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? it 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 iranian 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. >> no, i think the president's 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 take a meeting with no pre-conditions. >> 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. 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 sanction 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?

>> reporter: 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 in 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? >> reporter: 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. >> boris sanchez, appreciate it. the sauds have also responded in a statement saying that the kingdom affirms it has the capability and resolve to defend its land and people and to forcefully respond to these aggressions. the question is can they do that on their own? for analysis, thomas friedman joins me. he's a "new york times" author. >> how fragile did you think this situation is? >> i think it's extremely fragile, anderson, in the sense that you feel there's got to be retaliation. >> by the u.s. or by saudi arabia? >> by the u.s. or saudi arabia. it would almost certainly be both because 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 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. >> right. >> 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. i think we should step back, anderson, and see it from 30,000 feet for a second. the trump administration has chosen to take on simultaneously two of the oldest civilizations on the planet -- china and persia at the same time. and one can say for some very legitimate reasons. vis-á-vis china, they've created enormous leverage through tariffs. vis-á-vis iran, they've created enormous leverage through sanctions. what you've seen in china is pushing back with tariffs of their own to create counter leverage. what may be going on is the iranians pushing back to create counter leverage on their part. to say to the trump administration, you want to take supplies off the world market? how about if we take off saudi arabia's?

then our supply becomes much more in demand and that gives us leverage. >> it shows the danger of the administration, which repeatedly has a problem with the truth. >> you know, i've always said -- we probably talked about this once -- 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. 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 kerm that, quote, talks about the realities that we're all safer domestically from energy independence. >> he could have said locked and loaded actually means peanut butter and jelly. i mean, you know, 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 between china and this iran situation are similar. in both cases they've created enormous leverage, but it's never clear to me trump can actually close, 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, remember on the immigration wall and then 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. what worries me is we're going to see the foreign policy equivalent. >> there's certainly a lot of folks on the right who would not want u.s. involvement in this. >> exactly. 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 100% our way. >> he's also, though, said in the past that he would be

willing to meet without any pre-condition with iran. he said it twice. now he's saying he never said that and, in fact, steve mnuchin, pompeo, they all confirmed that, yes, in fact he would meet with them without pre-conditions. >> so i'm going to 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 counter party basically says, can i possibly even do a deal with him? will it even stick? i think this is hobbling us on china, and now it will hobble us on iran. because there's internal debates in these countries too. hey, should we go with him? should we not? what's his ulterior motive? when the president is so back and forth all the time, it makes it very difficult to conclude a deal. >> we always think of this just from the u.s. perspective of the president and what americans think of him. the world also is watching what he's been doing and learning from it, and his moves are quite obvious. i mean it's no secret that he enjoys flattery. it's no secret that will get you somewhere with him. it's no secret that he thinks he can make a deal one-on-one, and

i mean that can be 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 worry that i do a deal with him, and then his politicians requires skel muching all or part of that deal, he can go the other way. remember 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. i mean, 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 rebels in yemen actually do have that technology, they're kind of out in front on drone stuff, that's a whole kind of other 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 superpowers versus super

empowered small groups and individuals. it's very much a symbol of kind of asymmetric warfare we're going to in the future. >> we don't know exactly whether it was drones and cruise missiles, but 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. >> i'm going to make a wild guess, anderson. all in, all the cruise missiles and all 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, 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 choose to send a message indirectly. but this is a serious situation.

i mean saudi arabia also is exposed to being incredibly vulnerable here. its oil infrastructure has been at its very core attacked. 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'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 that the revolutionary guards 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. >> thank you. >> pleasure. thanks. still to come tonight, new efforts to obtain the president's tax returns, this ones by prosecutors in new york city. the question is will it meet the same fate of similar attempts by

congress, or would this one actually work? also the sexual misconduct allegations against supreme justice brett kavanaugh back in the spotlight. fact is, every insurance company hopes you drive safely. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

run with us... on a john deere 1 series tractor. because changing your attachments... whether it's for this job... this job... or even this job... should be as easy as... ♪ what about this? changing your plans. nothing runs like a deere™. yeah. run with us. search "john deere 1 series" for more. get your 1 series for just $99 dollars a month at your john deere dealer. 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. 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! ♪

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. e-commerce deliveries to homes ♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪

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 would respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations, but it's 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. jeffrey, i mean is this state

investigation different than -- does this -- is this going to lead anywhere? >> well, it might because judges spend a -- pay a lot of attention to grand jury subpoenas. i mean that is considered sort of the government's highest investigatory effort. the other effort to get the president's tax returns comes from congress. the house ways and means committee has a right to these tax returns as well. i think that's a winning argument as well. you know, this process can take a long time. there can be appeals. but i do think both of these committees are -- both the grand jury in new york and the committee in washington are going to get them. now, in both circumstances, it doesn't mean that they will ultimately be public. they will just be for the use of cy vance, the manhattan district attorney's office. >> they can't make it public? >> if they file charges based on them, it will be evidence in the case, but they certainly can't just throw it open to the public because the public is interested. >> david, how significant is it that the d.a. is looking into

this because in the past they have declined to investigate president trump and his family? >> indeed, cy vance shut down what's a very promising investigation against donald's two oldest children, ivanka and donald junior. 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 two 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? >> well, 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 servi service. the accounting firm is saying, look, we're 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. >> david, what do you make of the fact that the d.a. is asking for the past eight years of returns, i think, as you said, 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 would make a lot of sense if you were helping someone illicitly move money around.

2012, 2011 and '12 was when donald was trying with a group of oligarchs to do a failed trump tower deal on the caspian sea and subsequently the kazakh government was looted of about $10 billion. and one of the questions was some of that money funneled 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 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, 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. >> right. >> 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. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. a lot more ahead tonight. up next, the high-stakes drama surrounding supreme court justice brett kavanaugh, back in the headlines. president trump assailing new allegations about kavanaugh's time as an undergraduate at yale and "the new york times" for their failure to mention something that we'll tell you about ahead. do you have concerns about mild memory loss related to aging?

prevagen is the number one pharmacist-recommended memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. to bring all of these stories thatity i've heard to life. i wanted to keep digging, keep learning... this journey has just begun. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com was in an accident. when i called usaa, it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family and we plan to be with usaa for life. see how much you can save with usaa insurance.

i'm craving something we're! missing. see how much you can save 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.

hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can know who's on your network and control who shouldn't be, only with xfinity xfi. simple. easy. awesome.

a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! a 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 back story from 360's randi kaye. 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 recollections to senators during the confirmation process and later made clear his willingness to share them with the fbi. but he refused to speak about them publicly. then 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 said she remembers kavanaugh standing to her right, laughing, pulling up his pants. at the time kavanaugh called it a smear and denied it ever happened. still, it's kavanaugh's laughter that his original accuser remembers, too. >> laughter. the uproarious laughter and the multiple attempts to escape and the final ability to do so. >> reporter: christine blasey ford testified last year that when she was in high school, 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 denies it all. blasey ford said she detailed the incident in 2012 in couples therapy with her husband, who has said he remembers her using kavanaugh's name and voicing concern about kavanaugh, already a federal judge, going on to the u.s. supreme court. randi kaye, cnn, miami. >> we reported president trump has been blistering in his attacks against the authors, who are also reporters 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 declined 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, while you're at it, the russian witch hunt hoax. they've taken the old gray lady and broken her down, destroyed her virtue and ruined her reputation. kirsten powers is here, also rich lowry. kirsten, is there any explanation -- i mean it just -- does it seem incomprehensible to you "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 keep that out. >> yeah, rich. you're 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 liked 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 in their book. >> it's in the book. >> it's not in "the new york time times". >> yeah. >> i mean 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, based on what he just said,

believes that they did this intentionally. i don't think that's what happened. i think this was a mistake. it was in the book, so it's not like it didn't exist. i think this was a mistake that was made, and what donald trump and conservatives do is they latch on to 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 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 the part of the editors and didn't have anything to do with 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. >> but you mean the authors of the book? >> yeah, yeah. >> but it's in the book. >> they wrote the piece. they wrote the piece. they didn't include this key fact from the book. and then -- >> 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 alleges 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. it's a story 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 "national review". >> so you think he's lying because -- >> no. you're making it out that this person is sort of the beginning and the end. if they say something, we're supposed to completely take it at face value. if somebody has a framed picture of "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. that sounds like somebody who seems kind of invested in one side. >> she's a longtime friend of blasey ford. she is one of the few people supposedly at this party, and she says she has no recollection. and the fact is all these three incidents, there are no significant corroborating witnesses. and supposedly the seven people who are corroborating deborah ramirez, a number of them had no recollection of hearing about kavanaugh. they heard about some event, but they didn't hear about kavanaugh. i think he's been smeared.

>> yeah. >> the standards of fairness have been turned on their head. it wouldn't have been applied to anyone else except for brett kavanaugh. look, it's people's rights to oppose them. but they -- >> that's not -- i just disagree with you. that's not what happened. there are people who have have been -- the fbi should have spoken to, and seven people that say they were aware of this, the fbi should have spoken to them. and the reason the fbi didn't speak to them is because the republicans put, you know, basically rules around what the investigation could cover, and so they didn't. so i think having a real investigation into these allegations isn't a smear. it just isn't. >> 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. what i always said, i never said brett kavanaugh definitely did this. what i said was these are serious allegations, and we

should have a serious investigation for his sake and for everybody else's sake, so that we can know it's a real investigation, not a sham investigation. and instead we had a sham investigation. >> look, this -- sorry. >> you know, we now have more information. we already knew it was a sham investigation. now we have more information that there were more people they could have talked to. >> these seven people, the ramirez witnesses are not witnesses. they're people for second or third-hand stories. again, you look at the book. a bunch of them don't even mention brett kavanaugh. 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 the victim is not accusing him of. that is bizarre. that's a brave new world and 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.

yes, there are a couple of people who have said that. >> major presidential candidates. >> fine, but it's not the position of every single person who thinks this should have been investigated. so i think this is a serious issue. i think if it had been anybody, i would be saying the same thing. i think we should have real investigations and get real facts. >> appreciate it. coming up, i'll talk with the house intelligence committee chairman adam schiff about a subpoena he's issued centering on a whistle-blower complaint against one of the nation's most secret agencies. xperience for a. that's why the nfl chose verizon. because they need the massive capacity of 5g with ultra wideband, so more screaming, streaming, posting fans... can experience 5g all at once. this is happening in 13 stadiums all across the country. now if verizon 5g can do this for the nfl... imagine what it can do for you.

walking a dog can add thousands walking this many?day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move.

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.

in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change their tune, causing uncontrollable tremors. now, abbott technology can target those exact neurons.

restoring control and harmony, once thought to belost forever. the most personal technology is technology with the power to change your life. 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 chairman adam schiff calls a, 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 inspector general found that needs to be provided to congress. >> mm-hmm. >> 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 ago 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 the authority of the dni, someone above the dni. there aren't that many in that category. >> mm-hmm. >> and they also suggested that there may be privilege issues here, which means 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 whistle-blower is or what they are alleging? >> i don't know the identity of the whistle-blower. >> they haven't contacted you or their legal representation ha t 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 whistle-blower how they can communicate with congress. they're unwilling to do that. they don't want the whistle bloeler blower 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 intelligence committee tweeted, today responding to the president's attack on the mueller report. 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 any 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. everybody colludes except me. this is sort 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.

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 ♪ ♪ here i go again on my own ♪ goin' down the only road i've ever known ♪ ♪ like a drifter i was-- ♪ born to walk alone! ...barb! you left me hangin' on the high harmony there. if you ride, you get it. geico motorcycle. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more.

♪ ♪ award winning interface. ♪ ♪ award winning design. ♪ ♪ award winning engine. ♪ ♪ the volvo xc90. our most awarded luxury suv. ♪ ♪

"saturday night live" has fired one of it's newest hires, shane gillis, after his defamatory comments about chinese americans and gays during 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. i respect the decision may made. let's check in with chris cuomo. >> i'm going to debate with d. lemon. we have a leader of the conservative movement here to take on what this president, his best defense is to not turning over his taxes and his best defense for why he keeps attacking president obama the way he does. >> the netflix deal and the book and all. >> as if he's averse to people making money. he hasn't stopped since he got elected.

so we're going to talk about that. we're going to talk about how big a deal is that warren just took a huge endorsement for the working families party who backed bernie sanders before. but on the gillis thing, i was just looking at what andrew yang said. andrew yang said he thinks he should have gotten a second chance to keep his job because he said we've been unduly punitive and vindictive. he wanted to show as the agrieved 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 by argument to d. lemon without giving him too much of a head start is what is your line? what is your line that you don't allow comedy to play with? and we have a long history with that in this country. we've tested it at different times.

what is our line? >> interesting. all right. i look forward to that. chris, we'll see you in about five minutes from now 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! ♪ 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. the ncome on.y glc. [ cars honking ] it's so late. yay. it fights traffic. no parking. -i told you. oh, a spot! hold on. it fights tension. seriously, did you take my phone? passenger light on. it even fights...fighting. innovation that keeps people together. the 2020 glc. lease the glc 300 suv for just $479 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer.

thand find inspiration who win new places.ct... leading them to discover: we're woven together by the moments we share. everything you need, all in one place. expedia. so bob, what do you take for back pain? before i take anything, i apply topical pain relievers first. salonpas lidocaine patch blocks pain receptors for effective, non-addictive relief. salonpas lidocaine. patch, roll-on or cream. hisamitsu. 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. e-commerce deliveries to homes the doctor's office might mejust for a shot.o but why go back there when you can stay home with neulasta® onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta® reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%

a 94% decrease. neulasta® onpro is designed to deliver neulasta® the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta® is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta® if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. if you'd rather be home ask your doctor about neulasta® onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card. 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. >> on friday night we told you about the help a little girl needs. she's 3 years old. she needs a liver donor. her father is a cnn con ttribut. 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. they're hopeful and certainly so are we, but we want to bring attention to it again. again, the criteria, 18 to 55 years old, in good health, and either o. positive or o. negative. the family is hoping for surgery

for nusaya. they also know thanks to social media they have the funds to pay for the donor's travel or to take the time off work. 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 register as a donor because clearly it could save a life. i want to hand over to chris for cuomo prime time. >> i'm a donor, and my wife is a doe for exactly this reason. welcome to "primetime." a new battle over president trump's taxes. what is his best argument to keep resisting transparency? we're going to test with one of the leading players in the conservative movement. we're also going to try to figure out what is behind this president's