the dplarmdly the complaint raised bid lindsey graham and others that bringing in the fbi is a delaying is tactic. the hill comparison system telling. the investigation took just three days which doesn't mean the fbi or other investigators could complete an investigation this time in a short period of time but it is what happened in the past. >> for more, i want to bring in

jeff zellfully. there doesn't seem to be any appetite to ask the fbi to investigate this. >> there doesn't. we've heard from the president for the second day he has no interest in doing. he has said it's not their thing. it is his purview to do that. it's his nominee. anderson, you got the feeling as the day wore on today, things are moving much faster. we're learning tonight that the senator grassley is planning a markup called the beginning of debate in his committee next wednesday morning. there could be a vote in the judiciary committee next wednesday morning on all of this. you know, or it might be postponed depending what happens on monday. you got the sense things were moving along and certainly more optimism here at the white house. with the sense of trepidation they still do not know if there is another accuser out there, the one outlier here but do not look for the twhous budge on the fbi at all. >> just to be clear, when you talk about a vote on wednesday

or 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's still a very good chance there would be and he could speak of course, the time for discussion is moving along. republicans want to move this along. the white house wants to move this along. of course, midterm elections are looming. the president made clear again today he said one of the reasons i was elected was because after the supreme court. they are hoping this is going to be essentially a rally in their conservative base. 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. he is still trying to walk ta fine line. anderson, day by day virtually every time he speaks in public inching closer to his previous position of politics here and with the elections looming, look for this to happen in the committee soon. then the full senate debate still very much an open

question, anderson. >> jeff, i appreciates it more on what an fbi investigation is equipped to uncover and how the fact finding process can and should be reconciled with the political process and the constitutional framework for the senate's duty to advise and consent. former federal judge nancy get yourner. if there's no nonpartisan investigation as it seems likely at this point, should ford agree to appear at a hearing on monday in your in your opinion? >> it's a political issue to some degree. i think she would be the best for her to do would be to appear under protest. people are saying this is he said, she said. it is but there are still are corroborating details, the circumstances understand which she first disclosed this to whom, who was said, were there will other people an the party. there are ways to broaden this from beyond he said she said. can i say something about this fbi investigation issue?

because it's been driving me crazy. when i applied to be a judge, there was a lengthy very intrusive questionnaire that asked you everyone had you ever lived with, every place you had ever lived and in particular, will 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 whether he 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 background collection are unbelievably intrusive. so you go down to the details of people's lives and these certainly are details like any other. there's no reason why they

couldn't go back at all nor would it take a ridiculous amount of time. >> it's interesting with background investigations, i had it done when i was in college for jobs, the, you often are 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 who they -- they basically try to branch out from the people you suggested so they cast a kind of wide net. >> right. i mean, we apply for judgeships in our 40s and 50s. when he ask you, name every address you have ever lived with 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's not inappropriate to press the pause button here and say, are there corroborating details on 0 either side on judge kavanaugh's side or professor ford's side.

what else can we learn about this. otherwise you're setting this up for a he said, she said where the dermers of credit blth are the lawmakers who have already expressed their skepticism. >> do you believe from a legal standpointing that if professor ford did come before the committee as judge kavanaugh would that others should, as well, anybody else who was alleged to have been in the room, you know, anybody who may have been told about this by the professor earlier in past years? >> well, that would be the point. in an ordinary trial, you would have someone who said x happened, somebody said y happened. then you would look at all the corroborating circumstances. what do we will know about the sbrab vob greating circumstances. you rarely get to a hearing where all you know is what one side is going to say and the other side is going to say.

refuting these accusations is possible. it doesn't make any sense. >> chairman grassley to democrats said because ford's allegations are "in the public arena," there's flow longer a need for a confidential fbi investigation. does that make sense to you. >> do doesn't make any sense. if a judicial candidate will said when i was in college i tried cocaine, it probably would have been disqualifying. if someone else said they saw me do that, then there would abinvestigation and whether it was public or private is really irrelevant. it's part of the fbi's background investigation responsibility which the president or the committee i believe could trigger. >> judge gertner, stay with us. i want to bring in chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin, as well as carrie severe rin know from the justice crisis network supporting the nomination. both sides seem to be digging in

their heels here. >> that's true. i think there's a factual matter worth putting out on the table. if she refuses to testify on monday, kavanaugh is getting confirmed. jeff flake has said that. susan collins has said that. if she maintains this investigation is a sham and i'm not taking part, he is getting confirmed. that may be unfair, may be a good thing, a bad thing. that's a factual thing. if she does testify, all the cards are thrown up in the air. he may well be confirmed anyway but i think everybody should be clear about what the stakes are of her decision to come forward or not before the committee. it's up or down. >> jeff, 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. tuck argue whether it's true or not. and seemed to make it clear without an fbi investigation, she didn't want to sit down and feen there was an fbi investigation it, wouldn't be on

monday because there's not enough time. do you think that's essentially just kind of playing chicken here? do you think she would if there is no fbi investigation, she would still sit down? >> i don't know. i mean, i don't know what their strategy is. but i do know that there is not going to 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's got to decide whether she wants to testify or not. it's a hard decision. it's easy for us to sit here. she's a private figure. she's got a life she wants to lead. but everybody should be clear about what the stakes are. if she does not testify he is getting confirmed. >> carrie as a supporter of judge kavanaugh, why the 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? >> i think just going back to

your parallel to the hill/thomas system, this is following precisely the proper pattern. what was going on with the investigation there was a predisclosure investigation. that's what the fbi is for. finding out this confidential information, talking to all the different sources while it's still confidential so they can preserve the witnesses' privacy. this would have been the right thing to do for dr. ford. that's not how the democrat chose to do it. they sat on it for six weeks and disclosed in this final way after anita hill's allegations were made public, there was no fbi investigation. the only reason to have the fbi do it, then you can do it confidentially. if terms of getting someone on the record to inquire, it's ultimately the senate who makes those judgments because the fbi amasses an the information. it's the senators who decide what to do with it, how to weigh different things. that's part of their advise and consent. that's what's happening here. it's a parallel of that. >> carrie, that's ridiculous. you just heard orrin hatch say

there was an fbi investigation. >> it was pre. >> no it wasn't. >> it was. go back and look it up. it was before the hearing. it was before, it was leaked. the hearing came about because the information from that very investigation was leaked to the media. >> it was the second round of hearings. it was before the second round of hearings which was the round we're coming into. >> it was before that was leaked to the public. my point is it doesn't make sense after it's leaked to the public the whole point of having the fbi do it is because of the confidentiality. they can ask the various witnesses untainted by each other and preserve privacy and reputations of both parties involved. that's how it should have happened. feinstein in july, if she handed it over like senator biden did properly, then we could have had that process. we didn't have it. now let's go to the next phase which is exactly what happened there. once it was out, they had the hearing and that's how they came

to the conclusion. >> judge gertner, do you buy her argument. >> any fbi investigation, it's not in secret. you're asking neighbors fbi knocks on a neighbor's door and then the fbi people figure out you're being investigated by the fbi. >> yeah, but if the argument here is that this investigation by -- if the fbi were to investigate it would somehow 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 just doesn't make sense. and the fact that it's public she has made it public. that would mean that people would be more prepared but that doesn't disqualify the investigation any more than this hearing does. >> carrie, i want you to respond to that. >> the allegations are vague enough. there's flow location you can go to. you can't dust for prints.

this is 35 years ago. the key information here are the her allegations and his statements in reputatirefutatio. this is a great way to go through that. i don't know what else you're going to find. >> how about mark judging? why the shouldn't mark judge testify? he's the third person, allegedly the third person in the room. any reasonable let me finish, carrie. >> go ahead. >> flew 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. >> look, they're not subpoenaing him but also not subpoenaing her. if she doesn't want to testify, they're not going to subpoena her either. that would also be even more relevant than what he has to say. on top of which look, his -- what he has said so far through

his attorney is, i don't remember any of there. this didn't happen. that only goes to support him. if you take him out of the room, if anything, it hurts judge kavanaugh and helps dr. ford. if he's planning to testify, they're giving that the same respect they're gebbing to dr. ford if she chooses to testify sfleefl i can think of questions to ask. if you want to find out about the circumstances under which she told her husband and her therapist, what did she say and how did she say it? and if that was long before judge naug was up for any post, that would have some salience. all have you in the hearing room is her saying what it was she communicated. i'd love to hear from them, what was said and how did she say it and when. >> coming up next, more on the political dimensions including the republican objections over the timing over how these

allegations came to light, why senator feinstein did not raise it the letter much earlier in the process and president trump's latest complaints. attorney general jeff sessions is without. they are kind of without precedent. ahead the details. or get pumped up for your grand entrance. t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free. 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. one last year these womenn i started seeing results. and hundreds of thousands more tried revitalift triple power. with hyaluronic acid and pro-xylane. it visibly reduces wrinkles, refirms and smooths texture. guaranteed or your money back. revitalift triple power. from l'oreal paris. if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first.

so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... 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? 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? there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call 877-buy-dell today. (music throughout)

. breaking news the standoff in a deadline in the brett kavanaugh confirmation, chuck grassley wanting to know by 10:00 a.m. friday, this friday, whether professor christine blasey ford will speak to the committee about her assault allegation bnz a key objection is how the allegations came to light. whatever you think of the politics of this, this is a human story. a woman tonight is in the spotlight over what if true is one of the most traumatic moments anyone could go through. now she's in the kind of spotlight most of us can't imagine. so is judge kavanaugh, so is the process. republicans are objecting to the actions of dianne feinstein

saying she sat on the allegations for weeks only springing them a few days ago for maximum political damage. professor ford told "the washington post" she thinks the alleged assault happened in the summer of 1982 and said she spoke of it during therapy sessions in 2012 and 2013. this july she contacted her member of congress, congresswoman ana eschoo sending her a letter to senator feinstein requesting she keep the matter confidential. she also took a polygraph which not admissible in court. the post reports it showed she was being truthful. she decided against going public because she believed judge kavanaugh was a shoe in. the hearings took place september 4th through the 7th. no mention is made of the allegations till september 12th when it was reported senator feinstein was in possession of that letter. a day later feinstein said she had referred the matter to federal investigative

authorities. republicans want to know why she did not immediately forward the letter to the feds. the implication she wanted to do political damage. one item some democratic senators also wish she had come to then sooner with the allegation. the paper reports some of the delay may have been due to efforts by the senator to keep the inquiry discreet. still those questions about timing are at the heart of a political brawl now. while some point to the perils of the republicans overplaying their hand by scheduling a vote without hearing from christine blasey ford, there are many questions swirling around the timing of the whole thing. david axelr david axelrod served as senior advisor to president obama. >> david grassley said friday 10:00 a.m. to notify the committee whether or not she's going to testify. how do you see this actually 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 firestorm if they didn't agree to hear her. they heard from many -- several republicans including senator collins, senator flake that they wanted to hear from her. now i think that 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're not going to do an investigation. we're not going to call any other witnesses. so it will be a he said, she said sort of situation. and i think their hope is she doesn't come. and look, let's strip all of there clear what this is about is raw politics. just as mitch mcconnell held up judge merrick garland's appoint. during the last ten months of the obama administration, he has said from the beginning he was going to get this done by the

beginning of october. why? the reasoning he gave was that he wanted to have full nine justices on the supreme court. but obviously, there were eight justices during the ten months that he didn't call a hearing or a vote on merrick garland. he's worried about another date. that's november 6th which is the midterm elections and the prospect that democrats might take control of the senate. which would complicate the confirmation of any justice account president would push forward. so there is what there is all about. >> right. >> and so what i think is going to happen, they're not going to -- that if she doesn't testify as jeff toobin said, that threwal push forward and they will confirm judge kavanaugh and move on and take whatever political hit might come come november. >> margaret, did the president or his republican allies in the senate have a good answer why they're in such a rush to get kavanaugh confirmed? obviously the republican

controlled senate led the scalise seat go empty for more than a year for the reason obama was in office that david mentioned. >> sure, they're sort of the public argues about this which is that the process is already under way, that there needs to be clarity and the supreme court needs to be able to do its work. all these things. but the reality is, there are tremendous political stakes for both sides. it's my expectation that she's going to having to testify. and that all of these discussions about if she doesn't or will democrats boycott are essentially to give her the space to set the terms for that testimony. and to create at conditions to allow two sort of different types of testimony. i would expect she would be preparing two potential types of testimony for monday. one if there were to be a capitulation and some fbi component and a second sort of narrative or reality if she has to go forward on monday. without that, and you can imagine sort of both sides, the

kavanaugh side and her side scrambling to figure out who can they find who was around in 1982 or have been told about this subsequently they might be able to bring to the theater on monday and this friday deadline is the deadline that becomes more important now for trying to line up who would appear on monday. >> justice scalia i mangled his name. in terms of why senator feinstein's office didn't bring the letter up, is there any good nonpolitically motivated reason for that? >> she was asked to keep this in confidence. the last point that you made in your opening segment there makes sense to me which is 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 pull this out of the back pocket

to delay the hearing is specious. just as i think the notion that this woman would come forward and subject herself to what she subjected herself to, you know, for political reasons is all that credible. you know, i think she was respecting her wish to remain anonymous at that point. >> margaret, it is having to see the president's restraint in how he's responded at least by his standards. do you see him continuing that beyond monday? >> i think it's really possible for two reasons. for one, brett kavanaugh comes from the bush family's world. and president trump has been excited about him when it seemed like a slam-dunk. i'm not sure how closely he wants to tie his fortune to him. the second is both the republicans and democrats can use this as a rallying cry ahead of the midterms if they play their cards right. the president is trying to

strike that balance without crossing a line that would offend too many women. >> margaret, david axelrod, as well. so far this is the case of he said she said. it all comes down to plerm. the memories of something that allegedly 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. ( ♪ ) face the world as a face to be reckoned with. only botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make moderate to severe frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. it's a quick 10 minute cosmetic treatment given by a doctor to reduce those lines. there is only one botox® cosmetic, ask for it by name. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions,

injection site pain, headache, eyelid and eyebrow drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. leave your mark on the world. minimize its mark on you. get started at botoxcosmetic.com. minimize its mark on you. 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. what i just introduced you worto my parents.g? psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened?

i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. 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. this isn't just any moving day. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today.

our breaking news, chuck grassley has set 10:00 a.m. friday as the dead line for christine blasey ford's legal team to respond to his request for her to speak on monday to the committee under oath regarding her sexual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh. 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 happened or didn't happen more than 30 years ago. i want to talk about it with shan wu and elizabeth lost us, a memory researcher 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

pa crimes, this wouldn't appear to be a criminal matter so many years later but as a political matter, how much weight would you give to 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 where i would disagree is the notion of taking memory fallibility in a vacuum because a good investigator doesn't take a memory just in a vacuum. that's an academic theory and, 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 kind of fiction, anderson. 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's never just 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's all what kind of corroboration you have. 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. fingerprints, 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. you're right. if she told someone and you question that person, there's 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 which is 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 her and her legal team to make the point that we need other expert testimony. we need expert testimony about the effects of trauma on sexual assault survivors because that is explains and affects when people disclose. with younger victims threw often disclose in kind of an interval, something somewhatmide 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 type of questioning, not just be talking without understanding what the science is 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. ♪ flintstones! meet the flintstones. ♪

♪ they're the modern stone age family. ♪ ♪ from the town of bedrock. ♪ meet george jetson. ♪ ♪ his boy elroy. with instant acceleration, electric cars are more fun to drive and more affordable than ever. electric cars are here. plug into the present. discover.o. i like your card, but i'm absolutely not paying an annual fee. discover has no annual fees. really? yeah. we just don't believe in them. oh nice. you would not believe how long i've been rehearsing that. no annual fee on any card. only from discover. ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪

♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.

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 with hill.tv in which the president unloaded, i'm quoting, i don't have an attorney general. it's 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 his quotes about sessions in 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. before he left this morning to the carolinas to inspect the hurricane damage, 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 from the russia probe now being conducted by robert mueller. in the president's mind an unforgivable sin that continues to blame him. here with my guests, michael, 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 in there right now who doesn't seem to really control his department at all. when it comes down to the fisa warrants, especially with

responding completely to congressional oversight. i really wish it wasn't this way. i don't think it's going to change any time soon but hopefully it will change after the midterms. >> 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? him going after sessions? obviously, you know, the mueller, the recusal on the russia investigation looms over all of this. but i mean, aim wrong? isn't sessions doing a lot of the president's agenda? >> absolutely. that's why many democrats despise him and have no sympathy for him right now even when president trump is criticizing him because he's seen as somebody who has been a stalwart support other of the president's

agenda on the border and on anti-immigration tactics and getting federal judges and bushing them through. these are 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. so what i heard today in his comments 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. that maybe he's 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. it seems like he's just setting that up for post election. >> michael, people whom support sessions say his oath is to the country and 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

now, he talking about a bit of an escalation this week, a bit today. i think it has a lot to do with the kind of slow walking response that they've had to these fisa warrants and to revealing little by little, drip by drip, these tests between these rogue fbi officials. now the president himself has i don't think -- it shows us i think jeff session really doesn't have control over the people in his justice department. and i'm telling you, they're slow walking this stuff. and, you know, i served in the united states army. if i didn't obey a lawful order, i might have ended up in fort leavenworth. and, you know, this is disobeying a constitutional -- a

president's constitutional authority. out here in flyover county we might call that sedition. >> i was going to say there was a lot wrapped up there. president trump doesn't like the fact sessions reaccused himself and doesn't have control over the russia investigation. it is actually not a definition of an attorney's success that a president is satisfied with their work. if it's working effectively there's a separation. and this is case where president trump is either confused about that or he just doesn't have respect for the rule of law. i think it's the latter, but it could be a combination of both. >> pointing to bobby kennedy for 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. >> sure, presidents do pick

attorney generals, but ultimately when the person is in their job they're acting independently and not someone being pulled like a marionette by the president. and when i was in the white house we didn't talk to loretta lynch or the attorney general's office about many, many issues. the only people who talked to them about certain issues were the counsel's office, and that's how it should be. >> appreciate your time. thanks very much. last week we brought you an investigation into a bizarre story in georgia where one candidate's name didn't appear on the ballots. the fact is, there are over ninety-six

hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. 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? join t-mobile, and get netflix included for the whole family. so you can get lost in space in your own backyard. or get pumped up for your grand entrance. t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile, buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free.

from capital one.nd i switched to the spark cash card i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet? with féria extreme platinum haircolor by l'oréal. lighten up! lightens hair up to seven levels. féria is ammonia free with conditioning oil. never dull, never flat. live in color. live in féria extreme platinum by l'oréal paris. there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ )

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

an election of a statehouse 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. he broke out maps, overlapped 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 exactly 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? >>, you know, we really don't.

the only explanation is that the lines have been redrawn in these districts so many times that there's some kind of screw up. that doesn't give 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 elections and voting. >> drew, 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 circle. 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 slights and kavanaugh as well. we also have watergate figure john dean here. he argues the fbi demand makes sense. now, dean already testified on