declined. punishing bad politics at the cost of what? denying an alleged victim of an attempted assault? the respect we show we do care about women like this. a woman who reportedly spoke to friends years ago, to a therapist, to her husband yet no investigation, no extra witness, no delay. do it now, deal with our skepticism and obvious frustration and you will at best get a shot at he said, she said. and then we wonder about that 70% stat of people who stay quiet. starts to make sense, doesn't it? this is not an argument, by the way. this is plea. the senators are going to do what works for them. that much is clear. there are people who matter a lot more. boys, girls, men, women, many who may be watching and when it comes to these types of experiences you are still in the shadows.

you're afraid of what people will say, what they'll believe and not believe and that talking will only make it worse. please know this, the president does not echo the soul of this country in this regard. the truth is there are many more who will help you than try to hurt you. we're going to put a hot line number on the screen. if you need help, make a call. coming forward is not easy, but it is better than the alternative. all right, let's keep going now because don is off. that means we've got a bonus second hour of "cuomo primetime," and we begin with breaking news. christine ford's legal team responding just moments ago. we read the letter to you live. the proposal by senate republicans that she testify by wednesday or else, they say, we can't decide yet. we need one additional day. will they give it to her? in that letter they blast republicans accusing them of bullying ford into making a

decision by 10:00 p.m. tonight. we're waiting for republicans to respond to the request by ford's attorneys. also tonight president trump making what peers to be a veiled threat to fire rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. why? rosenstein is in reporting today supposedly thinking about wiring -- wiretapping, recording the president, using the 25th amendment to remove him. is that true? rosenstein says it isn't. and one year after hurricane maria ravaged puerto rico, two cnn colleagues have been on the front lines and here with a new look at the daily struggle to return to normal. remember the president called his administration's response there an unsung success. this is busy friday. let's get after it. all right, we have a response but it's not a decision. dr. ford says she will not comply with tonight's 10:00 p.m.

deadline. in a letter we just read last hour her lawyer writes that she be given an additional day to make her decision. she's been spending time with the fbi today talking about death threats with her family. there's not enough time for them going through talking about the possibilities of what could be a life changing event for her. so what happens now? are they going to go ahead and have their vote on monday to confirm judge kavanaugh? is that the best thing for him? or will they give professor ford one more day? all right, let's check in with our man on the story. cnn's congressional correspondent phil mattingly. i did not see a response asking for another day as likely, but there it is. what's your gut on whether they get it in. >> the judiciary committee republicans have received the e-mail, have received the letter, but they don't have a response yet. what we do know is this, debra

katz, a lawyer for christine blasey ford is essentially calling the chairman of the committee's bluff. obviously you laid out in detail both their letter and where republicans have been on this. saying the 10:00 p.m. deadline, there needs to be not just a response but an agreement for testimony or else they would go ahead and vote on monday. and to take you behind the scenes a little bit, chris, i can tell you there's been immense frustration on the republican side of things over the last couple of days. they feel they've been accommodating. they feel like the conversation with debra katz, christine blasey ford's lawyer last night was a positive conversation. as debra katz laid out in great detail there were good reasons why a response didn't come in detail, why they need an extra day. but that for a lot of republicans on the committee who are partaking in a conference call behind closed doors earlier today is not a good enough answer. so that leads us to a question

will they actually go forward with a scheduled vote on monday even though debra katz only asked for one day? it's an open question and you know better than anybody the stakes here are enormous. the pressures from outside gr p groups are immense. and what they decide to do is extraordinary sensitive and has brought so many ideas, thoughts, policy proposals to the table over the last couple of months into play, but also more broadly. the u.s. senate, the nominations going forward i think everybody is cognizant of everything that's at play right now. what people aren't sure about is what the final decision is going to be. the ramifications are enormous here. but i do think in talking to republicans throughout the course of the last couple of days they have been ready to move forward. i don't think anything has made a secret of that. to set the deadline and to make clear to christine blasey ford's

lawyers that he was ready to go on this, to back down from that i think would be a bit of a surprise. that said, as you noted chris, they asked for one more day. given the stakes, given the issue matter, given everything else that's involved, it would seem possible they could get one more day. the real question now for judiciary republicans who are reviewing the letter right now, reviewing their next steps is which way do they want to go spsp. it'll be fascinating to see the repercussions. >> true. let me know if you get word. thanks, phil. appreciate it. so what should happen next? cuomo's court is in session with jeffrey toobin and jim schultz. one more day, jim. do you give it to the doctor? >> i think i do. i think i'd give her one more day. look, they've been doing everything they can to make this

accommodating so that she can come in and testify, which is what she asked to do, and that's very, very important to note here. and i also want to note how unfortunate it was that it got leaked to the public which kind of thrusts this all into the public limelight to begin with. and i was glad to hear you say in your last segment, chris, that senator feinstein may have some kulpabiliculpability there. i think giving an extra day isn't too much to ask, and it's something we do as lawyers on a regular basis, give a courtesy to make a decision as you're entering into negotiations. this is not something uncommon. >> the timing is punishing the democrats. the stuff that's really onerous for ford are the conditions. it's basically you go it alone, you're getting a he said, she said and that's it. you're getting no investigation,

no other witnesses. it's your word against his. you take that deal. >> well, i think she has to. but the thing so unbelievably outrageous is the fight between wednesday and thursday. she wants wednesday, they want thursday. and that is so surreal and bizarre and outrageous that i even in contemporary politics i find that hard to believe. but that's the way it appear tuesday be heading. chuck grassly is saying i said wednesday, you said thursday, too bad, kavanaugh gets on the supreme court. i mean, it's unbelievable. >> i get that there's a lot of

attention on ford, whether this is fair enough. and i give a lot of faith and credit to that perspective. however, if i'm judge kavanaugh i do not like this. i did nothing wrong. i wasn't even there. and it feels like they're railroading her, they're trying to kind of slip me through. i don't want that reception. i say let them investigate, i say let's in eyewitnesses. >> judge kavanaugh said he'd show up in an hour and testify and be ready to testify. he is ready to defend himself. he is ready to clear his name. that is what he has said. and he's been unequivocal on that from day one. >> nonsense. >> so to that end -- >> jeffrey says nonsense. well, he was been unequivocal in saying he didn't do it. >> he hasn't called for an

investigation. he's only said i'll show up. has he said bring in the winces, do a real investigation? there is no judicial or legislative body. >> this is within the control of the senate, jeffrey and you know that. this is an article i issue. the power of the legislative branch to confirm a nominee. they go through the process. it's their process. they make the decision. >> it's the president's nominee. and not only is it his call to call in the fbi, but if you don't think he called chuck grassly is said, listen, let me tell you who i want -- this is my guy -- >> i disagree with you on the calling in the fbi, that it's incumbent on the white house to do that. in this instance it's on the senate. >> they can ask the white house to do it. >> that has not happened to do that. they have not asked the white house to do that to date.

the senate investigates people and incident every day. the senate has lawyers that handle these matters every day. >> come on. the judiciary committee -- let me talk for a second. the judiciary committee staff under chuck grassly has one goal and one goal only, which is to confirm brett kavanaugh. it's not to investigate the facts. they're not interested in the facts. if they were interested in the facts they would bring in witnesses under oath and ask them. >> the supposed investigators here are the most feared in the enterprise. that's why you should have the fbi who are not partisans. brett kavanaugh doesn't want an investigation. he wants to get confirmed. that's why he's offering to testify in this -- >> jeffrey, who's been beating the drum on the fbi drum here? it's been democratic operatives that have been beating the drum for the fbi.

and why have they been doing that? it's political gamesmanship. it's happening, it's happening on the democratic side and it's happening often and it's happening and the stakes are incredibly high. >> that's true. >> and to say they're not trying to game the system by asking the fbi to get involved in this, to delay someone who's been through six rounds of background checks, when is currently sitting on it the bench, is a revered lawyer, is somewhat ludicrous to say the democrats -- >> we are talking about a one days delay -- let me talk for a second. don't interrupt me. we are talking about one day delay where a political party, the republican party kept a seat on the supreme court open for a year when barack obama nominated garland.

but this nominee is going to gelt confirmed because chuck grassly won't give an extra day, won't hold a hearing wednesday instead of thursday. you tell me that's fair. >> well, hold on. they've now asked for an extra day to make a determination. let's see what the senate comes back with. i think the senate's probably going to come back and give them that day. we'll see. >> i have one last point with you guys to talk about. we talk about how this is supposed to be a fair confirmation process, supposed to be about vetting, advising, consent and i'm saying that sarcastically because i don't believe in this one and really everyone since bor really. this one was so important yet the man has been holed up in the white house interest days, working on his testimony, figuring out how to deal with this allegation, gathering women

around him. how can he not be beholden to the white house after all this? if they get him through this and he gets on the court, how are we supposed to believe he is impartial when he's been literally living with them for days trying to find a way through this mores? >> chris, you don't think ruth bader ginsberg went through -- you don't think kagen went through the same prep when she was confirmed? >> no, i don't. >> you're absolutely wrong about that, chris. no doubt about it. >> not like this. >> whenever there's a judicial confirmation a supreme court judicial nomination, that person is prepped. >> i'm not saying they aren't prepped. i'm saying not like this, not this kind of intimacy. not this kind of intimacy and this kind of joint-joint -- >> they have lawyers in a room helping them prep for a hearing?

that happens all the time. i'm a lawyer, i go into court, i'm going to prep my witness. this is no different. >> i appreciate you both being with me on a friday night. up next, new reporting out of the white house on the pressure they put on rod rosenstein to issue a new statement. we have that for you next. ♪ this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams

they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪

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? (crash) some debt you plan for, some just... ...happens. putting it all on credit cards just wasn't working. but a loan through lending club was a cinch. no branch office, no stuffy suits.

consolidating our debt saved us nearly $300 a month. that's not sofa change. we had enough to start saving again, and a little extra to send these two to summer camp. being outdoors was good for them? (vo) check your rate at welcometotheclub.com. all right. we just got new information about deputy a.g. rod rosenstein. a report is out saying that he was out to secretly record and try to remove president trump.

he denied that report, but the white house did not like the denial. so cnn's kaitlan collins is in springfield, missouri, where the president just spoke. so what did they do about it? >> reporter: well, of course at that first statement you saw there at the end of it, rod rosenstein said, i'm not going to comment further on this matter. then, chris, he commented further on this matter, putting out a second statement tonight where he said, quote, i never pursued or authorized recording the president, and any suggestion that i've ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. so there are a lot of questions about why rod rosenstein put out that second statement if he said he wasn't going to comment further, and now, chris, we've learned why. that's because the deputy attorney general made a trip over to the white house today, a pretty brief trip this evening. he met with several officials who consulted with him, telling him he needed to put out a firmer statement than that first statement denying that he had

any conversations about wearing a wire to go meet with the president or any conversations about forcibly removing the president from office. so clearly we know this is a president, chris, who pays close attention to denials when it comes to stories like this. he's done it in the past with that anonymous op-ed. he paid attention to every official who denied writing it. rod rosenstein learned from them. he clearly has paid attention to that. that is why he's putting out that second statement tonight. >> right. >> reporter: and we did hear that thinly veiled threat from president trump tonight here during that rally where he said there is a stench at the justice department, but told the crowd here, this arena full of his supporters, not to worry about it because they were going to get rid of it. >> so the question is what does it mean? it can suggest that rosenstein wants to keep his job. what does it mean about the president's interest in taking his job? if the white house pushed up on him for a firmer denial, that seems to suggest they're trying to make it all okay. what's your read? >> reporter: that would seem to suggest that, but a lot of that might have to do with the fact

that we are so close to the midterms, and there's already been so much upheaval surrounding the west wing even just this week alone that aides know that if the president fires the deputy attorney general at a time like this, it could cause even more chaos for them. but of course this is a president who changes his mind a lot. and though six months or so ago he was openly floating the idea of firing rod rosenstein, even when he didn't have such a solid reasoning as it would seem that this new york "times" reporting which has been confirmed by several other outlets including cnn would give him, you never know quite with this president. you have to look at what his allies and outside advisers are saying because we've got certain people like laura ingraham, jeanine pirro, those people saying he should fire him immediately. but then we have other people like congressman matt gaetz, a favorite of the president, essentially saying he doesn't believe "the new york times" reporting and he's not going to believe it unless there's hard evidence that rod rosenstein made these comments. so the question, of course, is the president going to listen to them, or is he going to do what

he alluded to tonight at that rally and actually fire rod rosenstein? >> that would cause chaos, then again tonight he didn't hesitate to say that women want him to defend kavanaugh and not the other side, which i guess would include kavanaugh's accuser, christine ford. kaitlan collins, thank you. for doing the late work for us. appreciate it. all right, trump's vow to get rid of the justice department's linger stench, i think is what kaitlan, called it, came hours after news broke on the number two at the doj. so is rosenstein the lingering stench? is it only a matter of time before he goes? should the republicans give judge kavanaugh's accuser one more day? tom fitton is the perfect man to discuss, next. the head of judicial watch. don't forget that the past can speak to the future. ♪ ♪ i'm going to be your substitute teacher. don't assume the substitute teacher has nothing to offer... same goes for a neighborhood.

don't forget that friendships last longer than any broadway run. mr. president. (laughing) don't settle for your first draft. or your 10th draft. ♪ ♪ you get to create the room where it happens. ♪ ♪ just don't think you have to do it alone. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it. and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free.

tonight, rod rosenstein, bob mueller's boss, is still employed, but there is no guarantee it stays that way after today's explosive reporting in "the new york times" and confirmed by cnn sources. joining us now is tom fitton, president of judicial watch. so, tom, do you think rosenstein survives? he has now denied the report twice. >> oh, i don't know. the president could fire him at any day. he could fire sessions at any

day. i don't think this story is going to result necessarily in his immediate firing, no. but it adds to the lack of trust that the president has for top officials of the justice department because of reports like this that suggest that, in the case of mr. rosenstein, they don't like him. they wanted to see him removed from office. they are angry at him, and, you know, it looks like maybe mr. rosenstein, based on this report in "the new york times," appointed mueller because he was ticked about being brought into the comey firing issue and the mueller investigation is a result of his personal anger as opposed to any lawful reason for an appointment. >> you know, the one thing that does seem odd about it is as a man who is as sophisticated about the law as rod rosenstein -- and i don't think there's any argument that he is -- would look at the 25th amendment as a reasonable path of moving on a president of the united states. it's almost impossible to make something like that happen. >> what's more astonishing is that there was a discussion between him, as reported. >> right.

>> and top officials at the fbi about it. >> it could happen, right? now, look, we have to see the mccabe memo, right, because it does seem to be suggested in some of the reporting that they got some of this from the memo. we don't know if that stuff about the 25th amendment or about maybe recording and whether or not it's a joke -- we don't know. but there are some different layers. >> mr. rosenstein's first statement didn't deny it happened. he said he didn't pursue it, or the language was that i don't think he should be removed under the 25th amendment. it didn't say that it wasn't discussed, and even this latest statement doesn't suggest that maybe it hadn't come up. it clearly came up and, you know, i think to take a step back, looking at who leaked this potentially, it looks to me like the fbi is concerned that it's going to come out that people like andrew mccabe wanted to get the president. so they're trying to put the focus on mr. rosenstein because this material is going to come out eventually.

but, again, it goes back to the mueller investigation. this is where the mueller investigation was brewed from, and it shows you that its underpinnings, frankly, are one of politics and antipathy to the president as opposed to, as i point out, a rule of law approach that was required out of the justice department handling something so sensitive. >> you and i can go back and forth about whether or not the decision to appoint mueller was a lawful one. i've heard this argument that, you know, they didn't articulate a criminal precedent. there is no requirement for that. you can investigate something where there's a reasonable suspicion that it's necessary. i went through all the case law and all that stuff, but that's a pretty subtle discussion. the politics of what motivated it, why ignore the president getting rid of comey? if you're going to look for a "but for" factor here, but for him moving on comey the way he did, why would rosenstein have ever done this? >> based on this discussion, it looks like getting rid of comey was a pretext as opposed to a reason. that they were upset about the

president long before comey was removed, and the president has every right to fire any fbi director or other justice department official. and the idea that the justice department and the fbi are going to start investigating the president for firing an agency head that they presumably had reported to is just absurdity. i just don't think that investigation should be allowed to continue anymore, and it should be shut down. and it's this sort of craziness that highlights the reason why the whole thing never should have begun in the first place, and they should cut their losses and end it. >> the theory of the case is he felt that it couldn't be investigated in house because the president was obviously determined to interfere, and he had to get some insulation, give it to somebody where it would be less likely. >> but he's supervising the very election, again further confirmed by "the new york times," that the investigation into the very issue he was instrumental in advancing, the firing of comey. and the man responsible in part for his firing by writing a memo and endorsing it is supervising the investigation into the

reasons of his firing. you know, this is why the president's upset with the justice department, rightly so. >> i don't know if that's why he's upset with it, but it could be part of it. let me ask you something -- >> he's expressed those very reasons. >> i'm saying it's one part of it. >> he has many other reasons to be upset as well. >> do you give professor ford one more day to decide whether or not to testify next week? >> oh, i don't think they can. i would just presume politically she has up until monday to respond. up until the moment of the vote, she could respond. i never thought there should be a public hearing about this. it should have been handled through private investigations and private committee hearings. but she has a choice whether to participate practically speaking up till monday. whether or not senator grassley specifically authorizes it.

this is all brinksmanship going on now, but she can respond tomorrow practically speaking if she wants to testify on wednesday as opposed to thursday or monday, or whatever the day is. >> if you're brett kavanaugh, don't you want whatever witnesses she says she has brought up because your position is this never happened. it may have happened to her, but it wasn't me. i wasn't even where she said she was. so bring on whoever she wants because nobody is going to place me at that party because i wasn't there, and i want this to be completely clear. i want no speculation that anybody was insulating me from any kind of truth. and if i get on that court, i get on with a clean conscience and a clean legacy. >> well, that's assuming you've got fair-minded people questioning both sides. and it's pretty clear that his democratic opponents don't believe what he says. any hearing is not going to change that. and if i'm brett kavanaugh, i don't want a show trial that is

going to destroy my reputation in the eyes of many americans without good reason. >> but how do they decide on a he said/she said, tom? if they're both credible, how do you decide? >> you do it in a private hearing and let them debate what they found out in a public forum if they so choose when they go to vote. if anyone were listening to me, i would have told them to have the fbi go interview both witnesses, at least kavanaugh and his accuser quickly, and then if anyone else needed to be interviewed, that could have been done quickly. and then they could have discussed it with the committee in private and then moved it along. and i think that's still a possibility, but they've got to get the vote done. to have a witness come in at this late date and allow that whole process to be gamed by opponents of kavanaugh in a dishonest way i think could blow up the confirmation process for decades to come. >> i think the only check on that would be all the senators have to vote ultimately when it gets out of committee, and this is going to be something they're going to want to hear and know about themselves. but absent that, you're certainly more progressive than

what we're getting out of the committee right now. >> there are three senators or four senators in the republican caucus who are going to want more information, and it's fair they get more information. >> right. >> the question is -- i attended the kavanaugh hearing for at least a little bit. it was a nightmare, chris. i mean that screaming is very much mitigated by the television cameras. it's violent. it's disruptive, and i don't think anyone should have to go through that, especially given the circus atmosphere that's beginning here. either the witness against mr. kavanaugh or mr. kavanaugh himself. >> well, look, we'll grab some tea sandwiches and tea sometime and we'll have a long discussion about why i think the entire confirmation process is a sham with both parties on both sides every time since bork. we'll take that up in private. tom fitton, appreciate your take. >> you're welcome, chris. all right. we're awaiting a response right now about what we were just talking about. what will the republican senators say to christine ford's attorneys? they requested an additional day to make a decision. will the senators give it to her?

former attorney general mike mukasey is here next. i can't believe it. that everything sticks to stefon diggs's hands? no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. cool, huh? yeah. he plays football, huh? yeah. believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. it was always our singular focus. to do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. to fight cancer. and never lose sight of the patients we're fighting for. our cancer treatment specialists share the same vision. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. and these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. expert medicine works here.

learn more at cancercenter.com appointments available now. what's critical thinking like? a basketball costs $14. what's team spirit worth? (cheers) what's it worth to talk to your mom? what's the value of a walk in the woods? the value of capital is to create, not just wealth, but things that matter. morgan stanley

leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. 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 walmart to find the kidde solution that's right for you. (beeping) huh. to find the kidde solution that's right for you. pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. all right. we were on deadline watch in this bizarre situation where the republicans on the senate judiciary committee had given a 10:00 p.m. eastern standard time deadline for professor christine ford to respond to their suggestions about what happens next week.

take the offer or leave it. instead, the lawyer put out a letter for christine ford saying we need one more day. will they give it to her? this is all happening in the context of this "new york times" story about rod rosenstein having it out for the president. we have the perfect guest for you. once again, former attorney general michael mukasey is here. thank you for being with me on a friday night. >> good to be here. >> all right. one cataclysm at a time. let's start with the urgency of what to do with kavanaugh and ford. do you give professor ford one more day to decide what to do next week? >> yes. i don't think it costs anybody anything. i think -- or it's a minor climb-down for the chairman. but it's a minor climb-down, not a major one, and give her another day. >> if you want the projected reality -- >> to make up her mind, that is. >> understood. if you want the projected reality to be, we care about the truth of this.

we want to do this well, saying no other witnesses, and there will be no other investigation, it's just going to be he said/she said, and then we'll decide -- do you think it projects that reality? >> which reality? >> that they want this to be as good a job as they can do. >> yes. it is as good a job as they can do because if you start -- the only other witness is the other -- is judge who was there, right? >> there are people she said was there. >> there are? >> yeah. we had this discussion a little bit the other night. she names other people as having been at that party. >> at the party. >> yeah, where this happened. and there are friends that she reportedly spoke to. you can bring other people in. >> you can go down a lot of rabbit holes with judge, who wrote a book talking about what a degenerate life he led and how he was always drunk and so on and so forth. so if he says it didn't happen, everybody is going to say, well,

the guy obviously had half a load -- >> how do you know he's telling the truth? >> you figure out the likelihood of their story based on what they say. and the question is how do you figure out the truth? the question is whether she wants the truth. >> what do you think she wants? >> theater. >> why? why would you jaundice it that way? >> because of at least two requests that she made. one was a statement that she wants the senators to ask the question, not a lawyer, now, there's only one reason to have the senators ask the question. that is because they're a bunch of old white guys like me, right, who are going to look domineering and cruel whereas a lawyer might ask questions in a calmer, more direct way and in a more trained way. you go back to the watergate hearings. the principal questions were asked not by the senators who perform by by sam dash, the lawyer for the committee.

have somebody like that. >> so her concern is that's a hired gun. they're going to be a pro who has come in, set up to disadvantage her and make it harder on her. >> somebody who knows how to ask questions. >> well, senators know how to ask questions, don't they? >> no. no. have you watched? they know how to make speeches. they know how to preen. do they know how to ask questions? no. >> well, it's supposed to be their constitutional duty. that's what this is all about, right? >> their constitutional duty is supposed to be to decide. that's what they're there to do, to decide. how the questions get asked, it seems to me, ought to be for somebody who really knows how to ask questions, and that's a lawyer. and the second request that she made that i think is a lot worse is the one that says that he goes first, and then i testify, which is inherently ridiculous. i mean what she's saying is, you defend against my story, and then i'll tell it. that really is the 13th chime on the grandfather clock.

>> which makes you question the other 12. >> correct. >> i get the metaphor. my question is, well, let's try to get in where they're coming from, katz and the people who are helping her figure this out. they have to be thinking, this is all against you. they do not want you there. they do not like that you exist. they are against you, the people in power. and, remember, they're not coming here with equal empowerment. not only is kavanaugh the darling that they're trying to usher through -- fair enough. it's his confirmation process. but this is something who is dealing with something that she says was a seminal and scarring event on her, that she doesn't want to talk about. she's not comfortable doing it, let alone on this kind of stage with all these people who seem to be coming from the exact perspective that victims fear most. people who are looking to disbelieve. >> although the first domino was toppled by her when she went to the ranking member of that committee.

>> anonymously. >> the only way -- >> there's that look. what does that look mean, mukasey? >> what that look means is anonymously at first, but she's supposedly, as described by her friends, a methodical thinker. she has to have known that the only way to have an effect in what she was saying was for the facts to come out. and the only way for the facts to come out was to have them come out through her. >> so we'll see if she gets the extra day and what she decides. hopefully i'll have you back next week to help us figure out whatever happens. rosenstein, do you believe his denial of the "new york times" story? >> i haven't seen the precise words. i think it is conceivable that he said it in jest. i wouldn't take it seriously at all. >> would someone as sophisticated as he think that you could actually use the 25th amendment? >> no. and in point of fact, if you go through what the 25th amendment says --

>> and i have. >> -- and i have too. >> i know you have. >> it's a lot easier, in fact, to impeach the president. >> right. >> because to impeach the president, all you need is a majority in the house of representatives and then two-thirds of the senate. >> you need two-thirds of both on this kind of situation. >> not only that, you have to start out the vice president. >> right. >> and a majority of the cabinet. >> right, unless the president does it himself. >> but that paragraph doesn't apply. i think we can agree. >> agreed. >> here, what you do is you start out with the vice president and a majority of the cabinet. they send a notice to congress that says the president can't perform his duties. he's incompetent. he's incapable of performing his duties. the president then gets 21 days to respond, and presumably his response is, oh, no, i'm perfectly competent, sound as a dollar. i can perform my duties.

then you've got to go back and do it again. you've got to get the vice president, the majority of the cabinet to repeat it again. and then it goes to congress. >> right. >> for a hearing in which you need two-thirds of the congress. >> not happening. >> i'll say. >> do you think they get rid of rosenstein? >> and rosenstein knows. >> right. so the new theory is that this "new york times" report -- this is a theory. this is a theory from our friends on the far right. that "the new york times" set this up to trick trump into getting rid of rosenstein and triggering an impeachment process. >> um, not beyond the realm of possibility. >> really? >> um, look, i don't know whether "the new york times" set it up or whether mccabe set it up or whether it just sort of happened. but in any event, i think the president would be a fool to fall for it. >> so rosenstein should stay? michael mukasey, so should you. thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. >> for lending us your brain on a friday night. i'll be seeing you next week, i hope. >> thanks. all right. there is a new cnn investigation tonight into the massive government failures in hurricane maria. you know the story about the death toll. it was grossly underestimated.

but our brothers and sisters in puerto rico say the tragedy isn't over, which is actually part of the tragedy, and that more lives are being lost. leyla santiago and bill weir are here with a preview of "the storm of controversy." that's next. oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history

of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. 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. ( ♪ ) ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help. - anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling

brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪

it's been one year now since hurricane maria ravaged puerto rico. nearly 3,000 are dead. the island is still struggling. the president though called his administration's response an unsung success. so tonight, cnn is taking a closer look at the response and recovery in a new documentary

called "storm of controversy." here's a peek. >> one of the primary missions of the federal emergency management agency is preparedness. but a federal review has revealed that their supply warehouses were empty. every tarp and could the had been sent to the virgin islands for irma. fema had only a handful of satellite phones and less than 100 generators on a blacked out island in need of thousands. >> we're running out of food and water. >> leyla santiago and bill weir join us now on the ground following this crisis every step of the way. it's a job that will to be done because it's not even close to over down there. bad before. worse during. worst after. what is the big point for you, bill, in terms of what you'll

learn when you see this documentary? >> i think it's one of those tests that unfortunately we talked about after the election when things started to go to the polls in this country in terms of where you stood. what happens when a third of the country believes only the president, the other third believes only the press and there's there middle trying to figure out which one is right. we couldn't agree the size and scope of the tragedy. you know, as we talked about it. we were down there waving and saying this is big, this is haiti big, this is banda aceh tsunami big. but it sink in till weeks later. to be fair, you can't drive to puerto rico to help out the way you could in florida and texas after that storm but there was no comparison in terms of the urgency of the response when the president sat down next to the governor and said yeah, you know, it's not like katrina. that was a real storm. this is something else. that set a tone that set up these dominos of long slow motion disaster. >> casualties of an otherism that we're dealing with also. how long did it take people to figure out that puerto rico is

actually part of america and that those people are americans? >> exactly. >> it seemed that gave comfort to some of trump's supporters and rationalizing it early on. it's a dirty island. they don't know what they're doing. their economy, they're broke. their infrastructure is terrible almost like they deserve this. how did that resonate with the people there? >> i spoke to a woman in old san juan that sort of really laid it out. she said it's not that -- because i asked everybody, do you feel like a u.s. citizen even after maria. this woman said to me, you know what, it's not that they didn't treat us like a u.s. citizen. we weren't even treated like humans. that was so powerful to me that it's beyond what your birth certificate says that they felt nobody even cared. still feel forgotten. it's been a year. >> if fact, when leyla and john sutter one of cnn's investigative reporters they sued the puerto rican government for access to death records so you could see exactly who was

dieing and what were the causes and they discovered this outbreak of a waterborne illness that comes when you drink farm wastewater which people had no choice for a month afterwards. john said he took this to an epidemiologist and they would have been better if it was a foreign country because other fortunate countries would have stepped in and the response might have been more robust. >> people move on, you have the next tragedy. you guys are doing the work that demands to be done in the moment. people cannot forget because we will repeat the same mistakes the next time if people don't learn this time and the trump administration is calling it an unsung success. bill, leyla thank you and both your teams. there is a one-hour special. you have to watch it if you say that you care. it's called "storm of controversy," and it airs in just a few minutes at 11:00 p.m. eastern right here obviously on cnn. that's it for us tonight. before i have p i go i have an announcement for you.

on monday i'd be on the radio. it's called "let's get after it," sirius/xm monday every weekday noon to 2:00 because i don't have enough to do. channel 1824. remember, what really matters is the cnn special "storm of controversy." what really happened in puerto rico is next. oh. hey mom. now that we have your attention... capri sun has four updated drinks. now with only the good stuff. do you know how to use those? nope. get those kids some capri sun! nope. one last year these womenn i started seeing results. and hundreds of thousands more tried revitalift triple power. with hyaluronic acid and pro-xylane. it visibly reduces wrinkles, refirms and smooths texture. guaranteed or your money back. revitalift triple power. from l'oreal paris. they seem to be the very foundation of your typical bank. capital one is anything but typical.

that's why we designed capital one cafes. you can get savings and checking accounts with no fees or minimums. and one of america's best savings rates. to top it off, you can open one from anywhere in 5 minutes. this isn't a typical bank. this is banking reimagined. what's in your wallet? ♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere.

♪ all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

requiring carbon monoxide alarms in single-famil - [ beep ] ...in single-family homes. that was seven years ago. [ beep ] carbon monoxide alarms... [ beep ] ...typically last [ beep ] seven to ten years. which means california's about to start hearing a lot of this but you can beat the [ beep ] uh-huh... by getting a new kidde carbon monoxide alarm now. just go to beat the beep dot [ beep ] go to beatthebeep.com to find the kidde solution that's right ...for you. [ beep ]

the following is a cnn special report. >> right now, it is the worst that i have seen. this storm has intensified. we are feeling wind gusts of 113 miles per hour. >> one year ago, maria came to puerto rico like a chainsaw in the sky. 100 miles wide. >> this is definitely the worst wind we're seeing so far. >> reporter: six months' worth of rain fell in days. dams cracked. hillsides