anthony bourdain, parts unknown. quick reminder check out our full circle where you pick some of the stories we cover. 6:20 p.m. eastern on facebook.com/anderson cooper full circle. the news continues. want to hand it over to chris for prime time. two big developments that change our understanding of two major stories. first christine blasey ford, accuser of judge kavanaugh 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 is ready and whenever they tell him, he will be there to clear his name. earlier this week kellyanne conway voiced her support for professor ford to be heard, but then she and many other republicans seemed to change their tune and have started

suggesting ford may be mistaken, that kavanaugh should be safe. what changed? the white house counselor back on "primetime" tonight. then michael cohen, he has no cooperation agreement, but he is talking. he's meeting with mueller reportedly for hours on various issues with investigators into trump, what he knew, and maybe even his taxes. my friends, there is no time to waste. let's get after it. all right, so here's what we know on the ford situation. her lawyers now say monday is out. she'll testify next week, but they see monday as more of a pressure tactic than a practical consideration. but they do say, again, next week with certain preceotection. her team is now pushing for thursday. what kind of protections? security, extra witnesses, 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? theoretically 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 with the new wave of confidence among kavanaugh senate boosters, that he's going to be fine, even before they've heard a word from ford. here to discuss is kellyanne conway. welcome back to the show. >> thank you, chris. >> help us understand this switch. there hasn't been anymore testimony, yet we're hearing more and more republicans saying kavanaugh's going to be fine, we think she's mistaken. how do they know when they hasn't heard everything? >> you omitted cleverly a very important fact, which is that

judge kavanaugh said he wasn't there. this is no longer a he said, she said. it's a he said, she said he wasn't there. >> what's the difference? >> what do you mean what's the difference? you keep omitting judge kavanaugh found out about this individual for the first time on monday and he had already given his statement to the committee. 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 committees he did in response to 1,300 written questions including one completed three months ago on the desk of every senate member so they can access it easily. so hoas submitted himself under penalty of perjury or lying to congress. all of this under oath. so he was willing this last monday, less than 24 hours after hearing the woman's name for the

first time, he was willing to testify and cleared his name and say under oath what he has said otherwise, which is unequivocally and categorically this is not true. so he was willing to do it last monday. she's not willing to do it the following monday. we have said from the very beginning that they both should be heard and that the process, because we respect the process, the senate judiciary process and the senate's process. they are charged constitutionally with advising and consenting to the president on supreme court nominations. and you need to -- if you're going to be always looking for the facts and the truth, you can't omit important facts. >> what have i omitted? >> i just told you you omitted the fact that -- >> i reported many times he denies it, but we haven't heard any testimony -- i'm going to say it many times tonight. i've said it many times before. look, you're missing my point. you guys said you wanted a process, you wanted her to be heard. then you said, no, i don't remember a lot of things that happened when i was 15, maybe

she's forgotten. she hasn't testified. you won't go to the fbi -- why not make the best efforts? why not make the best efforts? there's the question. >> 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. >> they haven't vetted this. >> you don't know that. >> i do know that. >> and let me just say this, you want to lay the blame at somebody's feet, look no further than democratic feinstein. >> what does that have to do with the truth of the matter? that's just politics. that's just politics. that's mitch mcconnell saying he's okay. that's feinstein -- >> you begged me to come on and then you want to interrupt me -- >> as i've said many times, you're always welcome to come on but i have to stop and check what you put out there. >> nothing's coming out of my

mouth yet. oka i can leave and wait for him to be confirmed next week -- >> how can you know right now that's going to happen? i understand you're upset, but how can you know he's going to get confirmed before she's even testified? where does your confidence come from? >> i'm not upset about anything. this woman said she want today be heard. her lawyers went on television 7:00 a.m. eastern time on sunday and said in response to question would you client be willing to testify. her lawyer, yes, she'd 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 she can do it through a form of her choosing. she can do it privately, publicly, by telephone, she can do it in person. they have bent over backwards to accommodate this request. now, there are two people involved here, not just the one you're promoting -- >> promoting? >> the other man judge kavanaugh has testified over 30 hours in the same hearing --

>> not about this. >> excuse me, he was grilled for 30 hours. >> not about this. >> i know your friends on the democratic side -- now they're going backwards. >> personal insults of me, nobody caress about this. just speak to this. >> this mans denies being there. do you think this process matters to judge kavanaugh and his wife and two daughters? >> i think it would be more fair to enlist the fbi. i think you're hurting your guy. >> we're not hurting our guy. >> you are. because it looks like you're hiding him from scrutiny. >> who is hiding? he's ready to testify. >> why won't you have the fbi look at it and have some kind of objective record of this, of who says what? >> let's back up. let's say for example, the fbi was to investigate, what is the fbi investigating? she says she doesn't remember

where the house was, how she got home, how she got there? what are they investigating from 1992? >> she remembers people being there, she can talk to the people she named. they have field agents, they can go places. they can present a record for you guys to use with your questioning. >> the fbi is in charge of background checks and the fbi is in charge of security clearances and background checks. this is now in the senate. this is part of the senate confirmation hearing. don't forget that. you act like we're in a court of law. >> that's a direct analogy of anita hill. >> no, it's not a direct analogy of anita hill in many different ways. they were two colleagues and her allegations was about something that happened when they worked together -- disproven, of course. >> disproven. it wasn't disproven. >> when they worked together. and you were 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 fine from it from the beginning. i'll send you the record. i've been asking the fbi be involved from the first day. i don't like her getting threats, i don't like ford getting threats. i don't like anybody getting threats. >> if dr. ford is upset, she ought to be upset with whoever leaked her name and breached the promise of confidentiality. that entire chain of custody -- >> she should also be upset with whoever sexually assaulted her, right? >> she would be upset with whoever -- >> attempted sexual assault. orrin hatch says i think she's mistaken. she is going to testify. she said she would do it. she wants certain protections. >> when? >> do you really believe that

this is an equal opportunity? she's coming into a place as a woman who says someone attempted to sexually assault her, it's something that scarred her, she's getting death threats, her family isn't living in their house -- >> you're talking about death threats -- we're going to focus on the culture that's been created now -- a good man who's been through six fbi vets, answered 1,300 written questions, the time those democratic senators wasted raising money for their 2020 presidential bids, shouting him down more than asking questions -- >> shame on them for the grandstanding and politics but -- it's politics.

>> this is not politics. this is confirmation hearing for the united states supreme court. you can't say the stakes are high for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court and say it's just politics. well, dr. ford should be upset the politics today includes members of her own party smoking her out after she asked for confidentiality. no republican did that to her. >> that is fair line of criticism. that is fair line of criticism. i've never said otherwise. her conditions were about security and that she wanted an objective record put together by investigators. >> also as understand it maybe that she wants him to testify first. you have that recording tonight where the lawyers talked to cnn -- when they're not headlining fund raisers -- >> again, i don't want to mix the petty politics of both sides -- >> no, no, no you want transparency and accountability so let's talk about people's

motives here. >> no because that doesn't go to it 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, this particular alleged incident? >> that part, that's the most important part. you should try to get any available witnesses. you should have the fbi -- >> by the way, he's already testified. you know that, right? he's already given his statement about this. >> he's given a statement, but he didn't testify under oath. >> no, not mark judge. the man, judge kavanaugh, the accused who says he wasn't even there. not only has she been ignored, she's been accommodated. everyone wants to hear her

everyone from judge kavanaugh to the senate judiciary committee. they made good on the promise made on tv that she wanted to come forward and testify -- >> but the opportunity to speak is an important one. there's no question ability that. you can't take anything away from it -- whether it's rushed and the process matters also. >> she didn't tell anybody for 30 years but she has been thinking about this for a long time. judge kavanaugh had less than 24 hours from the time he learned her name -- >> they are in completely different situation. if you believe that she believes it -- let's, let's not say it's true. okay, let's say if you believe that she believes this, that she's in good faith believing that this was done to her, they are on completely uneven ground. you know very well not just as a woman but someone who knows the psychology of this, it is very hard for women to come forward. it's not unusual for them to have memory gaps of painful

details. as you mentioned earlier she went to democrats saying i really don't want to do this, i'm anonymous, use it for what it's worth. she wasn't looking to grandstand. >> and her friend posted on facebook and had to retract it because oh, no now people want me to go on tv and i have to back it up. >> here's my concern, this is 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 committee. there is. >> but not to deal with this type of allegation. it's just political. >> excuse me. the senate has posted sensitive witnesses in the past who also had threats to their safety. this is not unprecedented. >> it's not about the threat to the safety. it's about how do you judge the credibility of these two individuals. how do you judge them? how do you figure out if they're both credible. if they're both credible, what

do you do? do you put somebody on the supreme court if it's a 50/50 proposition? >> let me ask you this, is it possible they're both right? is it possible something terrible happened to her as she described it and judge kavanaugh was not there -- >> that is possible. >> well, then we should have both of them testify as to that particular date. >> why not have everyone you can find that can be relevant testify, why not send america a message we care about these allegations enough and the judge enough to 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 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. they're objective. >> of course they are. but there's all kinds of stall tactics. >> it's not a stall. it took three days with anita

hill. >> chris, that's a different set of facts and you know it. but i just want to say -- >> i really don't. if anything, this would be easier for them. they can come back with anita hill and say we cannot kraub corroborate it. >> you said the stigma of speculation on the supreme court. what exactly does that mean -- >> if it seems you made the best efforts and you leave judge kavanaugh with the stain of speculation maybe this happened because you guys didn't really vet it well and you rushed it through, what does that mean for his legacy on the court? what does that mean for the confidence in the court you would have two of six men with this type of speculation -- >> don't you go there. justice thomas has served honorably and admirably for over 25 years now. do not. >> i can only go where history

takes us. anita hill came up and said things, some people believed it, some didn't. >> and he was confirmed. let me make clear in case anyone has amnesia at the moment. the industry that's been hardest hit is probably the media, i would think. >> maybe that's because we've taken it the most seriously and done the most to try to get to the truth of those allegations and let people speak and not rush them through a process -- >> people being forced -- do you want me to name names of all the people in the media who are now no longer in the media because of the me too movement? >> aren't you making the point for transparency? >> and now i'm going to make amends with all the women that i've hurt and sexually assaulted and sexually harassed. now, that is exactly how it went down and -- you're not being honest when you talk about --

because you're besmirching two good men who have -- >> who? >> justice thomas and judge kavanaugh. >> no, no, justice thomas has the allegations against him, that's a fact. judge kavanaugh has denied it, and he should have the right to deny it because not all allegations are even. >> let me ask you a question, why isn't it 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's all good -- >> let alone next monday -- >> i think that's all good. >> excuse me, has submitted to 1,300 pages, submitted documents -- >> i think that's all good. >> my favorite poll is a recent poll you put on twitter last night people does he deserve the presumption or she, and asking two to one said he deserved the

presumption. >> i did it on my site. >> doesn't that surprise you? look, people nominated him to the supreme court -- >> people did it without knowing about it, kellyanne. this is new issue -- >> you know why? because he says he wasn't there. >> i understand he says that, but you're going to hear her and what she says, and then you should talk to other people and you should get the best record of what everybody says and then decide it. >> we're waiting for her to testify. >> i know. and i hope she does. >> i certainly hope she does, too. we're all waiting. i think the country is waiting for that. but in the meantime you should recognize that there are two individuals and two families here who have been hurt. >> no question about it. >> 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 how you think coming at me personally is going to change how i talk to you. >> i'm not coming after you. >> i appreciate you judging me as a person, in the media -- >> i said as everybody preens around about these allegations don't forget the industry that's been hit the hardest -- >> i don't know how that is relevant in any way. i really don't. but i've got to let you go. we'll see what happens next week. >> i hope you'll have those women on some time who have made credible allegations against people in the media. many of those men are no longer in the media. >> i'm glad you see that as a good way what should be done in this situation here. >> no, no i'm saying everybody deserves to be heard. but judge kavanaugh has been heard and he's willing to be heard under oath -- >> i understand.

and i'm not taking anything away. i think you're handicapping him by not letting the fbi look at this and rush this through. we'll talk about this more next week when we saw how it turns out. you're always welcome on the show. be well. so michael cohen reportedly has been spilling the beans to mueller and company. last week's the president's former campaign chair agreed to cooperate. the list is growing. does it matter? and if so, how? wave laid it o we've laid it out for you on the magic wall next. different t. that's why verizon lets you mix and match your family unlimited plan so everyone gets the plan they want, without paying for things they don't. and right now, the whole family can get six months of free apple music on verizon. oh. so let's play that reggaeton. old school reggaeton, not the new stuff. (announcer) get 45 million songs with six months free apple music on us. only on verizon. switch now and get $300 off our latest phones.

where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today.

book now at lq.com. all right, in this big flood of russia related news where does this latest reporting on michael cohen rank? abc news is reporting cohen sat with mueller's team for many hours. the talk of was there a pardon for cohen, also been meeting with new york state officials that handle taxation and charity

activities. keep in mind, this has not been a great month or so for donald trump when it comes to russia investigation. why not? well, let's go to the end of august. reports came out that trump's own counsel was sitting for expensive interviews for some 30 hours. that was followed by cohen pleading guilty to numerous counts and implicating trump personally in campaign finance violations now, at the time and this is point of confusion for some, cohen has never signed a cooperation agreement as part of his plea agreement. so he's now talking voluntarily but he's talking a lot. who else is? about two weeks ago george papadopoulos was sentenced. he's been talking about what he knew about connections to russians. paul manafort, he spent hours at mueller's office just today. his relevance? well, if you knit him with

michael cohen you've got two people who were very close to the president for a lot of talk time and manafort was of course at that infamous trump tower meeting. and just yesterday michael flynn, a federal judge set a sentencing date for trump's former national security advisor. people take that as a signal he is finished being of use to mueller. now, we don't know what information all these people are sharing with the special counsel. but 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? look, 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. but 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 because 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. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage,

booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia. add-on advantage. after bill's back needed a vacation from his vacation. so he stepped on the dr. scholl's kiosk. it recommends our best custom fit orthotic to relieve foot, knee, or lower back pain so you can move more. dr. scholl's. born to move. your spirit is unbreakable. your phone, not so much. purchase protection can help you replace small things that get damaged along the way. another way we have your back. the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it. (music throughout)

tonight a source tells our chief white house correspondent, jim acosta, that dr. christine ford's legal team is talking actively with the senate judiciary committee trying to make testimony happen next week. there are areas of agreement and disagreement. earlier today ford's lawyer e-mailed the committee explaining, quote, she wishes to testimony provided we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety. a hearing on monday is not

possible. her strong preference continues to be for the senate judiciary committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony. so should grassly respect her wishes? he doesn't seem to want to do that, although it's not his call on the investigation front if it involves the fbi. that would be the president. laura coates and ken cuccinelli. laura, the idea of these conditions from ford, if they are seen as a backing off an original intent to testify no matter what, is this a show of weakness, of 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, you'd like to have time to do so? remember back in '91 anita hill had about two weeks from the time the fbi investigate was concluded, that only took three days, to the time she actually testified on the hill. are we suggesting that now 27 years later less process is

warranted when there should be a protocol in place to judge people on planes. i think that's the real oddity to rush it when there are republicans on the senate judiciary committee have sat an arbitrary 12 hours and call this the 11th hour seem to be they're checking a box to placate a movement as opposed to saying i'd like to have all days to get the information i need. maybe it's tuesday, maybe it's wednesday. had the been last week we'd already have that three day or more investigation complete. >> he says he wasn't there, he says he'll testify, anytime, anywhere he's coming. okay, so you give him credit for that. but 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 her every benefit of the doubt that she asked for, and at the end of the day it isn't there. and isn't that his best chance of not just safe passage with a political vote but of securing his reputation?

>> 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. i mean, laura may call it the republicans move 12th, literally within hours of chairman grassly knowing of ford's name for one and desire to testify, he set the time based on senate rules, which require at least a week's notice and that's what he did. he did it immediately and he very quickly said under whatever condition she wants, we'll do it in california by staff, she can do it 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. >> but i sure can't. it is very unusual.

but one of the other problems is it's so late, and it's already knocked the senate off their schedule, and that's been the democrat's strategy all along. not seeing dr. ford is participating in that. but if you're the senate and allow this to get knocked back anymore, then every single, let's be clear, male republican nominee for the supreme court will have someone come forward, and it'll be at the end. and it'll be oh, gee, we should hear this out. >> that assumes there's an allegati allegation -- time doesn't mean there are going to be more people jump out. i want to get your mind on something else that i think matters more than timing. what is the standard? laur raw, laura, we don't have presumption of innocence, how we procure

evidence at trial as frustrating as that may be, we don't have it any of it. if she gets up there she can corroborate a bit and there are holes, and he gets up there and he is credible and he says i wasn't there and i didn't do it, what is the standard of judgment? how do you decide whether or not you vote up or down on this, laura? what do you think the standard is? >> this is why it's painfully obvious. although many lawyers sit on the senate judiciary committee, this is not a form of law. i'm glad he notices the senate judicial process, i'm glad he's mentioned the fact he's never seen anything like this before because the rules that apply to a court of law do not apply or protect the people here. the standard should be that the role of the judicial committee is not of a fact finding body like a jury. there are there for a political purpose to essentially advise

and consent, not as someone to ascertain the facts and purely evaluate credibility. having said, that's going to be the key role they'll have to perform when they hear the testimony of both brett kavanaugh and dr. ford. and i would say if they do not take their mission seriously of actually allowing it to be a meaningful comprehensive testimony and hearing, they essentially deprive the american people -- >> that's the trick. we're used to dealing with this in terms of usually he. should he keep or lose his job? 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 is 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 do 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, though, ken. they're not digging into the facts. they're interviewing two people, they could interview more. they're not doing it. it doesn't look like they're trying to do it. >> you know, chris, one of the reasons that we look differently as a system at older claims is because evidence goes away. people's memory fades. and to the fbi is not anymore

reliable -- well, some of their agents might be -- >> come on. >> but they're not going to be the decider. >> no, they wouldn't be the decider. just like anita hill. >> but it's a random guess -- >> that's your conscience right now, ken. that's your conscience calling knowing there should be vettibe vetting involved -- >> there are a lot of already declaring themselves -- orrin hatch on one side and, you know, hirono on the other side. >> mitch mcconnell, the president, the white house. >> and the president came out and said, hey, look the president something ought to happen here -- >> and the fbi is his call and he won't make it. >> that is not who should be hearing this. this is the -- >> and they could help.

he feels bad for kavanaugh but doesn't feel bad for ford. >> the idea that he delayed in her reporting may be an convenience and may actually have some memory lapses involved in it, but because you delay does not mean it did not occur, and 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'm not sure why you're not on the highest soapbox saying i would like the opportunity to rebut. if i'm not saying that on the highest soapbox that should also be investigated by the committee. >> whoever is calling you, tell them they should be watching the show. it's always good to have you. >> they're calling to agree. >> i'm sure they are. take care. all right, when you are not in a court, this is 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's the worst-case scenario? what's the best one? a perfect mind for both matters. mucasey joins us to explore. next. it's weathered countless storms. battered, but never broken, it stands for the resilience within us all. ♪

and i am a certified arborist for pg&e.ughes i oversee the patrolling of trees near power lines and roots near pipes and underground infrastructure. at pg&e wherever we work, we work hard to protect the environment. getting the job done safely, so we can keep the lights on for everybody. because i live here i have a deeper connection

to the community. and i want to see the community grow and thrive. every year we work with cities and schools to plant trees in our communities. so the environment is there for my kids and future generations. together, we're building a better california. in 2011, california passed a law requiring carbon monoxide alarms in single-fami... (beeping) ...in single-family homes. that was seven years ago. (beeping) carbon monoxide alarms... (beeping) (annoyed sigh) ...typically last (beeping) seven to ten years. which means california's about to start hearing a lot of this... (silence) but you can beat the b... (beeping) huh-huh. by getting a new kidde carbon monoxide alarm now. beat the beep by going to your local home depot to find the kidde solution that's right for you. (beeping) huh. if you're keeping track it was just over a week ago that the fbi first received professor

christine ford's letter accusing kavanaugh of sexual harassment. now, they could have gotten it sooner. the democrats had it but they didn't bring it forward. why the they'd say they were respecting the anonymity of ford. but then who leaked? the justice department says they respond by forwarding the letter to the white house counsel's office. it seems then the buck stops with the president. only he can reopen the background investigation and get it on a roll here. just as bush did with anita hill. today we hear the president's former lawyer has been meeting with mueller a lot. two big stories, one perfect guest. michael mukasey. thank you for being here as always. >> thanks for having me. >> there are two points i want to hit on. the first one is if you sponsor kavanaugh, if you want kavanaugh to make it through, why wouldn't you err on the side of showing

everybody that you did everything you could to give ford due process what's called in this loose sense. we checked every box, we brought the fbi in, we talked to everyone out there, we did what we could. kavanaugh came up and testified, so did she, they got equal time, that's it. we did everything we could, wouldn't you want that to be the impression. >> sure you'd want that to be the impression but you have to look at the circumstance 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 they were trying to protect her anonymity. if you were trying to protect your anonymity would you send a letter to the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee?

>> maybe. >> if i wanted to use something and a candidate to be derailed, the only way that can happen is if the facts come out. >> i think there was some naive taking on the part of christine ford. >> what it leads to me is that there was a mutual interest in delay that was served by giving a letter to senator feinstein who then 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 coates, with laura who said that this is not a court, that it's a political decision. and part of the political decision is whether you want to

encourage that kind of behavior and i don't think you do. >> but regardless of the process, and even if it was a delay the problem with the delay argument is delay of what? there is no hard time of what this means. >> no, there is delay for the purpose of pushing it beyond the mid-terms. that is the perceived goal. >> but there's no reason for it to get to that point. with anita hill you have precedent. the fbi looked into it three days, you have precedent, you set the time. but at least you show you checked the boxes and shame on the democrats how you handled the letter. >> if you could do that in three days, then you could do that with -- >> why wouldn't you be able to? >> because there would be demands for another witness and another person and another question to be asked. you had somebody-on our program last -- i think it was this week, actually. somebody who you said was a lifelong friend of dr. ford. >> yes, samantha garret.

>> and i don't know if you asked this and it got cut, but the question i was waiting to here is when for the first time did you hear about this. >> now. >> okay. what does that tell you in. >> it can tell you a lot of things. as we know from the study of people in this position it's not easy to talk about it. when they do -- >> it tells you also there's no corroboration -- >> she told her husband, she told her therapist. >> when? >> 2012 the husband and the therapist. when kavanaugh's name started to come up for these positions she started to talk to friends about it and whether or not she could do anything -- >> she talked to friends. we haven't heard from any of those friends. >> that's kind of the point. maybe they don't want to talk --

>> how'd you know she talked to friends? >> that's the reporting on it. >> from where? >> different sources that are reporting on it. but, look, you're making good point. do we know for sure, but why not go to the name she offers? >> has she offered names? >> has she been asked to offer names? >> of course she's been asked to offer names. >> i don't know that. but i'm saying by the senate, has she been asked who else can we talk to? who can prove this? who can we point this to? shouldn't they be asking? >> your station ran a line that her lawyers asked for no additional witnesses. now, that was earlier in the day. i don't know if it's been changed or not. >> no, they want additional witnesses. i don't know what the process is. maybe you're right, maybe you're not. >> maybe the zipper was right. >> maybe it was.

i don't think so. but regardless i still think we all get to the same point on this, which is you want to show best efforts. i guess you're right, you don't want to reward bad political behavior -- but do you want to err 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? for the president. >> yeah. >> i don't know that. i doubt it's good for the president -- sitting there extolling the president. on the other hand, that's not what a special counsel is for, to dig up quote-unquote dirt on the president. 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? >> yes, so meeting is not enough. it's what they say, it's whether or not it equates to a crime. >> correct. >> thank you very 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. is whoever came up with the term "small business", never owned a business. are your hours small? what about your reputation? is that small? owning your own thing is huge.

your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 14 laptop with 8th gen intel core processors. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call 877-buy-dell today. ♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea;

and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪ benjamin franklin capturedkey lightening in a bottle. over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it. as the nation's leader in energy storage, we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy.

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 stifled because of sexism and cultural bias over the years. me too as a movement legitimized accusations. 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 that'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.

before nexium 24hr mark could only imagine... a peaceful night sleep without frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn?

you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

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