we just started. can you see it week nights, 6:25 p.m. eastern. the news continues, i want to hand it over to chris cuomo. >> thank you, anderson. welcome to prime time. christine blasey ford now indicating she will testify even without an fbi probe, but there are several new conditions. we're just getting intelligence on the stipulations posed on a call today between her legal team and the judiciary committee. meanwhile, kavanaugh says he's ready and whenever they tell him, he will be there to clear liz name. >> earlier this week, kellyanne conway expressed her thought that ford should be heard. what changed?

>> the white house counselor back on prime time tonight. then, michael cohen, he has no cooperation agreement but he is talking, he's meeting with mueller for hours, about various issues with investigators into trump. what he knew and maybe even his tax taxes my friends, there is no time to waefrt, let's get after it. >> here's what we know. ford's lawyers say monday is out. she'll testify next week, but they see monday as more of a pressure tactic than a practical consideration. they do say next week with certain bro tekss. her team is pushing for thursday. what kind of protections. security, to make sure she's not in the same room as kavanaugh. earlier this week, her lawyer had asked for an fbi investigation. the question is, why isn't

kavanaugh pushing for the fbi as well. their efforts could help him as much or more than ford. and how about the president? doesn't he want to remove any doubt before he saddles his pick and the court with the stigma of this kind of ugly speculation? or is he among the new wave of confidence that he's going to be fine, even before they've heard a word from ford. here to talk about it is kellyanne conway. welcome back to the show. >> thank you, chris. >> help us understand this switch. there hasn't been any testimony, and we're hearing more and more republicans, especially on the senate committee saying kavanaugh is going to be fine. we think maybe she's mistaken. how do they know when they haven't heard anything. >> you just told your audience you wanted to lay out everything you learned. you omitted cleverly a very important fact. judge kavanaugh said he wasn't there. and this is not -- this is no longer she said he said, it's she said and he said he wasn't

there. >> what is the difference? >> excuse -- what do you mean what's the difference? >> what's the difference? >> judge kavanaugh found out the identity of the individual on sunday for the first time. by monday he had already given his statement to the committee. >> right. >> and so he has subjected himself again as he did over 30 hours of oral testimony in front of the whole world to see to the same committee as he did in response to 1300 written questions. to six fbi vets, including one completed six months ago. he has submitted himself under penalty of perjury or under penalty for lying to congress. all of this under oath. >> right. >> and so he is willing. he was willing this last monday just less than 24 hours after hearing the woman's name for the first time, he was willing to testify and clear his name and say under oath what he has said otherwise, which is

unequivocally and categorically this is not true. >> he was willing to do it last monday. she's not willing to do it the following monday. we have said from the beginning that they both should be heard, and the process -- we respect the process, the senate judiciary process, they're charged with advising and consenting to the president on supreme court nominations. and you need to -- if you're going to be looking for the facts and the truth, you can't omit important facts. >> what have i omit ted. >> i just told you, you omitted the fact that he said -- >> i've said it many times, i'll say it many times. you're missing my point. my point is, you guys said you wanted a process, you wanted her to be heard. >> yes. >> and then you said -- >> they accommodated her. >> i don't remember a lot of things that happen when i was 15, maybe she's forgotten. we don't know what she's forgotten. >> i didn't say she's forgotten. do not put words in my mouth.

let me know if there's a question lurking in there. >> why not make the best efforts. >> here's what you need to know. these are our best efforts. >> not having the fbi is the best effort? >> the fbi has vetted this man completely six different times. >> they haven't vetted this. >> you don't know that. >> i do know that. >> you don't know that. you want to lay the blame at somebody's feet, look no further than your democratic friends starting with senator feinstein. if dr. ford is -- >> what does that have to do it -- >> no, no, don't interrupt -- >> that's just politics. >> you think you can talk over me, i'll walk away. you guys begged me to come on and then you want to interrupt me. hold on. >> you're always welcome to come on, but i have to stop you and check -- >> filibuster. >> go ahead. >> nothing came out of my mouth yet. i can leave and we can watch him get confirmed next week. >> how do you know that's going to happen?

>> christopher -- >> how do you know that's going to happen. >> i'm not upset about anything. >> how do you know before she's even testified. where does your confidence come from. >> this woman said she wanted to be heard. her lawyer went on television after 7:00 a.m. eastern time on monday and said in response to a question, would your client be willing to testify? yes, she would be willing to testify. she will do whatever it takes to get her story out. the senate immediately started to accommodate that request, and they have -- they said that she can do it through a form of her choosing, she can do it privately, publicly, by telephone, in person. they have bent over backwards to accommodate this request. there are two people involved here, not just the one you're promoting. judge kavanaugh has testified for over 30 hours -- >> but not about this. >> oh, no, no. excuse me. he was grilled for 30 hours. >> not on this. >> i know you're friends on the

democratic side, as jake tapper said -- >> you can lay it anyway you want. >> no, excuse me. >> personal insults of me, nobody cares about that. >> hey, chris. >> speak to this. >> this man has denied being there. does that matter to you? >> of course it matters. >> do you think this process is fair to judge kavanaugh and his wife and two daughters. do you think it's fair to those young female basketball players who he's coached who have to open up the hometown paper -- >> you're making it look like -- >> he'll testify tomorrow, he would have testified yesterday -- christopher who is hiding, he's ready to testify. he's ready. she's not. >> why won't you have the fbi look at it and perfect -- have some kind of objective record of this. >> you know. let's back up, let's say for example the fbi going to investigate. what are they investigating. she doesn't remember where the house was, how she got home, how she got there. >> she remembers people being

there. >> tell me what they would be investigating. >> who did what to her. they could talk to the people who she names. they have field agents, they go places and know how to ask questions. they can present a record -- >> the fbi is in charge of background checks and -- the fbi is in charge of security clearances and background checks. don't forget that. >> that's a direct analogy to anita hill. >> no, it is not. you know it. >> how? >> in many different ways. they were two colleagues and her allegations were about something that happened when those two worked together. disproven, of course, that -- >> disproven? >> it happened when they worked together. >> it wasn't disproven. >> a short amount of time before all of that. you are asking the fbi to get involved, but earlier in the week, you and your network were fine with just having this woman testify because she said she wanted to testify --

>> i was never find with any of it from the beginning. i have been asking why the fbi is not involved from the first day. >> are you okay with kavanaugh's wife getting threats? >> i'm not happy with any of this. >> if dr. ford is upset, she ought to be upset with whoever eleaked her name. that entire chain of custody -- >> she should also be upset with who sexually assaulted her. >> who smoked her out. >> that's politics, kellyanne. >> no. >> it's all ugly politics. >> christopher, it's not ugly politics. >> i think she's mistaken. how does he flow if she's mistaken. >> how do you know she's not. we don't know anything, because she won't testify. >> she is going to testify. >> when? what's taking so long. >> do you really believe this is an equal opportunity? sleaze coming into a place as a woman who says someone attempted to sexually assault her.

>> 33 years ago. >> she's getting death threats, her family isn't living into her house -- >> none of you ever care if any of us get it. >> can we focus on the person who -- >> no, no, we're going to focus on the culture that has been created here. >> you guys are not the victims tonight. >> a good man who's been through six fbi -- answered 1300 written questions, testified for over 30 hours. the democrat that those democratic senators wasted raising money for their 2020 presidential bids, shouteding him down, talking more than asking him actual questions to answer. i am spartacus. >> shame on them. shame on them for the grandstanding and bad politics. but they didn't know about her. >> she wants to tell the men of america to just shut up, what is that? >> that's politics. >> you have to be fair to -- that is not politics. this is a confirmation hearing to the united states supreme court. you can't have it both ways. you can't say the stakes are high for a lifetime appointment

to the supreme court and then say, it's just politics. well, then dr. ford should be very upset that democratic politics includes members of her own party smoking her out after she asked for confidentiality, no republican did that to her. the republicans are the whole reason she will have an opportunity -- >> that is a fair line of criticism. >> to testify. >> that is a fair line of criticism. >> what are the conditions. >> i've never said otherwise. >> what are her conditions? >> security and she wanted around objective record put together. >> the conditions i also understand, maybe she wants him to testify first. do you have that reporting tonight? >> right, i saw that. >> the lawyers talked to cnn, they talk to the judiciary plenty of times, when they're not headlining fund-raisers for democratic -- >> i don't want to mix the petty politics of both sides -- >> no, no, you want transparency and accountability. so let's talk about people's motives here? >> no, because that doesn't go to the main matter. the matter is, what do you do now to secure the best chance of

obtaining truth when these two people come before you? >> okay can you and i agree that the best way to get the truth is to have them both testify under oath next week about this particular incident? >> that's part of it. >> this alleged incident. >> that's part of it. >> what's the other part? >> you should try to get any other viable witnesses. >> he's already testified, given his statement about this. >> he gave a statement, he didn't testify under oath. >> you don't know that. >> mark judge. >> not mark judge. the man -- judge kavanaugh. the accused who says he wasn't there. i went early this week, i said that she should not be ignored, she should not be insulted. not only has she not been ignored, she's been accommodated, we're waiting for her to testify. everybody wants to hear her, everyone from the president to judge kavanaugh to the senate judiciary committee, they've given her, played good on the promise her lawyer made on tv.

that she wanted to come forth and testify. and do what she had to do to get her -- >> there's no question about that. you can't take anything away from it. >> so -- remember, she's been -- >> rushed and what -- >> she's been thinking about this for a long time it sounds like. >> this is what -- >> she didn't tell anybody for 30 years, she has been theiring about this for a long time, judge kavanaugh had less than 24 hours from the time he learned her name -- >> they are completely different situations. if you believe that she believes it -- let's not say it's true. if you believe that she believes this, that she is in good faith in believing that this was done to her, they are completely on uneven ground. you know very well -- >> no, that's not true, and i'll tell you why. >> someone who knows the psychology of this, it is very hard for women to come forward. >> but he -- >> it is not unusual for them to have memory gaps about certain details of an event. >> sure, but how is that going to change between now and next week? >> she said earlier -- she went to democrats saying, i really

don't want to do this, i'm anonymous, use it for what it's worth. >> and her friend posted on facebook, and had to retract it. now people want me to go on tv and back it up. i didn't mean what i said. she's not helpful. >> she will be her own advocate here, she'll have to. here's my concern. this is a struggle, this is hard, we don't have standards, we don't have rules, we don't know how to judge these situations -- >> there is a process in the senate judiciary -- >> not to judge this -- >> the senate has hosted sincetive witnesses in the past, who also had threats to their safety. >> it's not about threat to the safety, how do you judge -- >> yes, it is, she's concerned about that, that should be respected. >> how do you judge them, how do you figure out if they are both credible. >> i think you're -- >> no, i'm not. if they're both credible what do you do? >> let me ask you this, is it possible -- >> do you put someone on the

supreme court with a 50/50 proposition. >> it's possible something happened to her and kavanaugh was not there. >> that is possible. >> okay. well, then, we should have both of them testify as to that particular -- >> why not have everyone you can find that could be relevant testify. why not use the fbi, why not send america a message that we care about these allegations enough, and the judge enough -- >> let me ask the senate -- >> do everything we can to show you that we cared about what matters. >> let me ask the senate right now then, through your show, because they're employed by the taxpayers, this is a senate confirmation hearing, the senate has the resources at hand to conduct the investigation that you just suggested. they can do that. you're trying to involve the fbi. >> yes. >> because -- >> they're objective. >> all kinds of stall tactics. of course they are. there's all kinds of stall tactics. >> it took three days with anita hill. >> what about that -- >> it took three days with anita hill.

>> that's a different set of facts, and you know it. >> i don't. they can track people down, it's been too long. >> this is -- i think you're really -- >> anita hill -- >> i heard your opening, something i didn't understand at all. the stigma of spec wlags -- >> yeah. >> what does that mean? >> you leave judge kavanaugh with the stain of this kind of speculation that maybe this happened. >> what stain? he's willing to testify. >> and you rushed it through, what does that mean for his legacy on the court? what does that mean for confidence in -- >> chris, he was norm natured. >> you have two of six men with this type of speculation -- >> no, no, don't you go there. justice thomas has served honorably and admirably for over 25 years now. so do not -- >> i can only go where history takes us. anita hill came up and said things. she had an opportunity to speak. and some people believed her, some people didn't. >> he was confirmed, he sat on the court ever since.

let me make one thing clear. the industry that's been the hardest hit through allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment is probably the media. >> maybe that's because we take it the most seriously. and done the most to try to get to the truth of the allegations. >> yes, taken very seriously. >> and not rush people through a process and put them in front of a hostile panel. >> you want me to name names of people in the media who are no longer in the media -- >> doesn't that show the need -- >> no, no. and now i'm going to make amends with all the women that i've hurt and sexually assaulted and sexually harassed. that isn't exactly how it went down, and we can name names. why waste my time. >> you seem to be waste time -- >> no, no, no, you're not being honest, you're besmurching two

good men. >> who? >> justice thomas and judge kavanaugh -- >> all allegations are not even. >> i'm not going to let you do it. he's willing to deny it under oath. >> willing to get to the truth. >> why is it not enough for you that a man has gone through six fbi vets who said he wasn't there, who's willing to testify under oath, was willing to do it last monday -- >> i think that that's all good. >> next monday when she won't come. >> that's all good. >> has submitted to 1300 written questions. has produced 1 million pages from his time in government. my favorite poll was what you put on twitter last night, does he deserve the presumption. 2 to 1 it said he deserved the presumption. >> i'm not going to say that. why would i undermine it? >> it should be enough that this

man was nominated to the supreme court before 75 days ago or so -- >> no one is saying anything about this. >> the average -- >> this is a new issue. you. >> know why? no, no, no, you know why. >> the best chance of being proven too. >> because he says he wasn't there. >> i understand he says that. >> he never would have raised it -- >> you should hear what she says and then -- >> we're waiting. >> i have to let you go. >> we're waiting, we're waiting, we're waiting for her to testify. >> i know. >> in front of the senate judiciary committee. >> i hope she does. >> i certainly hope she does too. i think the country is waiting for that. in the meantime, you should recognize that there are two individuals and two families here who have been hurt. >> no question. >> and your role as a dad should kick in once in a while. not your role as an anchor trying to get ratings. >> kellyanne, i will never understand why you think coming at me personally is going to change how i am. >> i'm not coming at you

personally. >> i appreciate you judging me as a parent, as a member of the media, when we're all bad people. >> i didn't say that. no, no, no, don't put that in my mouth. i said as everyone preens around about these allegations, don't forget the industry that's been hit the hardest. >> i don't know how that's relevant in anyway. i really don't. but i have to let you go. >> have you given all those women -- i hope you'll have all those women on sometimes who have made credible allegations against people in the media, many of those men are not even any longer in the media about. >> and i'm glad you see that as a good way to reflect on what should be done in this situation here now. >> no, no, no. i'm saying everyone deserves to be heard. >> 100%. >> i said that first about her, but judge kavanaugh has been heard and he's willing to be heard again until oath. >> i understand, i'm not taking anything away from that. i think you're handicapping him and trying to rush this through.

i have to go, we'll talk about this more next week when we see how it turns out. you're always welcome on the show, be well. michael cohen reportedly has been spilling the beans to mueller and company. last week the president's former campaign chair agreed to cooperate, the list is growing. does it matter? and if so? how? we've laid it out for you on the magic wall next. ♪ it is such a good time to kiss ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪

progressive helps keep you out there. ♪ not in this house. 'cause that's no so-so family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired mozzarella and parmesan for pizzahyeah! kraft. family greatly. directv gives you more for your thing. if you've been waiting for a sign to quit cable, then here's some signs. ♪ quit cable it came from the toaster. ♪ quit cable uh... ♪ quit cable now you can quit cable. switch to directv for $35 per month. rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. more for you quitting cable thing. that's our thing. call 1.800.directv.

in this big flood of russia related news, where does this latest reporting on michael cohen rank? abc news is reporting that cohen sat with mueller's team for many hours. what's the focus? trump's dealings with russia, whether there was fli talk of a pardon for cohen. he's been meeting with new york state officials that handle taxation and charity activities. this has not been a great month or so for donald trump when it comes to the russia investigation. why not? >> let's go to the end of august. reports came out that trump's own council was sitting for extensive interviews for some 30 hours. that was followed by cohen pleading guilty to numerous counts and implicating trump personally in campaign violence violations. at the time, this is a point of

confusion for some, cohen has never signed a cooperation agreement as part of his plea agreement. he is now talking voluntarily, but he's talking a lot. who else is? about two weeks ago, george papadopoulos was sentenced, he's been spreading stink on jeff sessions and what he knew about his efforts to make connections to russians. less than a week ago, you had paul manafort, he spent hours at mueller's office just today. his relevance, if you knit him with michael cohen, you have two people who are very close to the president for a lot of talk time. manafort was at that infamous russia meeting at trump tower. trump says he knew nothing about that meeting. what can manafort say, what can cohen say? that's what we're waiting to understand. just yesterday, michael flynn, a federal judge set a sentencing date. people take that as a signal that he's finished being of use to mueller. now, we don't know what

information all these people are sharing with the special council. clearly mueller is either closing in on trump or getting ready to close down the probe or both. we know cohen and others are being asked what the president knew and what he said and did. could that lead to proof of crimes? my take is, it's very hard to say yes. i know many on tv are architecting the president's demise on different crimes. i've just never seen the proof to protect such speculation. could it show wrongdoing of a political nature? that's much more likely. at a minimum each of these meetings, each additional trump man to meet with mueller, makes a meeting of trump and mueller a little less likely. there's a little better chance that investigators will hear and corroborate things making the chance of catching trump in a lie that much better. so big questions tonight. what does cohen meeting mueller

mean? and how will senators decide what to do after they hear from ford and kavanaugh? what is the right standard of judgment? cuomo's court in session next. we opened our doors with 70-megawatts, 35 mules, and an ice plant. but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later we continue to build as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream.

we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy 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. a source tells jim acosta that dr. christine ford's legal team is talking, trying to make testimony happen next week. there are areas of agreement and disagreement earlier today. ford's lawyer e-mailed the committee explaining, she wishes to testify provided we can agree on terms which are fair and ensure her safety.

the hearing on monday is not possible. her strong preference continues to be for the senate judiciary committee to allow a full investigation prior to her testimony. let's bring in cuomo's court here, laura coats and ken cuccinelli. the idea of these conditions from ford if they are seen as a backing off of an original intent. is this a show of weakness, less credibility? how do you see it? >> i don't see it as a show of weakness to say you'd like to have process and time to do so. anita hill had about two weeks from the time that the fbi investigation was concluded -- that only took three days. the time she testified on the hill, are we suggesting that now 27 years later, less process is warranted when you are aware that there should be a protocol

in place to judge and evaluate people? i think that's the real auditty, to rush it, when there are republicans on the senate judiciary committee have set an arbitrary 12th hour. it seems to me they're trying to check a box to placate a particular movement as opposed to saying, i need a few more days to get all the information i need. >> what do you think of the idea of how do you best protect kavanaugh, he says he wasn't there, he says he'll testify, any time, anywhere he's coming. you give him credit for that, if you are one of his sponsors. why not bring in the fbi? why not show everybody that you did everything. you talked to everyone she wanted you to. you gave letter every benefit of the doubt she asked for, and at the end of the day, it isn't there, isn't that his best chance of not just safe passage with a political vote, but of securing his reputation?

>> yeah, i would have agreed with you just as you said it, chris. three or four weeks earlier in the process, and look, this just didn't arise. you can't ignore the fact that a late decision was made, laura may call the republican's move 12th hour, within hours of chairman grassley, knowing of ford's name for one. and desire to testify. he set the time based on senate rules which require a week's notice, and that's what he did. he did it immediately and he very quickly said under whatever conditions she wants. we'll do it in california by staff, she can do did here, public, private, i have never seen ever. i can't remember a time where a senate committee gave that kind of accommodation to a witness ever. >> well, this is an unusual allegation. >> i sure can't.

>> one of the other problems is, it's so late. and it's already knocked the senate off the schedule. if you're the senate and you allow this to get knocked back any more. every single let's be clear, male republican nominee for the supreme court will have someone come forward? >> what? >> it will be the end. and we'll say, oh, gee, we should hear this out. >> time doesn't mean that you're going to have people jump out. that shouldn't be the risk of having more time in the process. >> i want to get your opinion on something that matters more than timing. what is the standard. laura, we don't have the comforts of beyond a reasonable doubt, findings of due process, how we vet and test and procure and proffer evidence at trial,

as frustrating as all of that can be. if she gets up there, and she's credible and she can corroborate a little bit, but not everything, and there are holes, he gets up there, and he is credible. and he says, i want there and i didn't do it. what is the standard of judgmentment. how do you decide whether or not you vote up or down on this. what do you think the standard is? >> this is why it's painfully obvious. former lawyers sit on the judiciary committee, this is not a court of law. i'm glad that ken mentioned the notion of the senate judicial rules and process of at least a week as opposed to within a week. i'm glad he mentioned the fact that he's never seen anything like this before, the rules that apply to a court of law do not apply or protect the people involved here. the standards should be to understand that the role of the judiciary committee is not as a fact finding body like a jury, they are there for a political purpose, to essentially advice and consent.

not as somebody to actually ascertain the facts and purely evaluate credibility. having said that, that's going to be the key role they will have to perform when they hear the testimony of both brett kavanaugh and dr. ford. i would say if they do not take their mission seriously and they essentially deprive the american people who are their constituents of understanding the character and integrity of somebody proposed por a lifetime appointment. >> we're not talking about a crime where there's an ability to prosecute it. this is about rewarding somebody at the end of it, if either she's not proven false. or she doesn't say i'm not sure it was him, or she doesn't recant, if she is credible. but so is he ken. what should be the basis of

judgment on whether or not you decide this person should be elevated to the highest purpose of integrity in our democracy? >> yeah, i would take a little bit of issue with laura's exposition there. i think in a situation like this, the senate is a bit of a fact finder, and as i've said before each senator gets to set their own standard, i mean, that's the way this process is, and there's no one else to do this, i do not think -- >> you're not digging into the facts here -- >> they're not digging into the facts. they're interviewing two people, they could interview more. they could have the fbi assist them with field agents. they're not doing it, it doesn't look like they're trying to do it. >> one of the reasons that we look differently as a system of older claims is because evidence goes away, people's memory fades, and the fbi is not any

more reliable -- well, some of their agents might be. >> but they're not going to be the decider, i wouldn't trust them. >> they wouldn't be the decider. just like with anita hill. >> it's a random guess -- >> that's your conscience calling right now, ken. >> knowing that the fbi should be involved and that there should be a better vetting of this. >> you asked a good question, it's too bad you're be littling the subject like that. >> i'm just talking about your phone. >> there are senators that are already declaring themselves, orrin hatch on one side, and, you know -- >> mitch mcconnell, the president, the white house. >> and at least -- >> hey, the president came out and said, something ought to happen here, to hear her. >> and the fbi -- >> let's not kid ourselves. >> that is not who should be hearing this, this is about the senate and their advice. >> they could help -- >> and the president also says he feels bad for kavanaugh, he

doesn't feel bad for ford. >> hold on, ken. the idea that she delayed in her reporting may be an inconvenience and memory lapses. because you delay does not bean that it did not occur. i think a forgone conclusion is not the same thing as having a meaningful hearing. if they'd like to understand. and frankly, if you're justice kavanaugh or judge kavanaugh at this point. i don't understand why you're not on the highest soap box possible saying, i would like an opportunity to rebut this credible allegation. if i'm not saying that from the highest soap box that should also be investigated by the members of the judiciary committee. >> laura coats thank you. ken cuccinelli, whoever's calling you, tell them they should be watching the show. >> they're calling to agree. when you are not in a court, this is a really key consideration, because we don't have a good answer.

this is new this struggle about how we deal with these types of allegations of wrongful conduct. in a political context. it's not going to go to trial. the rules of trial don't apply. and then what do we see with cohen and all these other people going to mueller? what is the worst case scenario, the best one. a perfect mind for both matters. former attorney general michael mukasey joins us to explore next. countries that we traveled- "what is your nationality?" and i would always answer, "hispanic." so, when i got my ancestrydna results it was a shocker! i'm everything, i'm from all nations. i would look at forms now and wonder, what do i mark?

because i'm everything. and i marked "other". discover the story only your dna can tell. order your kit now at ancestrydna.com plaque psoriasis tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options.

if you were keeping track, it was just over a week ago that the fbi received professor ford's letter accusing kavanaugh of sexual assault. they could have gotten it sooner. they didn't bring it forward. why? they were respecting the anonymity, the request from ford, who leaked it? the justice department says, the fbi responded by forwarding the letter to the white house council's office, it seems then that the buck stops with the president, only he can reopen the background investigation and ask the fbi to get a role here,

just as george bush did with anita hill. we have michael mukasey, former attorney general under george bush, joins us now. >> there are two points i want to get your thoughts on. if you sponsor kavanaugh, if you want him to make it through, why wouldn't you err on the side of showing everybody that you did everything you could to give ford the benefit of the doubt. they got equal time. that's it, we did everything we could. wouldn't you want that to be the impression? >> you have to look in part.

at the circumstances in which this arose. this arose in part based on the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee having received an anonymous letter. from someone who says she was trying to protect her anonymity. would you send a letter to the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee if you were trying to protect your anonymity? >> maybe. if i wanted you to know something, but i didn't want you to expose me. >> so you could use it, and the candidate could be derailed. >> she would have to have been numb in order to believe it would be quiet. >> there was a mutual interest in delay, that was served by giving the letter to senator

feinstein who kept it until the hearing was over, and then tried to start the clock again, and you can't encourage that kind of behavior, in that respect i agree with ken cuccinelli, i agree also that -- with your other guest whose name is laura coats -- she said that this is not a court, that it's a political decision. part of the political decision is whether you want to encourage that behavior. i don't think you do. >> regardless of the process, and even if it was delayed. delay of what? there is no hard time for what this needs to be. >> pushing it beyond the midterms. that is the perceived goal. >> there's no reason for it to get to that point. the fbi looked into it three days. at least you show you checked the boxes, shame on the

democrats for how they handled the letter. >> if you could do that in three days, then i would agree you could do that. that would be adequate. >> why wouldn't you be able to. >> there would be demands for another witness and another person and another question to be asked. you had somebody on your program last -- i think it was this week, actually, someone you said was a lifelong friend of samantha fords. the one question i was dying to hear and never heard is, when for the first time did you hear about this? >> now. >> what does that tell you? >> it can tell you a lot of things. as we know, it's not easy to talk about it. they don't come forward some never do, when they do, it can be very long afterwards. >> i don't think you can see

delay as dishonesty. >> she told other people. >> oh. >> she told her husband, her therapist? >> when? >> 2012 the husband, and when kavanaugh's name started coming up she talked to friends to discuss whether she should bring it forward. >> how do you know she talked to friends? >> that's the reporting on it? >> from where. different sources that are reporting on it. >> do we know for sure? >> i haven't heard of a single friend. >> go to them, go to the names she offers, who have you told this too? >> has she been asked to offer names? >> of course she's been asked to offer names. >> i don't know that. i'm serious, i don't know from the process that anyone has said to her, who else can we talk to. >> i'm saying by the senate has

she been asked who else can we talk to? >> your station ran today a line under the zipper that her lawyers asked for no additional witnesses. >> they've provides no names? >> i don't know what the process is, maybe you're right. maybe you're not. >> maybe the zipper was right? >> maybe i it was, i don't think so. >> i still think we all get to the same point on this, which is you want to show best efforts. you're right, you don't want to reward bad political behavior. do you want to irr on the side of punishing political behavior at the price of not judging this the right way. >> let me ask you something real quick. >> the idea of manafort, cohen meeting with mueller, people say, these are trump's guys, they're getting too close to him, can't be good. what's your take?

>> can't be good for who, the president? >> i don't know that. i doubt that it's good for the president? they're sitting there ex-tolling the president. that's not what a special council is for, to dig up dirt on the president. the special >> the special counsel is there to investigate crimes relating to collusion with russia. i haven't even seen a definition of what the crime was, let alone evidence of any crimes, and it's been going on what, two years? >> yeah. so meetings not enough, it's what they say and whether or not it equates with a crime, and that's what we're waiting to see. >> correct. >> michael mukasey, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> i'm going to find out what happened on that zipper, figure out who's right -- i don't even think it's called that. assuming we hear from both ford and kavanaugh and no one else, this is the plaguing question. then what do senators do? how do they judge what they hear? how do they decide what the

standard is for whether or not judge kavanaugh gets elevated to the supreme court? a closing argument. next. can be relentless. tremfya® is for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. with tremfya®, you can get clearer. and stay clearer. in fact, most patients who saw 90% clearer skin at 28 weeks stayed clearer through 48 weeks. tremfya® works better than humira® at providing clearer skin, and more patients were symptom free with tremfya®. tremfya® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. before starting tremfya® tell your doctor if you plan to or have recently received a vaccine. ask your doctor about tremfya®. tremfya®. because you deserve to stay clearer. janssen wants to help you explore cost support options. directv gives you more for your thing. if you've been waiting for a sign to quit cable, then here's some signs. ♪ quit cable it came from the toaster.

♪ quit cable uh... ♪ quit cable now you can quit cable. switch to directv for $35 per month. rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. more for you quitting cable thing. that's our thing. call 1.800.directv.

not in this house.? 'cause that's no ordinary family. that's your family. which is why you didn't grab just any cheese. you picked up new kraft expertly paired cheddar and swiss for eggs. beat that! kraft. family greatly. the struggle is real. how do we handle an allegation

like the one against judge kavanaugh outside the criminal context? in what we call the court of public opinion we can't take comfort in accepted hurdles and protections of beyond a reasonable doubt, due process, the presumption of innocence. they don't apply here, in part because we can't test, we can't develop evidence, we can't put it to just one body to decide like a jury does. it's tricky enough when this plays out in the media. too many allegations have been skiefld because stifled because of sexism and cultural bias over the years. me too as a movement legitimized accusation ppz but we know all accusations aren't legitimate. so simply coming forward can't be dispositive, as difficult as it may be. now, on top of those difficulties we see in this current controversy playing out in the worst place for, it a toxic arena of competing agendas. ford stands in the way of the gop getting a generation of jurisprudence to go their way. she comes into this with a huge

power imbalance. kavanaugh has the white house. he has those in charge of the committee all behind him. democrats are desperate to stop that, and some argue ford has been stained by her indirect connection to their efforts, which did cause a delay. and for all the talk of sympathy and empathy, before a word of testimony has been heard, with each passing day more and more partisans are doing what they do worst. they're twisting the situation to suit their purpose. just a few hours ago at the white house we heard their communications director saying that they are still 100% behind judge kavanaugh. what happened to she should be heard, he should be heard, there should be a process? 100%? how can they be 100% unless they've done something to discover the truth or falsity of these allegations? if not, how can they be certain? all these questions seem to

suggest that they don't know or maybe don't care enough about what the truth is. and let's say both do testify. this is the hardest part. and then no one else does. and the fbi isn't used to at least create a catalog of statements from players that they can find with their agents and resources. so if they just go with the two, the he said/she said, what's the standard of judgment? imagine professor ford comes, presents herself as credible, and can somewhat corroborate her story. i know taz hahat's hard to do. i know that with no other witnesses allowed, assuming she could produce any, and that it might seem prejudicial and harsh and very difficult and onerous for someone who says she was assaulted to come forward, or that someone attempted to assault her. let alone doing it with a world audience. but if she does stand up to questioning and so does kavanaugh, who says i wasn't even there, and it can't be proved otherwise. if they can equally resolute, cogent, compelling, passionate, then what?

if there's an equal chance that they're telling the truth or lying, does kavanaugh get gifted the highest court in the land? conversely, does he get denied that gift despite a lifetime of achievement? and remember, this isn't just about him. this is why i'm arguing to check every box of transparency. because if kavanaugh moves up after anything short of ford being proven false or recanting, it would mean that two out of the six men on the court had some type of suggestion of misconduct in their past. what will that mean to the court's legitimacy on matters of women's rights? now, these are all questions that are easy to ask if you think about it a little bit, but they're hard to answer. this is tough stuff. and that's why our desire for it to be clean and clear. you're not going to be satisfied. that's why you need to deal with the struggle. and the best way to do that is to show that everything that could be done was done to get to the truth.

the problem is that's not happening here. you can't look at the situation and say that ford is being treated with the same respect as kavanaugh and that maximum effort is being made to get to the truth. you can't. because that's not what's going on. it's politics punishing who what others see is bad politics. but here's the thing. it's not too late for our leaders to show that they care about the right things instead of just about political interests. they have to put the right things first. michael cohen reportedly talking and talking to the mueller team. we have congressman adam schiff paying close attention. what does this mean to him? next. nding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you.

dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

welcome back. let's keep going because don is off tonight, so we get a