good evening. by any account, the news breaking tonight is extraordinary. by any measure the impact could be profound. new reports that rod rosenstein once discussed recruiting cabinet members in an effort to remove president trump from office under the 25th amendment, even more importantly discussing wires and wearing them with the president. the president is at a rally tonight in missouri. will he say anything about it? we'll be watching him for that. more to the point, will he do something like that. will he try to punish or fire rod rosenstein who as you know oversees the russia investigation. if he does, what else can come unglued. the discussions between rosenstein were documented in memos authored by fired fbi

director andrew mccabe. seen here on the left. the story first broke in "the new york times." correspondent adam goldman joins me now by phone. walk us through, adam, what you learned, what actually happened. >> well, let me just start by saying, you know, this story took months to report, okay? this wasn't a -- this wasn't a timed leak. we worked on this story for months, and we started gathering information and building up a picture of these chaotic days at the justice department and fbi shortly after james b. comey was fired as fbi director on may 19th, 2017. and so what we learned was on may 16th of 2017, there was a meeting, and in that meeting, the acting director of the fbi,

andrew mccabe, wrote in a memo that rod had brought up the 25th amendment. and he memorialized that in a memo. and then in a separate meeting rod had raised the idea of wearing a wire in the white house. our understanding of the events in the room where rod had raised the idea of wearing a wire or secret listening device in the white house was to expose dysfunction. so the two core facts of this story is rod talked about wearing a wire in the white house, and in andrew mccabe's memo he cites rod bringing up the 25th amendment. >> in what context do you know the idea of a wire was brought up? one of your sources describes the comments about secretly recording the president as being sarcastic in nature while others tell you he was completely serious. >> yeah.

there's certainly -- the department of justice has their version of the context. our version from our reliable sources indicates that this was not a flippant comment, it was not sarcasm. and let me reiterate something i said earlier on cnn. which was, the reason it took me so long to get this story is the fear people had in me finding out this information. if it had simply just been rod made a sarcastic joke, people wouldn't have been reluctant to tell me. people didn't want to tell me because the context surrounding the wire was deadly serious. at least they believed that. >> and they knew the potential impact this story might have. >> yes, they certainly did. >> i want to read the statement that rosenstein put out in response to your reporting. he said, quote, "the new york times" story is inaccurate and factually incorrect.

i will not respond to a story that's biased against the department and advancing their own personal agenda but let me be clear about this. based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment. i want to give you a chance to respond to that. i also want to point out when he says there is no basis, he's talking in the present tense. he's not saying, i never thought there was a basis. >> yeah. that was my read. i mean, i'm not going to parse rod's statement. i think, myself and other news outlets have all now, including cnn, have reported the basic facts that are not in dispute. the two basic facts are rod raised the idea of wearing a wire and the second basic fact, in a memo andrew mccabe wrote that the special counsel has rod raised the idea of the 25th amendment. >> thank you. i appreciate it. adam schiff, ranking house member of the house intelligence committee, i spoke with him earlier. congressman, if this true, if

debuty attorney general rosenstein discussed wearing a wire to record the president, is that appropriate, whether there's sarcasm or not? >> if it's sarcasm, said in jest, that's one thing, but if said seriously, this is something completely different. but, look, i think at any point of time during the administration, a great many people wondered if the president was fit for office and if they had to contemplate invoking this article. whether they came close to doing it, whether they were deliberating about it when the president was in one of his most erratic and dangerous moods, it's very hard to say. >> the idea of a discussion about the idea of invoking the 25th amendment is a difficult thing to bring up, certainly with someone in his position. would you have concerns if he did have discussions about that,

regardless of the wire? >> i would if the conduct had rose to the top people of the department or other cabinet officials who were discussing or ruminating about whether they needed to pull the trigger on the 25th amendment or whether they needed to start gathering evidence. >> would the president be justified in firing rod rosenstein? >> absolutely not. we can't dismiss the possibility, maybe the probability, this is being teed up by the president's allies who want to get rid of rod rosenstein. i think we have to look at this in the context of what happened over the last week. it begins with an about-face in congress. for months and months the democrats on the intelligence committee have been urging the release of the transcripts of the witnesses in the russian investigation. the republicans refused. mr. nunes refused and mr. gowdy refused.

then all of a sudden they wanted to go on fox news. what precipitated this? was it the manafort guilty plea? did the trump lawyers say we want access to this? because the very next day the president himself issues this injunction, he wants classified documents released, a whole different set of classified documents. this looks like a coordinated effort. >> for those who believe there's a deep state conspiracy against the president, didn't this kind of fit into that idea? >> well, it could fit into a completely different kind of idea, and that is that the president is so unstable that lifetime career public servants who have worked in democratic administrations and republican administrations, many of whom who are republicans like rod rosenstein, have to contemplate whether the constitution applies when the president is incapacitated. i mean, that is alarming. for those that are ready to believe there is a deep state,

those kooky conspiracy theories, certainly they'll seize on this as they'll seize on anything else, and they may very well be pushed out there by people thinking it's a useful way to defend the president. >> if rosenstein is fired, what happens then? >> if rosenstein were to be fired, it would be another clear demonstration of obstruction of justice by the president. in the immediate aftermath, we'd have to consider, you know, what does that mean in terms of our system of checks and balances? what is the response of congress? and probably most importantly, will there be any republicans who are willing to defend the institutions of our government? sadly, they have been very few in number. i would hope if there's any effort to obstruct the investigation like the firing of rod rosenstein, that congress would pass a bill in stating the independent counsel law that would protect bob mueller. >> congressman, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you.

i want to continue this discussion, how stunning and the facts of it all is and where it might lead. joining us, cnn analyst gloria borger. david gergen, carl bernstein. what have you heard about rod rosenstein's job security tonight? >> you wouldn't bet on it, but, again, for almost a year we've been talking about rod rosenstein's job security. the president has tweeted about him. he stopped lately. he seems to be focused more on jeff sessions. i know rosenstein is very important in the mueller investigation. don't forget, he's the special counsel's boss. if the special counsel says, you know, i want to subpoena the president, he's got go to rod rosenstein to get permission to do that. i think the president's attorneys believe they have a decent relationship with rod rosenstein.

i'm sure they would rather he not be fired and create this kind of crisis, particularly right now at the same time as you're going through the kavanaugh hearings and the question about what happens with judge kavanaugh, but nobody can predict what donald trump is going to do. he's going read this story, and he's going to have to decide whether, "a," he believes "the new york times," which he doesn't normally believe, and, "b," whether he believes a memo written by andrew mccabe, whom he doesn't believe, and if he does believe those two things, then he's going to be really angry at rod rosenstein. he may ask him -- maybe rosenstein will recuse himself from the investigation, maybe sessions will fire him, or maybe the president will. >> david, it's interesting because this is not the first time we've heard officials talk about the 25th amendment in the anonymous "new york times" op-ed

allegedly by a senior official. he said there were whispers about that. >> i think that the conversations about the 25th amendment are not big and damaging stories. i don't think that's the big story. the story really is, was he serious about taking a wire in to wire in and listen secretly and tape the president of the united states? that's unheard of. there are those, of course, who argued, not at "the new york times," but others who have been trying to catch up with the story, that he was being sarcastic. it sounds like he was being sarcastic in many ways. >> bringing in a wire to try to capture disarray seems like an odd thing. disarray seems to be more like an ongoing thing. it's not something you could immediately capture. >> i think that's right. i sort of assumed the wire was not only to capture the disarray, but would apply to the 25th amendment issue, that here's what he's like in real life behind the scenes.

but i must tell you if it bears out -- and he spent a whole month on it -- he was serious about going in with a wire, then i think it's probably one of the dumbest mistakes i've ever seen a public servant make, to get into conversations like that. on such sensitive points. it just invites attacks, and i do think we have to remember that he works at the pleasure of the president. that's the appointment. and if the president can no longer trust him, he's justified in asking that person to leave. i agree with gloria. i don't think he'll do it quickly. i think they're looking after the midterms. they don't want to upset the kavanaugh business. but just as importantly, they don't want to have this in the middle of the campaign. >> carl, is it appropriate to have him talking whether it was joking or not about surreptitiously recording the president of the united states?

>> well, if it's a joke, i think it might be appropriate. i think we've got to look at a number of factors here. one is, we are in a constitutional crisis. part of that crisis is, for instance, there ought to be committees of congress to which mr. rosenstein could explain what happened, what he said, and there be a bipartisan committee of congress at which some facts could come out in an impartial way and we would learn the full story after "the new york times" has broken this hugely important piece of reporting. unfortunately, there is no such committee because we're in a constitutional crisis where the congress of the united states is totally dysfunctional. on top of that, we have a president of the united states who's contemptuous of the rule of law, that one of the things that mr. rosenstein, we know, has been concerned about for months and months, is that contempt for the rule of law,

the president's lie, and now he joins a long list of people in this presidency who fear that the president of the united states is not fit to be the president, is a danger to the national security, does not understand what the proper use and function of the justice department is. so, all of these things are converging, and they're converging at the time of a midterm election in which the president is going to throw all of this meat to his base and see what can be chewed up to somehow keep a majority in congress. but meanwhile, we have the spectacle of little confidence in the president of the united states by those around him, little confidence in the congress of the united states by almost anyone, and the one element of the system that's working, the press, the first amendment, the fake news of "the

new york times" as the president would have it, has broken this story. cnn has confirmed elements of it. all of the critics, the press is doing its job. it's the one element that is working here. >> i want to get to john dean, but we need to take a quick break. we'll come back to you directly. coming up next, the president has just weighed in on this. used a new word, "stench," when describing the justice department. and later, a new deadline for the woman who says supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. details tonight. ♪ ♪ i don't care where we go ♪ and i don't care what we do ♪ just take me with you there are roadside attractions. and then there's our world-famous on-road attraction. the 2019 glc. lease the glc300 for just $469 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

what does help for heart fait looks like this. entresto is a heart failure pill that helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪ the beat goes on. yeah!

well, there's more breaking news on tonight's lead story of rod rosenstein, about him possibly using the 25th amendment to remove the president and possibly wearing a wire. president trump has just reacted. what did the president say? >> reporter: anderson, it didn't take the president long to bring it up. he told the crowd, look what's being exposed, look what's happening over there. he didn't mention attorney general rod rosenstein by name, but he said this instead. >> do you see what's happened at the fbi? they're all gone. they're all gone. they're all gone.

but there's a lingering stench, and we're going get rid of that too. >> reporter: so, anderson, no mention of rosenstein by name there, but you have to believe that's a thinly veiled reference to the "times" story. so, the question on everyone's mind, will the president fire rosenstein? there still has been no official formal response from the white house, and we'll wait to see if he says anything else in springfield tonight. >> thank you. we're back with gloria allred, carl bernstein, and david gergen, john dean. the president talking about a lingering stench. what do you think he means? do you see rosenstein being removed by the president? >> it's hard to tell.

he finds stenches in lots of places. i think the thing with rod rosenstein and his leaked information about his behavior, i don't think it's a fireable offense. if you look at the sequence of when this happened, this was at the time of the comey firing. they had done a job on him. they lured him into writing a memo and said that was, made that the pretext for firing comey. he was under a lot of heat as a result of that, and he had a lot of reason to distrust the white house at that point. the other thing is apparently he was present when some people went over there for interviews to be fbi director, and he was appalled at the president's interview techniques. so, who knows what really goes on inside that white house. that might be why he was suggesting it. i don't find it outrageous. and i'll tell you, it's not unprecedented either. i was asked by the prosecutors

to wear a wire, and i refused to do it. >> why did you refuse? >> because i think it's an unfair situation, the same reason i didn't have the recording capability on my telephone, although, a lot of people in the nixon white house people did. i think it's a shady act. >> gloria, i guess the larger question right now is, is anyone safe at the justice department? sessions clearly, i mean, has lost the president's confidence. i'm not sure he ever had it since he recused himself. now with rod rosenstein, if the president wants to, he could clean house tonight or the day after the midterms. >> right, and what about his new director for the fbi, chris wray. the president just came out and talked about the lingering stench over there. at some point chris wray is going to have to come out and defend his people and defend his department. so i don't think anybody is safe over there. i think it's a question of timing. it's very clear sessions is going to be gone, probably after

the election. and i think sort of the game right now inside the white house is to control the president and to try and say, look, don't do anything right now because we have this election coming up in 40-odd days and we want to get kavanaugh passed. we have to get him confirmed. this is important to your base. sit tight if you possibly can. we all know with donald trump that that may last a couple of days, but we just -- we just can't predict. you know, he's going to bedminster this weekend. the last time, if i recall, he was at bedminster a while ago, that was when he wrote a letter saying he was going to fire jim comey. so, who knows what's going to happen. >> i guess the other question, david, is what impact would firing rod rosenstein have? >> i think it would be to take action against mueller and what adam schiff talks about is right. it puts pressure on the democrats to try to get

republican votes to build a legal wall to protect the mueller investigation. you know, the republicans have said we obviously don't need it. this suggests quite the opposite. the day is coming when you do need it. let me go back if i might. i want to clarify something. is the president fit for office? that's not a big deal. we talk about it all the time here. what is different is if you begin to say maybe i'll take a wire and i'd like to go over and talk to general kelly, chief of staff of the white house, i'll talk to sessions and maybe we can get a group to plot the downfall of the president of the united states, that's a serious matter. i think that's why the story is big. because of the combination of the wire and the idea of organizing a group. >> carl, do you agree with that? that the mention of kelly and sessions? >> yeah. again, i think we need to know more about the context.

the "times" story is a big window onto something and now is the time for more information. but you need to keep the bigger picture in mind of mueller. this is all about the mueller investigation and the absolute determination of the president of the united states to obstruct it, to demean it, to undermine it, and shut it down. that's what he has told everyone around him he means to do, and this is his response and it's part of it and it's incumbent on the congress of the united states to make sure it does not happen. it is the other part of the system that is working. we have indictments. we have informations pleaded to. we know that the president's personal lawyer is now trying to tell things to the special counsel. the president is in the crosshairs of an investigation and is acting like someone who is trying to obstruct justice and keep the facts from becoming known.

that's what a lot of this is all about. >> do you see congress at some point wanting to question rosenstein about what he said or didn't say? >> i noticed before we went on the air, a number of tweets, one from a member of the house judiciary committee asking that there be hearings where rosenstein and everybody in the meeting as well as the documents be brought forward so they can be seen. anderson, another thing on what would happen if he did fire rosenstein to mueller, the next person -- the last time i looked, the next person who has a confirmed post in the rankings -- in the seniority rankings of the leadership is the solicitor general, and that's who would take charge of the investigation at that point. >> anderson, here's the important thing to keep in mind about rod rosenstein also. right now there's negotiations going on about the president testifying, and if bob mueller decides that he wants to

subpoena the president, he has to go to rod rosenstein and seek permission. if rod rosenstein isn't there, if, say, the solicitor general is there, is he more likely to get the permission or less likely? that factors in as well. >> thank you very much. we'll dig deeper, next.

you want relief fast. only new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients, to fight pain 4 different ways. get relief fast with new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream.

your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

well, moments ago at a rally in missouri the president made a veiled reference to rod rosenstein talking about the justice department and the fbi, he said, quote, there's a lingering stench, and we're going to get rid of that too. senator santorum, should the president get rid of rod rosenstein?

>> well, look, if what is being reported is true, that he was actually trying to recruit people to -- or said he was going to recruit people to remove the president and that he offered to wear a wire, again, not in jest or otherwise but actually was serious about wearing a wire, those are pretty good grounds to remove anybody. i mean, that's not something -- that's not a person that you want serving you at any level in government. so, if that's the case -- but i have some real serious doubts about this story. this just doesn't -- this just doesn't sound right to me. >> so your doubt is that it was sarcastic or didn't happen? >> either. maybe part of it was sarcasm. maybe part of it was a faulty memory or a deliberate attempt potentially of someone to stir things up here right before the election and get the president -- look. you have people in this town who believe they can prod and poke the president to do things, that

he will react to things. so the idea that maybe someone would put some information out there, true or not true, to get the president -- to prod the president to act irrationally is not beyond the pale. >> jeff, what do you think? >> you know what would be an unbelievable story of donald trump, that he stays up nights reading briefing books. that would be a real shock. this story is just consistent with everything else about him. yes, it's an amazing story, but it's consistent with other people who talked about the 25th amendment, with other people who think this president is psychologically unfit. again, my hat's off to "the new york times" for yet another great scoop, but this is not like it's some bolt from the blue that's uncharacteristic of this president. this is what a lot of people who deal with him think. >> although the idea of the fbi

number two wearing a wire to tape the president -- >> justice department. >> justice department, i'm sorry. >> but it is -- it is amazing. i think it's worth noting he did not wear a wire, so that suggests, perhaps, it was said in frustration, in hyperbole. but the general idea, especially in may of last year when the firing of james comey was like a thunderbolt. i mean, this was something that has never been done in american history since, you know, the laws changed to have a controversial firing of an fbi director who has a ten-year term precisely to insulate himself from political pressure, it was a shock. so the fact that rosenstein thought extreme measures might be justified seems reasonable to me. >> kirsten, senator santorum said this might prod the president to act irrationally.

a number of people on fox news already tweeting that the president should fire rosenstein right away. >> they've been saying this for a long time. they were looking for a smoking gun as a reason to do it. unfortunately if this story is true, it does give donald trump, i think, the rationale that seems reasonable to most people if he decides to go ahead and get rid of him, even though i think it would be a rationale they've been looking for for a long time. again, we don't know 100%. but, again, i agree with jeffrey. it's consistent with other stories we've heard in recent days -- or recent weeks, whether it's bob woodward's book or the anonymous piece in the "times." it's even more newsworthy that

it's attached to a name and such a senior person at the department of justice. but at the same time, i think if anyone heard the deputy attorney general was behaving this way, the president would probably want to fire him. >> rod rosenstein put out a new statement. he said, i never pursued or authorized recording the president and any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. that's the second statement. this one, i guess, clearing up -- jeff? >> i guess, you know, what you learn in law school is how to obfuscate and write in impenetrable ways. but also technically true. >> in the initial statement, he said there is no reason to invoke the 25th amendment. >> it's the present tense. and that revision does not address the present tense issue. the fact that he may have thought at one point there was reason to invoke the 25th amendment. that new statement suggests he never advocated for the removal

of the president from office, but the mere fact that the deputy attorney general might have discussed, gee, is the president out of his mind, i think that is in and of itself pretty remarkable even if he didn't advocate for it. >> jeff, if you were donald trump, would you want rod rosenstein working there? >> no. and i think he's gone. i think the day after the election if not the hour after the polls close, both sessions and rosenstein are gone and we'll have an extraordinary fight over who the replacement is and whether that person can be confirmed because that person or those people will be the people deciding robert mueller's fate. >> senator santorum, if you were still in congress, would you want to get to the bottom of this? your party has control, they can summon rosenstein to the hill right away. >> no. i don't think it's really necessary for congress to get involved in this. it's a matter between the president and his number two man

at justice, and listening to that second statement, i thought the first was weak. i'm not too sure the second was a whole lot of improvement. hearing those denials, not really on point as far as i can see, is not -- is not encouraging me as someone who has real serious concerns about the way this investigation has been handled. it's not encouraging to me that he didn't contemplate that. he didn't say he didn't contemplate it. he didn't say he said something about a wire. he said he never did anything. so that to me, as jeffrey said, is really a bulletproof statement that doesn't get to the underlying statement. >> kirsten, when you hear the president tonight talk about getting rid of a lingering stench, do you think he'll get rid of rosenstein? >> it would be surprising if he didn't. it would surprise me that he would believe the "times" report when he says everything else is a made-up lie.

if he does it, it's because he's been looking for a reason to do it and this gives him a good cover to do something like that. >> kirsten powers, rick santorum, and jeffrey toobin, thank you. coming up next, how one kavanaugh supporter's attempt blew up in his face. and the question, was he acting alone?

what do you mean it's not working out, craig? i just introduced you to my parents. 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. ♪ ♪ they're the moderne 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.

the roasted core wrap. 3, 2, 1... not cool. freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting? now that's cool! coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. and no surgery. results and patient experience may vary. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. and visit coolsculpting.com today for your chance to win a free treatment.

today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest. well, there's more breaking news tonight.

a new deadline for professor christine blasey ford to submit her testimony. senator chuck grassley said if there's no agreement by 10:00 p.m. eastern tonight, which is an hour and 20 minutes away, there will be a vote on monday. and as this unfolds, another part of the story has been unraveling. it could be about a group of powerful people trying to spin you. the story concerns an alternative theory of sexual assault. featuring an all -- alternative suspect. this is according to the "washington post," part of the effort to secure judge kavanaugh's confirmation. why he did it and on whose behalf are key questions which they may ask judge kavanaugh next week. there are new reports from politico he did not do this on his own. the story erupted after a series

of tweets which he has since been taken down. in them whalen said professor ford may have mistaken brett kavanaugh for a different classmate. what's more and the reason we're staying far away from those tweets, he named the classmate whom he suggests may have sexually assaulted professor ford. the man is now a middle school teacher. we're not compounding any damage by giving out his name. the "washington post" contacted professor ford. she said, yes, she remembered that person, but, no, he's not the one. she recalled being friendly enough with that person, that she once visited him in the hospital. by this morning whalen was apologizing for making a, quote, appalling and inexcusable mistake. since then questions have grown whether this was planned to take the spotlight off kavanaugh and put it on someone else. watch what judiciary committee member orrin hatch said on monday. >> he wasn't at the party, so,

clearly somebody's mixed up. i think she's mistaken. i think she's mistaken something, but i don't know. i mean, i don't know her. >> so there he is saying someone's mixed up, i think she's mistaken something. the comments got some attention but at the time there was no massive significance to them. a lot of lawmakers talking about the allegations. fast forward to tuesday when whelan and the other lawyers dropped a hint to what was coming. he said a horrific incident similar to the one that accuser alleges may well have occurred. but if so, she's got the wrong guy. kavanaugh wasn't present, as this and much more will confirm. another tweet, keep an eye on ed's tweets in the next few days. yesterday, whelan let loose with his theory. this morning right on cue "fox & friends" rolled it out to their audience. >> he looked at what christine

ford told "the washington post" and figured out, okay, these people were named, these four people, where did they live? and looked at what she had said and figured out what house it may have happened at because it was the house closest to the golf course and then realized whose house it was and then looked at the picture of the young man who lived there at the time, who was a classmate of mr. kavanaugh's. put up side by side, they looked a lot alike. >> again, today, whelan took down the tweets and apologized. then politico reported an outfit called crc public relations advised him on how to hype the theory. they also reported judge kavanaugh was not aware of what his friend ed was doing on his own behalf. according to the "washington post" kavanaugh and his allies,

unspecified allies, have privately discussed mounting a defense along the lines of the whelan tweets, namely whether or not the incident happened but raised doubts whether the attacker was kavanaugh. he tweeted, quote, i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says, charges would have immediately been filed with local authorities, by either her or her loving parents. i asked her to bring the filings forward so we could figure out date, time, and place. this drew a sharp reaction from a republican member of the judiciary committee. >> i was appalled by the president's tweet. first of all, we know that allegations of sexual assault -- i'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but we know that allegations of sexual assault are one of the most unreported crimes that exist.

so i thought that the president's tweet was completely inappropriate and wrong. >> well, that, after a remarkable week and day, is where things stand tonight. joining us is cnn global affairs reporter and "washington post" reporter max booth. as i said earlier, whelan was reportedly working with a p.r. firm on this theory. i understand you're also represented by the p.r. firm. just for the record, have they advised you on this story at all? have they given you any talking points or guidance on how to frame this? >> i saw this the same time as everyone else did. i saw it on ed's twitter feed and was as surprised as everyone else. i think the key thing here is what's going on with this story because we've seen obviously these allegations coming out published by "the washington post" that, frankly, are very thin facts to support them. it would be very helpful for everyone to have the opportunity

to hear dr. ford, and right now we're in this back-and-forth negotiation and we're learning whether she's willing to take the counteroffer, granting several of her requests in order to testify before the committee. i think that would help really clear a lot of this up. >> right. i don't think you exactly answered and i want to give you the opportunity. just for the record, the p.r. firm that whelan is working with, have they given you any advice on talking points or this idea? >> that's my p.r. firm, so when you said you guys are talking about ed whelan, i haven't seen it. does that sound like the right thing to say? sure. the question is really, are we going to have this hearing and this is going to go forward, not some conspiracy theory you're interested on. >> i'm sorry. i don't understand what you said. i have a p.r. person, i know how p.r. works. i'm not clear.

did the p.r. firm give you the same talking points they gave ed whelan? >> oh, no. look. you know how this works. i'm coming on your panel. here are the topics we'll talk about. great. i know about this, i know about this, and here's what we talked about before, here's what i'm saying. >> so they didn't say, you know, there's this alternate theory, here's evidence of it? >> no, not at all. no, no. that's -- >> okay. >> that's ed whelan's theory. >> okay. >> that's not my game here. >> all right. >> i'm more concerned about this -- the judiciary committee and are we going to get to it where we can actually get some closure on this or at least get to hear some more of the information. they have, as i have said, acceded to as many of her requests as they could, they offered to delay the hearing to wednesday. they said she could have a single camera in the room only. >> they did agree to an

investigation, though, which was one of her biggest requests. >> they have been. they've taken testimony from judge kavanaugh, from mark judge, from another man who was allegedly at the party, and they've reached out to several of the people who were alleged to have been at the party the democrats ought to be participating that. it should be a bipartisan investigatory process. the democrats instead of participating. have chosen to pretend handing to the fbi will. >> max? what ford wanted with us the fbi. >> of course, the fbi should be in involved in this, anderson, as they were with the clarence thomas case. it's striking to me she doesn't want to talk about it.

i have seen crazy things, this is the most crazy and callous i have ever seen, in order to get his friend brett kavanaugh confirmed onto the supreme kour, he named another person as a sexual person. >> a middle school teacher. >> an innocent person. his name sp and picture. this is despicable. this is disgusting. why haven't brett kavanaugh disavowed this and denounced this. this is nauseating. i say this a as a life long conservative. this is madness led by conspiracy theorists donald trump. they adopted his win at all cost. they don't care what norms they break. they don't care what rules they violate. they don't care what lives they zroichlt all they care about is getting brett kavanaugh confirmed to the supreme court. one other thing, we need to find out if brett kavanaugh was involved in this. ed whelan is not a random guy off the street.

he is a pillar at the washington legal establishment. he is a friend of brett kavanaugh. he is confirmed in getting brett kavanaugh confirmed. brett kavanaugh needs to go under oath. did he know about this smear attack? he needs to withdraw immediately. >> that would be disqualifying in and of itself. >> is it appropriate what whelan did, putting out the name of somebody else? >> hes a apologized. he should not put the name and picture out as he did. for the same reason i'm frustrated the democrats leaked dr. ford's allegations. >> you are leaking -- this is disgusting what they're doing. >> i'm saying it's all so wrong. >> there is no comparison about this. the democrats did not leak dr. ford's name. she came on on sunday. >> somebody leaked it the democratic congressman and for. >> they did not leak her name. she came out on sunday. okay. >> someone, it was only the democrats and her that had the story.

>> i am watching a report in the washington post that ed whelan knew her name before it was paid public. that's something that needs to be investigated by the senate judiciary committee. >> we will leave it there. appreciate it. coming up, two people took a trip to kenya and joins me to talk about the memories of that trip next. people confuse nice and kind. but they're different. nice tells you what you want to hear. but kind is honest. this bar's made with delicious cranberries and almonds. so, guess what? we call it cranberry almond. find your favorite and give kind® a try.

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? in april, luke's dad made 25 calls to find a place that could bring

his son's creation to life. there were 14 emails to determine the size of the lightning bolts. and 18 texts wishing luke a very happy birthday. and when all was said and done, luke got to be a real-life superhero. and so did his dad.

to say the final episodes of anthony bourdain is sweet would be an understatement. that begin sunday starting with a trip to kenya. kamau bell joins me. >> what was it like working with tony on this? >> you know it was really, i'm not saying, it was a dream come true. i had been watching him for four years on cnn and on the food network and sitting on my girlfriend's house and saying how'd he do that? when i got here, i got the bonus round. at the emmy, he says, do you want to do something together? i felt i won a contest. >> the thing that struck me, i never traveled with him. he would force me to eat. >> we talked about that, enjoying you to seat this. >> but the thing i always took away from watching his shows is they were real journey, you fell

it wasn't just shot nor television. it's an immersive journey. >> he talked a lot about the art of tv. he actually showed me a clip of the west virginia show, how he was working on this segment. he really was trying to get the music to workful he approached it. this was his life's work. he wasn't just the host of the show. >> the first time i understand you actually visited africa? >> it was my first time at one point he said, where do you want to go? the kenya name is kokuyu. he hadn't been to kenya either. >> he hasn't been to kenya? >> that was reaction i have. i thought hadn't you been everywhere nine times? had had never been to africa. it was like he took care, he was reacting to me watching it going on. >> what did you think? interest for me there was two

things, one was i read a lot about african-americans going to affect and expecting this sort of i'm home. how that didn't work out. i was tentative about acting like that the more we were over it was like welcome home. other this sing nairobi is on incredible city. it's a mix of urban, rural. you will be standing like basically the modern coffee shop. somebody will walk by with a herd of goats. we went on safari at this urban sa far, everything shifted, it was quiet. lions are walking around this, so it was a lot. >> it's going to be, i know bittersweet is a cliche, to see this and with him being gone, it's going p going to be hard to watch. >> it is hard to watch. i'm so awar nowhere near as hard as it is for people who had him as a part of their intimate lives some time. even someone like you, he talked about you.

i sort of came into this late. i feel i'm at the tip of this, we were beginning friendship. i seen tony raised on the show to be this incredible producer. he's still editing the show, for me i feel i have the easiest job in this. >> yeah, we all miss him. >> i look forward it to. i'm glad you did it. >> thank you. >> i hope you tune in for the premier anthony bore dawn, sunday, 9:00 p.m. parts unknown. the news continues now. handing it over to chris cuomo. "prime time" starts now. thank you, i am chris cuomo, welcome to prime time. it's into the busy night, it's a whacky night. less than an hour from now, christine ford has to decide whether to take the republican's terms to testify. she'll get a chance to tell her story, only if she agrees there will be no other investigation or witnesses allowed. in other words, she is to go it alone, obviously, if she says no, they are more than fine with that.