resident. his five children are u.s. citizens. and his lawyer says that once he is deported, he wouldn't be eligible to reenter the united states for another 20 years. gramajo would then be in his early 60s. erin? >> thank you very much, ed. and thanks very much to all of you for joining us. "a.c. 360" starts now. good evening. there's breaking news tonight in the attacks on the oil fields in saudi arabia. the president today saying it appears that iran is behind them. he also didn't rule out the possibility of retaliatory strike by the u.s., although it appears that some in the administration are trying to walk back the president's own language. take, for instance, whether we will attack iran. the president sounded very war-like in his tweet last night. quote, saudi arabia oil supply was attacked. there's reason to believe that we know the culprit. are locked and loaded depending upon verification, but are waiting to hear from the kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed. now, obviously, locked and loaded, which is what the president said, is a term we're

all familiar with. it references our military posture. it's a direct reference to weaponry. it's pretty clear. but then this morning, things got less clear. vice president pence's chief of staff, marc short, was asked about the tweet and the term "locked and loaded." here's what he said. >> i think that locked and loaded is a broad term that talks about the realities that we're also far safer and more secure domestically from energy independence. >> locked and loaded, he's saying, is a broad term about energy independence. has anyone ever actually used the term "locked and loaded" in that way? our fossil fuels are locked and loaded? doesn't really make sense. we're locked and loaded with natural gas and other fossil fuels, not to mention wind and solar. keeping 'em honest, we all know what the president meant by locked and loaded. clearly, the vice president's office doesn't want to come out and say, just disregard the tweet sent out by the president last night. instead, they're pretending it means something else. it's not the only attempt in the midst of this crisis to walk back something the president has said. now that the administration appears to be considering a

strike against iran, the president is claiming he never said he wanted to negotiate with the riranian president without any preconditions. on sunday he tweeted, "the fake news is saying that i'm willing to meet with iran no conditions. that is an incorrect statement, as usual." now, the problem with that, we should point out, is this president's tweet is just not true. in fact, not only has the president spoken about meeting with no preconditions, so have other members of the administration. and it's on tape. let's play it. >> you want to talk, good. otherwise, you can have a bad economy for the next three years. >> no preconditions? >> not as far as i'm concerned. no preconditions. >> i think the president has made it very clear that he's more than prepared. >> with no preconditions? >> to have discussions with no preconditions with the iranians. >> now, the president has made clear that he's happy to make a meeting with no preconditions. >> the president is very clear. he'll meet with no preconditions. >> i would meet with iran if they wanted to meet. >> do you have preconditions for

that meeting? >> if they want to meet, i'll meet. anytime they want. anytime they want. it's good for the country. good for them, good for us. and good for the world. no preconditions. >> all right. well, that seemed pretty clear and that last statement, by the way, that was from july of last year, so this has been a talking point for well over a year now. suddenly, though, the president wants to pretend otherwise and is just making stuff up. today, he continued doing just that. >> well, you know, there were always conditions, because the conditions, if you look at it, the sanctions are not going to be taken off. so if the sanctions, that's a condition. so, you know, that's why the press misreported it. >> okay, i'm not exactly sure what he's trying to say here, but i think it's that even though he said he would meet with no preconditions, and many people in his administration have verified that's what he believed, he's saying there are tough sanctions in place, and the president is now calling those conditions, and because those sanctioned conditions wouldn't be lifted to talk, any

talk that took place wouldn't be a talk without preconditions. does that make sense? it doesn't. for the latest, i want to go to cnn white house correspondent boris sanchez. boris, so the president is saying it's, quote, looking like iran was behind this attack. he still is not definitively saying they did it, correct? >> right, anderson. we pretty much know who it is. that's the closest that president trump came to actually blaming iran. far short of where he went on twitter in terms of a response over the weekend. we should note, his secretary of state, mike pompeo, not apprehensive at all. he's squarely placing the blame on iran. and the discrepancy is so glaring that today reporters asked trump if pompeo perhaps had information that the president had yet to see. trump assured reporters that they were both on the same page, but that would lead you to ask why president trump is suddenly playing coy, given all the bluster and all of the rhetoric that he's spewed in the past about iran, specifically that locked and loaded tweet. again, you played that sound from marc short, trying to walk

that back. we should point out, the president has used very similar language in the past, specifically speaking about military action in iran, after they downed a u.s. drone this summer in june, the president tweeted that the military was cocked and loaded, ready to strike at iran, but that ultimately he called that off. so, again, we don't know exactly why president trump is walking this fine line. perhaps it's because he feels that playing coy could buy him a sort of meeting with the iranian leadership, which we know he wants, anderson. >> but with -- not without preconditions -- with no preconditions or with conditions. i know the president talked about next steps in the investigation. what did he say? >> right. so he mentioned that secretary of state pompeo along with other senior administration officials would be traveling to saudi arabia, apparently, to assist in the investigation and potentially some kind of a response. i want to be really specific here about what the president said, because he was not -- he said that the u.s. has all the materials that it needs to prove that iran was behind this. he says he wants to look at

final numbers, and i quote, you look at a vector and you look at -- there are lots of different things we can look at. unclear what the president means, because as you know, anderson, cnn had previously reported that a u.s. official had told cnn that american intelligence show that this attack originated in iran and that it was communicating that to our allies in the region. >> all right. boris sanchez, appreciate it. the sauds have also responded, saying in a statement that the kingdom affirms that it has the capability and resolve to defend its land and people and to forcefully respond to these adepressions. the question is, can they do that on their own? for analysis of the situation, thomas friedman joins me. he's a "new york times" columnist and author of "thank you for being late." how fragile do you think this situation is? >> i think it's extremely fragile, anderson, in the sense that you almost feel there's got to be retaliation. >> by the u.s. or saudi arabia? >> by the u.s. or saudi arabia. it would almost certainly be both. i don't think saudi arabia is capable actually of mounting an

independent attack on iran, but if this does turn out to be an attack that was launched from iranian territory by iranians, on saudi arabia's oil infrastructure, then it's -- another shoe has to drop here. >> the question is exactly where this did launch from, right now the allegation by saudi arabia initially was that the weaponry or the technology came from iran. whether it was, in fact, rebels in yemen or not. if it's just that iran supplied the technology and the weaponry, is that enough for an attack for a retaliatory attack? >> it may not be. and i think we should step back, anderson, and see it from 30,000 feet for a minute. the trump administration has chosen to take on, simultaneously, two of the oldest administrations on the planet, china and persia at the same time. and one can say for some very legitimate reasons. so vis-a-vis china, they have created enormous leverage through tariffs. what you see in china is the chinese pushing back with tariffs of their own to create

counterleverage. and what may be going on here is the iranians pushing back now to create counterleverage on their part. to be able to say to the trump administration, well, you want to take our oil supplies all the world market? how about if we take off half of saudi arabia's. and our oil supplies come in much more demand and that gives us leverage. i kind of see it in that context. >> it shows you the danger of an administration which repeatedly has a problem with the truth. >> i've always said, we've probably talked about this once, if you look back in the footage that the danger for trump was at some point, when you tell 12,000 lies, there comes a crisis point where he has to look in the camera and say, ladies and gentlemen, this attack came from north korea, fill in the blank, or from iran. and there's a lot of people who are going to question that. you know, given the amount of misleading and false statements this president has made. >> the president also immediately goes to twitter and decides to send messages via twitter and talks about being locked and loaded. and now you have the administration, i think the chief of staff of vice president pence said this morning that

locked and loaded is a broad term that, quote, talks about the realities that we're all far safer and more secure domestically from energy independence. >> he could have said locked and loaded actually means peanut butter and jelly. that's just -- you know, i think one thing we know about trump, he's risk averse in the sense of using military force. generally a good thing. but i think again, go to 30,000 feet, because the parallels to china where i've just come from and iran situation are similar. in both cases, they've created enormous leverage. but it's never clear to me that trump can actually close a deal with them, ultimately. because closing a deal requires compromising. and compromising means saying to your base, i'm not going to actually get everything. well, every time we've seen that happen in the past, i remember on the immigration wall, and some right-wing blogger like ann coulter comes down and says, you're abandoning the base, trump backs down. we've seen it on gun control, the same thing. what worries me now is we'll see the foreign policy equivalent. >> because there are certainly a lot of folks on the right that would not want u.s. involvement

in this? >> yeah, exactly. and by the way, one can say, he's created this leverage with iran. if he can get a better nuclear deal out of iran, i'm all for it, you know? but it will require compromise. it's not going to be a 100% our way. >> he's also, though, said in the past that he would be willing to meet without any precondition with iran. he said it twice. now he's saying he never said that. and in fact, steve mnuchin, pompeo, they all confirm that, yes, in fact, he would meet with them without preconditions. >> so i'll go back to the parallel with china. so when the president goes back and forth, back and forth, back and forth so many times, the counterparty basically says, can i possibly even do a deal with him? will it even stick? and i think this is hobbling us on china and that will hobble us on iran. because there are internal debates in these countries, too. can we trust him? what's his ulterior motive? and when the president is so back and forth all the time, it makes it very difficult to conclude a deal? >> and we think of this from the u.s. perspective of the

president and what americans think of him. the world also has been watching what he's doing and learning from it. it's no secret that he enjoys flattery. it's no secret that he thinks he can make a deal one on one. and that's -- that can be an advantage, if you trust him, and it's not if you don't. >> and if you think he's all over the place all the time, you really do that i do a deal with him and his politics require squelch part or all of that deal. he can go the other way. i always remember, anderson, what general mattis said. the enemy gets a vote. and the enemy, in the case of china and iran, these are people not without resources. >> it's also interesting, just the technology of this attack. if it was -- and again, it's not clear yet, was it just drones, was it actually cruise missiles. but if drones were involved and actually dropping, you know, large-scale armaments, which the houthi -- the rebels in yemen actually do have that

technology, they're kind of out in front on drone stuff, that's a whole other kind of new way of fighting that is a huge threat. we don't really know how to stop drones. >> we're now in this age where we have super powers versus super empowered, small groups and individuals. it's an asmemitic warfare in th future. >> and we don't know exactly if it was drones or cruise missiles, but that you would need an air force for. but you don't need an air force now if you have the capabilities of flying a drone for hundreds of miles. >> you don't need a state. and i'll make a wild guess, anderson. all in, all the cruise missiles and all of the drones in this attack, $2 million, maybe. okay? the damage they did, it starts with a "b." billions of dollars. >> if it turns out iran provided the technology or provided the launch sites or oversaw the launches of this -- -- the

launch of the attack, do you think it's inevitable that the u.s. would strike at iran? >> don't know, you know, they could also strike at iranian forces in syria, in iraq. they may send to choose a message indirectly. but this is a serious situation. i mean, saudi arabia also is going to be incredibly vulnerable here. its infrastructure has been at its very core attacked. so, not really sure. i mean, the iranians, these guys play for keeps. and i think what's going on inside iran, i'm guessing here, i don't know, is that, you know, you've always got the revolutionary guards and you've got the regime, the so-called moderates versus the revolutionary guards. i have a feeling what's going on here is the revolutionary guards, general suleimani saw rouhani and trump getting closer and closer to negotiations and i think he drew one of two conclusions. one, i want to stop this by doing this. or, two, i want to increase our leverage. if rouhani is going to negotiate

with the americans, then i want him to have real leverage by taking saudi oil off the market. >> tom freeman, thank you. >> a pleasure. thanks. still to come tonight, new effort to obtain the president's tax returns, this one by prosecutors in new york city. the question is, will it meet the same fate of similar attempts by congress. also, the sexual harassment allegations against brett kavanaugh back in the spotlight. and a new outrage coming from president trump and democrats for different reasons, ahead. unlimited summer, weu but we can give you unlimited talk, text and data for just $30 a line for 4 lines. and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall. all for just $30/line. and for a limited time, you can get free smartphones too! come to t-mobile now and get new 4 lines of unlimited and 4 free phones for just 30 bucks a line! ♪ with licensed agents availablep when 24-7,d it.

it's not just easy. it's having-jerome-bettis- on-your-flag-football-team easy. go get 'em, bus! ohhhh! [laughing] c'mon bus, c'mon! hey, wait, wait, wait! hey man, i got your flag! i got your flag, man! i got your flag! it's geico easy. with licensed agents available 24/7. 49 - nothing! woo! ♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90.

our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪ like very high triglycerides, can be tough. you diet. exercise. but if you're also taking fish oil supplements, you should know, they are not fda-approved, they may have saturated fat and may even raise bad cholesterol. to treat very high triglycerides, discover the science of prescription vascepa. proven in multiple clinical trials, vascepa, along with diet, is the only prescription epa treatment, approved by the fda to lower very high triglycerides by 33%, without raising bad cholesterol. look. it's clear. there's only one prescription epa vascepa. vascepa is not right for everyone. do not take vascepa if you are allergic to icosapent ethyl or any inactive ingredient in vascepa. tell your doctor if you are allergic to fish or shellfish, have liver problems or other medical conditions and about

any medications you take, especially those that may affect blood clotting. 2.3% of patients reported joint pain. ask your doctor about vascepa. prescription power. proven to work. should always be working harder.oney that's why your cash automatically goes into a money market fund when you open a new account. and fidelity's rate is higher than e*trade's, td ameritrade's, even 9 times more than schwab's. plus only fidelity has zero account fees and zero minimums for retail brokerage and retirement accounts. just another reminder of the value you'll only find at fidelity. open an account today.

but family can only tell you sot much... about your history. i found some incredible records about samuel silberman... passenger manifests, census information, even wwi draft registration cards. the records exist... they're there, they're facts. that made it so real for me, it wasn't just a story anymore. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com the d.a.'s office here in new york has subpoenaed eight years of president trump's tax returns from his longtime accounting firm. that accounting firm has said it will respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations, but not clear what the deadline is for compliance. a lawyer for the trump organization said we are evaluating and will respond as appropriate. a source tells cnn the prosecutors are reviewing whether the trump organization filed false business records during its attempts to reimburse michael cohen for the hush money payments he made to stormy

daniels. joining me with their takes, investigative reporter and the author of "the making of donald trump," david cay johnston and cnn chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, jeffrey toobin. is this different? >> well, it might. judges pay a lot of attention to grand jury subpoenas. that is considered the government's highest investigatory efrfort. the other effort to get the president's tax returns comes from congress. the house ways and means committee has a right to these attacks retur tax returns, as well. i think that's a winning argument, as well. this process can take a long time. there can be appeals. i think the grand jury in new york and the committee in washington are going to get them. in both circumstances, it doesn't mean that they will ultimately be public. they will just be for the use f

ofof cy vance -- if they file charges, it will be evidence in the case. it can't throw it open to the public, because the public is interested. >> david, how significant is it that the d.a. slois looking int this? in the past, they have declined to investigate president trump and his family. >> indeed, cy vance has been shut down what's a very promising investigation of donald's two oldest children, ivanka and donald jr., so it is a good sign that he's serious about this case. i wonder where's the state attorney general in this case, because she ran for office saying she was going to be very aggressive about trump and the tax returns. and the fact that she's going back to 2010 or '11, depending on how the subpoenas are worded, indicates this is a much broader scope than just hush money payments that were made to women. >> if the president's accounting firm is saying that they will comply with any legal thing that they're supposed to, does that

mean that the trump organization -- do they have any power over the accounting firm to stop them? >> that's what's going to have to be determined by a court. the accounting firm, understandably, is being cautious here. they're not going to turn over the records until donald trump and his attorneys have the opportunity to go to court, but the same issue has come up in washington, when congress is trying to get the tax returns from the accountants, as well as from the internal revenue service, the accounting firm is saying, look, we are going to abide by a court decision, but you have to tell us what to do. we're not -- you, the judge, not simply rely on the subpoena. >> and david, what do you make of the fact that the d.a. is asking for the past eight years of returns, going back to 2011. why do you think that date? >> well, there have been a lot of questions throughout donald's career about whether he was laundering money for people. i and other people have taken apart some business transactions he did that make no sense from a

normal business perspective, but will make a lot of sense if you were helping someone illicitly move money around. 2012, '11 and '12 is when donald was trying with a group of oligarchs to do a failed trump tower deal on the caspian sea. and subsequently, the kazak government was looted of more than $10 billion, and the question has always been was some of that money funneled in one way or another through the trump organization? the tax returns may or may not tell you something about that. tax returns are the beginning point for investigating where things are. they're not the end point. >> i don't want to get too far ahead, but you know, it's worth pointing out that, you know, the famous department of justice policy that says a sitting president cannot be indicted, and that's, of course, you know, the very big figures prominently in the mueller report, that does not apply to a district attorney

in new york, who is governed by state law and there's no such policy. there's no crime that i am aware of that the president committed that cy vance's office is investigating, but that policy, at least, is not a bar for vance to do anything. >> jeff toobin, thank you very much. david cay johnston, appreciate it. thanks very much. a lot more ahead tonight, up ahead, the high-stakes drama involving supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. donald trump assailing new allegations about kavanaugh's time as an undergraduate and "the new york times" for their failure to mention something that we'll tell you about, ahead. creating the future. so, every day, we put our latest technology and unrivaled network to work. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. (classical music playing throughout)

this fall, book two, separate qualifying stays at choicehotels.com... ...and earn a free night.

because when your business is rewarding yourself, our business is you. book direct at choicehotels.com ♪ (music plays throughout)♪ ♪ ever since you brought me home, that day. i've been plotting to destroy you. sizing you up... calculating your every move. you think this is love? this is a billion years of tiger dna just ready to pounce. and if you have the wrong home insurance coverage, you could be coughing up the cash for this. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me-ow.

so gethere, hello! startstter protwith -hi!mple...m, how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone.

let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

new book is raising another sexual harassment allegation against supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. the book is by two reporters from "the new york times." now, "the times" first published the allegations that are contained in the book, but they failed to note that the woman at the center of the latest assertions declined to be interviewed for the book and told friends that she could not remember the alleged incident. "the times" added that part of the story a full day later. president trump has seized on that, attacking the story and the credibility of the "new york times." many of the democratic presidential candidates have chimed in as well for different reasons. several calling for kavanaugh's impeachment. we'll get to the politics of all of it first. but first, the backstory from "360's" randi kaye, and we should note that some of randi's reporting may be uncomfortable to hear. >> i am deeply honored to be nominated to fill his seat on the supreme court. >> reporter: on the job for less than a year and supreme court justice brett kavanaugh is having to answer again for alleged sexual misconduct dating

back to his college days at yale university. the previously unreported allegation is contained in a new book by two "new york times" reporters. in the book, the author said former yale student, max steyer, relayed his re-elections to senators during the confirmation process and later made clear his willing tonnness to share them the fbi, but refused to speak about them publicly. and yesterday, "the times" published an editor's note to its original adapted essay from the book, saying the woman declined to be interviewed and her friends told the authors she does not recall the incident. cnn is not reporting any details related to the allegation, because it has not been independently verified. steyer has declined to speak with us. the two "new york times" reporters who wrote the book said they corroborated a prior sexual assault claim from a woman named debora ramirez. the book's author says at least seven people told them they heard about the alleged yale

incident before kavanaugh became a federal judge, including the woman's mother and two classmates. in that case, which had first been made public around the same time as kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, ramirez claims that she and kavanaugh were both freshman at yale in the early '80s when kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dorm room party. she told "the new yorker" she remembers kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. ramirez admitted she was inebriated and there are gaps in her memory, but she said kavanaugh standing to her right, laughing, pulling up his pants. at the time, kavanaugh called ate smear and denied it ever happened. still, it's kavanaugh's laughter that his original accuser remembers, too. >> laughter. the uproarous laughter and the multiple attempts to escape and

the ultimate ability to do so. >> reporter: christine blasey ford reported last year that when she was at yale, kavanaugh and a friend locked her in a bedroom while they were at a party. she said kavanaugh held her down on a bed. >> he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. i believed he was going to rape me. it was hard for me to breathe, and i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. >> reporter: christine blasey ford says she was 100% sure it was kavanaugh who attacked her decades ago, though kavanaugh deniy ies it all. blasey ford said she detailed the incident in 2012 in couples therapy with her husband, who has said he remembers her voicing kavanaugh's name and about kavanaugh already a federal judge going on to the supreme court. >> we reported president trump has been blistering in his attacks against the authors, who also reported for "the new york times" and against "the new york times" for their failure to

point out that the woman, according to her friends, does not remember the alleged incident, especially in the wake of that editor's note that randi referenced, which, again said that the woman did not decline to be interviewed and told friends she doesn't have any memory of what took place. the president certainly is not mincing any words in this tweet. quote, i call for the resignation of everybody at "the new york times" involved in the kavanaugh smear story. and while you're at it, the russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony. they've taken the old gray lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue, and ruined her reputation. perspective now from "usa today" columnist and cnn political analyst, kirsten powers and rich lowry. kirsten, is there any explanation -- i mean, it just -- does it seem incomprehensible to you that "the new york times" would have dropped the ball like this? >> i can't come up with a good explanation. i mean, people obviously make mistakes. this is a pretty big one. and i think that -- i don't think the fact that she doesn't remember it means that it didn't happen, because she may have

been, you know, so inebriated that she doesn't remember it, but it is something that you do need to include in the story. i think to have the full story, to make it clear that at least the person who it allegedly happened to doesn't remember it and i can't come up with any good reason of why they would -- why they would keep that out. >> yeah, rich, you're an editor of the "national review". it seems hard to imagine a mistake like this being made on such a big story. >> yeah, i would think the editors, if it was someone they didn't like or someone they like more than kavanaugh, there would be some more due diligence, but this is really on the authors. they knew this key fact that the alleged victim has no recollection of it. and they should have alerted the editors and alerted their readers. >> because it is -- it is in their book -- >> it's in the book, right. >> it's not in "the new york times". >> yeah. >> the fact, kirsten, it's understandable, this gives the president a very legitimate reason to go after this story, given this failure.

>> well, i mean, i don't know. i think that it's -- you have to believe, which i assume rich, you know, based on what he just said, believes that this was gender driven, that they did this intentionally. i don't really think that that's what happened. i think that this was a mistake. and i don't -- it was in the book, so it's not like it didn't exist. i think that this was a mistake that was made and that what donald trump and conservatives do is they latch on to, you know, any mistake that ever happens in the media, to prove this agenda, to prove that people are acting in bad faith, when, you know, 99% of journalists are not acting in bad faith. and i think that if, you know, yes, it happens sometimes, but for the most part, when people make mistakes, it's a mistake. and people take responsibility for it. that's the thing. there's never any responsibility from donald trump. and so i think that it's one of those things that could the media ever be so perfect that conservatives and donald trump won't accuse them of an agenda? no, it's not possible.

>> again, maybe it's just inattention on part of the editors and didn't have anything to do about their feelings about kavanaugh, but the authors knew this key fact that any journalist, anyone in a first-year journalism program would know, that is the key fact to know about the story. and they didn't include it. and i think that's completely indefensible and speaks to an agenda-driven piece and book. >> you mean the authors of the book? >> yeah. >> but it's in their book. >> they wrote the piece. they wrote the piece. they didn't include this key fact from the book. and -- >> but, rich -- >> there are other things in the book that are not highlighted. they easily could have done a story about how the main witness that blasey ford says would support her account and is a friend of hers and came under pressure from blasey ford's friends to support her account says she has no recollection of any such party that blasey ford allegation happening. and she has no confidence in blasey ford's story. why isn't that a big story?

why isn't that something in "the new york times". >> this is a woman who by the way also has a framed picture, i think, of your magazine, a story that you wrote? >> that's not such a bad thing, is it? >> i think it's a little bit of a tell, if you have a framed picture of the "national review" -- >> so you think she's lying because -- >> no, i'm saying i think that there's -- you're making it out that this person is sort of the beginning and the end, if they say something we're just supposed to completely take it at face value. if somebody has a framed picture of the "national review" saying that they saved brett kavanaugh, it suggests that they have maybe an agenda, right? i mean, you're the one who's talking about an agenda. i mean, that sounds like somebody who seems kind of invested in one side. >> she has a long-term -- long-time friend of blasey ford. she's one of the few people supposedly at this party. and she says she has no recollection. and the fact is all of these three incidents, there are no significant corroborating witnesses. and supposedly the seven people who are corroborating debora

ramirez, a number of them had no recollection of hearing about kavanaugh. they heard about some event, but didn't hear about kavanaugh. so i think he's been smeared, the standards of fairness have been turned on their head. it wouldn't have been applied to anyone else except brett kavanaugh. and it's people i's rights to oppose him, but they hate him because they think he's going to overturn roe. >> i just disagree with you. that's not what happened. look, there are people that the fbi should have spoken to and, you know, seven people that say that they were aware of this. they should -- the fbi should have spoken to them. and the reason the fbi didn't speak to them is because the republicans put, you know, put basically rules around what the investigation could cover and so they didn't. so i think if we were going to have a -- having a real investigation into these allegations isn't a smear. >> you think if there was a more thorough fbi investigation, without the time constraints and the limitations that were on it, that all of this would have come out? >> i think that we would know --

we would have a better sense of what was true. and what i always said, i never said brett kavanaugh definitely did this. what i said was that these are serious allegations and we should have a serious investigation for his sake and for everybody else's sake, so we can know it's a real investigation, not a sham investigation. and instead, we had a sham investigation. and we now -- and we now have more information. we already knew it was a sham investigation. now we have more information that there were more people that they could have talked to. >> these seven people, the ramirez witnesses are not witnesses. they're people for second or thirdhand stories. again, you look at the book, a bunch of them don't even mention brett kavanaugh. and the latest allegation, what is there to investigate if the alleged victim is not accusing him of the crime? you have democrats out there saying he should be impeached and are assuming his guilt of an offense with the victim is not accusing him of. that is bizarre! that's a brave new world. and again, it's a standard that

wouldn't be accepted for anyone else, except for brett kavanaugh. >> that's not true. there are a lot of democrats who don't want to impeach him. i mean, dick durbin has come out and said that. there are a couple of people who have said that. >> they're major presidential candidates. >> fine, but it's not the position of every single person who thinks that this should have been investigated. and so i think that, you know, this is a serious issue. i think that if it had been anybody, i would be saying the same thing. i think that we should have real investigations and get real facts zpfact s. >> all right, let's leave it there. kristen power. one note, the piece says that christine blasey ford assaulted her when they were at yale. that's not right, she alleges that the assault happened while she was in high school. coming up, i'll talk to adam schiff about the subpoena he's issued surrounding a whistleblower complaint around one of the most secret agencies. like new sriracha-honey shrimp, savory grilled teriyaki shrimp, classic shrimp scampi and more! red lobster's endless shrimp is $15.99. hurry in.

be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.

my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option. turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. every curve, every innovation, every feeling. a product of mastery. lease the 2019 es 350 for $379 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

the office of the director of national intelligence has until tomorrow to respond to a subpoena issued by the house intelligence committee. it's all shrouded in mystery having to do with a whistleblower complaint that the house intelligence committee adam schiff calls of, quote, urgent concern. the committee plans to call the acting director of national intelligence, josef mcguire for a hearing later this week. i spoke to the congressman just before air time. so in both letters that you sent to the dni, you said that the whistleblower complaint involved a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order. do you know what the alleged

violation is? >> we have not been presented with a complaint, so we don't know precisely what it has to say, but we do know the inspector general did a preliminary investigation, found that those conditions were met, those are the conditions required by the statute that it be an urgent concern that it go to a flagrant or serious abuse. and the whistleblower -- the inspector general found that needs to be provided to congress. the process allows him to provide it first to the director of national intelligence and then the dni has seven days to give it to us. there's no discretion. it says, they shall give it to us. they can add their comments to it. they can say, we didn't find it credible or urgent or whatever, but there's no discretion to withhold it. but we would later find out from the inspector general that they had never presented this to us. >> how long did this happen, do you know? >> i think three or four weeks ago, the complaint was filed. the inspector general then had two weeks to do the investigation, which he did. he found it credible, probably because he was able to

corroborate at least some portion of it. and then it was given to the dni. and you know, we sat down and confronted over the phone the dni on this and frankly, the conversation was not very encouraging. i asked the director, does this involve something that our committee is investigating? and initially, the answer was "no." and then his legal counsel had to correct him and say, actually, we can't say that. >> so do you know if it does involve something that your committee is investigating? >> well, that was, i think, the strong implication of our conversation. it's also the case that the dni acknowledged that this involves someone, apparently outside of the authority of the dni, someone above the dni. there aren't that many in that category. and they also suggested that there may be privilege issues here, which means that it would have to involve communications of the president or people around him. so this is, i think, just

another of a series of efforts to cover up misconduct, conceal it from the congress, conceal it from the american people. >> but you don't -- just to be clear, you don't know who this alleged whistleblower is or what they are alleging? >> i don't know the identity of the whistleblower. >> and they haven't contacted you or their legal representation hasn't contacted you? >> i don't want to get into any particulars. i want to make sure that there's nothing that i do that jeopardizes the whistleblower in any way. but here's the other thing. the director of national intelligence is supposed to not only forward the complaint to us, they're supposed to instruct the whistleblower how they can communicate with congress. they're unwilling to do that. they don't want the whistleblower talking to congress. they don't want us to know the substance of this complaint. >> and they've put out a statement, the office of dni put out a statement today saying, we are currently reviewing the request and will respond

appropriately. >> they haven't done so here. if they had and followed the law, they would have provided the materials to our committee. they brought in outsiders to this process. now, whether they were imposed on the dni or the dni sought a justification to withhold this from congress, we don't know. >> i want to ask you about something -- that congressman eric swalwell, your colleague on the committee today tweeted. he wrote, quote, that's cute. you think we're done with the mueller report, stay tuned. the intelligence community not done with the mueller report? >> we are still investigating some of the issues raised in the mueller report. for example, in bringing michael cohen before our committee, he lied about the moscow trump tower project that president trump was pursuing, even as he was saying he had no business dealings with russia. we're trying to determine were others involved in the creation of that lie. >> just lastly, president trump suggested today that instead of continuing to investigate him, the house judiciary committee should instead spend its time

investigating -- looking into president obama and the president tweeted, quote, i have a better idea -- i have a better idea, look at the obama book deal or the ridiculous netflix deal. do you have any idea what he's talking about? >> no. it's just gibberish. it's "don't investigate me, there's no conflict of interest here. never mind that i'm enriching myself through my properties and, you know, that military jets are going to airports that don't make sense or staying at my resorts that don't make sense, look at obama." this is just a variation, frankly -- >> and a book deal and a netflix deal -- it's not even something that happened during his presidency. >> exactly, exactly. i'm surprised he didn't throw hillary clinton in there. that's a famous talking point for him, you should be investigating hillary, hillary is really the one who colluded, obama colluded, everyone colluded but me. this is kind of fifth grade logic. >> congressman schiff, i appreciate it. >> thank you. up next, why "saturday night live" has fired one of its newest hires. we'll be right back. we can't give you unlimited summer, but we can give you unlimited talk, text and data for just $30 a line for 4 lines.

and that comes on our newest signal. no signal reaches farther or is more reliable. so you can... share more sunsets. stream more videos. and stay connected with friends while you slide into fall. all for just $30/line. and for a limited time, you can get free smartphones too! come to t-mobile now and get new 4 lines of unlimited and 4 free phones for just 30 bucks a line! ♪ outdated. the paperwork... the calling for everything. the searching for id cards... it's like you're stuck in the 90s. that's why esurance makes it simple with an app that has everything you need because that's how we live nowadays. rad. your id card is on a bodacious tiny future tv. wow! you're really committed to this whole 90's thing, aren't ya?

no, i'm just saying what's in the script. that's true. everything we're saying's in the script. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless. i'm craving something we're! missing. the ceramides in cerave. they help restore my natural barrier, so i can lock in moisture. we've got to have each other's backs... cerave. now the #1 dermatologist recommended skincare brand. the business of hard work... ...hustle... ...and high fives.

modernized comfort inn's and suites have been refreshed because our business is you. get the lowest price guaranteed on all choice hotels when you book direct at choicehotels.com.

"saturday night live" has fired one. its newest hires, shane gillis, after his defamatory comments about chinese americans and gays in a podcast. he wrote "i'm a comedian who was funny enough to get on snl, that can't be taken away but i understand it could be too much of distraction. let's check in with chris cuomo. >> i'm going to debate with d. lemon. we have a conservative here to what the president's best defense is for not turning over his taxes and his best defense for why he keeps attacking president obama the way he does. >> the netflix deal and book deal. >> as if he's averse to people

making money. he hasn't stopped since he got elected. and elizabeth warren just took a huge endorsement from working families. andrew yang says he thinks he should have gotten a second chance to keep his job because he said we've become unduly cruel and vindictive and fthe aggrieved class, because he's asian, does have the power to forgive. >> what do you think? >> i think andrew yang can say that because he was of the class of people being offensive. and ta start for d. lemon, what is your line that you don't allow comedy to play with? we have a long history of that.

we've tested it over time. what is our line? >> i look forward to that. we'll see new about five minutes from now. >> we'll is an update on a father trying to save his daughter in a moment. the united states postal service makes more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country. e-commerce deliveries to homes the amount of student loan debt i have i'm embarrassed to even say i felt like i was going to spend my whole adult life paying this off thanks to sofi, i can see the light at the end of the tunnel as of 12pm today, i am debt free ♪ not owing anyone anything is the best feeling in the world, i cannot stop smiling about it ♪

performance comes in lots of flavors. ♪ (dramatic orchestra) there's the amped-up, over-tuned, feeding-frenzy-of sheet-metal-kind. and then there's performance that just leaves you feeling better as a result. that's the kind lincoln's about. ♪ colon cancer screening for people 50 and older at average risk. i took your advice and asked my doctor to order cologuard, that noninvasive colon cancer screening test. the delivery guy just dropped it off. our doctor says it uses advanced science. it's actually stool dna technology that finds 92 percent of colon cancers.

no prep, and private. colon cancer screening that's as easy as get, go, gone. ask your doctor if cologuard is right for you. covered by medicare and most major insurers. and i...was... take shocked.test. right away, called my mom, called my sisters. i'm from cameroon, congo, and...the bantu people. i had ivory coast, and ghana...togo. i was grateful... i just felt more connected...to who i am. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com.

>> on friday night we told you about the help a little girl needs. she's 3 years old. she needs a liver donor. she has stage four cancer. the family is looking for somebody 0 positive or 0 negative. the doctors have gotten a number of strong candidates and they've begun testing hoping for an exact match. again, the criteria, 18 to 55 years old, in good health, and either 0 positive or 0 negative. the family is hoping for surgery for nusaya.

they also know thanks to social media they have the funds to travel or to take the time off if you want it. one more note, there were more than 113,000 people in america on transplant lists as of january of this year according to government statistics. so waj wants to encourage everyone to be a donor, it could save a life. >> i'm a donor and my wife is a donor for exactly this reason. welcome to "primetime." a new battle over president trump's taxes. what is his best argument to keep resisting transparency. and we'll find out what is behind this president's obsession with our last

president. does he think attacking obama