it's a little bit right now, but not a whole lot. >> sandra: expect an update shortly. thank you so much for joining us in "america's newsroom" on a thursday morning. doing all right? see you tomorrow morning. "outnumbered" starts now. >> harris: we are focused on this situation that is happening in aberdeen, maryland. there was a shooting earlier this morning and it's being reported shortly after 9:00 a.m. you're looking at those microphones because we are expecting a news conference at any moment now. to give us more details about what happened, and what is currently going on. the ap is reporting that three people were shot. we know it was at a rite aid dissertation center. we don't have many details beyond that, which is why we are focused on this microphone and this press conference coming up to give us more information. >> melissa: let me tell everybody why they see the signs of residential area there. you see some school buses. this is the city of perryman, 3.

in the area, homes, churches, a cemetery in the area, railroad tracks, and d.c. school buses there, too. there may be a school nearby. from my notes, it would indicate that's the case. the situation, authorities want to know, want to let us know, it is secure at this facility. this is where products are received and processed for delivery. rite aid is referred, melissa said, as the company. it's part of a large facility that is a distribution center. the shooting happened, apparently, adjacent to the primary building on what we would call campus of this facility. we are watching this, obviously. as soon as they step up to the microphones, we will take you there live. three people are dead in this. multiple shooting in maryland. keep watching. >> melissa: fox news alert, the clock is ticking for the woman who is accusing supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago. to decide whether she is going to testify, at a senate panel

hearing. this is "outnumbered," i am melissa francis. here is harris faulkner. strategic communications for the campaign, adrienne elrod, and her first time on the couch, we have emily compagno. did i say that right? >> emily: close enough. let companion, exactly. >> melissa: all right! former federal attorney and defense attorney, tom dupree. former deputy assistant attorney general under president george w. bush, and he is outnumbered! [laughter] >> tom: excited to be here today. hopefully you can bring some insight and rational to increasing news make. >> melissa: that is a lofty goal. >> harris: breaking news to follow on top of it. it will be a busy hour. >> melissa: senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley setting a deadline of 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for kavanaugh's accuser, blasey ford, to decide

if she will testify. they plan to forge ahead with a hearing on monday. grassley also stepping up calls for ranking democrat dianne feinstein to turn over the accuser's letter, using harsh words to explain how disappointed he is in the way his colleague has handled this. in a letter to feinstein, grassley, writing "sexual assault allegations deserves serious attention, and those who make such allegations must be heard. they should not be deployed strategically for political gain. you received this letter approximately seven weeks ago. but the contents of the letter were leaked only last week, when it appeared the senate was about to confirm judge kavanaugh. in the meantime, the attorneys for kavanaugh's accuser says her client still needs time to do with us, adding that ford is getting stressed and is unable to go home. the attorney also sang "the committee's stated plan to move forward with the hearing that

has only two witnesses is not a fair or good faith investigation forward with a hearing that is only two witnesses. it's not fair, or in good faith. "there are multiple witnesses whose names have appeared it publicly. the rush to a hearing is unnecessary and contrary to the committee discovering the truth." democratic cylinder kristen gillibrand standing with the accuser and blasting senate rep. >> i don't think she should be bullied into this scenario, where it's a he said, she said. many members of the committee have already made up their minds. without the benefit of an fbi investigation where it's nonpartisan and objective, and without the benefit of corroborating witnesses being able to testify, it's a sham hearing. i don't think she should participate in it. >> harris: we will have to continue the conversation after the breaking news in maryland. a mass shooting at a rite aid processing center, distribution center prayed let's watch the

news conference. >> it's important that we deal in facts. there are families that are irreparably harmed from today's event. we don't want to make it come as you can make it worse, he certainly can. we don't want to be part of that. we want to release facts, so please allow us time to gather facts and share those with you. i'm going to give you as much information as we can right now. even though it is very preliminary and very limited. at about 9:06 this morning, a report came into the disk backed center from the rite aid dissertation center shots fired. deputies and officers, other first responders, they responded. we were on the scene just in over 5 minutes. arriving, the units quickly paired up together, got into the building, and rendered first aid where appropriate. in an attempt to locate the suspect or suspects. at this time, i can confirm

multiple wounded and multiple fatalities. based on what we know right now, and again, very preliminary, the lone suspect in this incident is in custody and is in critical condition at a local hospital. it appears to be a single weapon that was used, a handgun. there were no shots fired by any of the law enforcement officers responding to the scene. we do not believe that there is an additional threat anywhere to our harford county community. we set up a family reunification center working with our county partners, at the volunteer fire house this investigation is very early. i and our office will be happy to give you more information as it becomes available. again, i ask you to keep the victims of today 'strategy in your thoughts and prayers. also, we have to think our fellow first responders. we have responders year from the federal government who were seen within minutes. the fbi, the dea, the atf, state

police. natural resources. the local municipal departments, you name it, and we have seen in our community before. something like this happens, you can't have enough police and you can't have them fast enough. we were very fortunate that have but he worked so well together and responded so well together that we were on the scene unable to get as much aid in as quickly as possible. that's what we have for you at this time. we will put out a little bit later, we will have some additional details. i know you are anxious for them. we will be as timely as we can. we want to offer our thoughts this morning. >> reporter: can i get your name? >> sheriff's jeff gahler. >> reporter: i just got off the phone with the governor few moments ago, and i updated him w it.

he offered all of his resources available under state government. we certainly appreciate the maryland state police. all of the allied agencies that responded, i follow this probably from the moment the call came in on our dispatch. i listen to the radio transmissions. unfortunately, in today's world, we have active shooter drilling and drills. i can tell you, and tell our harford county citizens, that every agency performed at the top of their profession. the response from all of our allied agencies was great. our volunteer fire and ems system responded with medical units. i am thankful to all the agencies that came out to help us today. to get through this, which is becoming a 2-often occurrence, not only in harford county, but in the country. with that said, we really reach out to those families that are suffering right now, that have lost loved ones. also, our services as we begin

to get them reunified, not only with loved ones lost but with workers that have been displaced. i certainly think all of our courageous men and women that have helped us this morning. >> reporter: sheriff, are you suggesting that the suspect shot herself? >> were not going to give any additional information right now. again, this is very fluid. you know us, we will be sure to provide you the information as soon as we have it. follow our feet and i will absolutely let you know in the next media briefing. it will be today. hopefully we will be able to nail down some of those other details and give you a better picture of what unfolded. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> melissa: we are right there, for more details of the shooting, there were multiple wounded and multiple dead on the scene here in aberdeen, michigan at this rite aid description center. they did say that the shooter is in custody, in critical

condition. the person did use a handgun, but they see no additional threats, that fire and ems were on the scene and went inside within minutes of the shooting. and the dea, state police, fbi, atf, and others are helping in the investigation that is going on now. and to help the people who were hurt on the scene. we will bring you more news as we get it. i want to bring it back to the couch where we were before this, when they were talking about what's going on in washington. the circus that has sort of erupted around this supreme court nominee. i'm going to go to you first. one question i have is -- she's obviously reluctant to come forward, and doesn't want to be out there. we have heard this from democrats who got the letter early on. my question is, really, how did her name get out there in the first place? this letter that now everybody else wants to see is still in senator feinstein's possession. the one that the fbi had, i understood, is redacted. that kind of lets you know --

she is reluctant to come forward. who shoved her out there? >> tom: it's a bit of a mystery. my guess is that somebody who had access to the letter who may well have time to this release and this disclosure for political purposes. they saw that the cavanagh nomination was moving ahead, and they make a strategic decision to put her name out there, pushe story out, and it has put us in the somewhat extra dairy position that we find ourselves in today. my view is that she should come to washington and testify. i think that the senate to the right thing in delaying the hearing to afford her a chance to come to washington next week, and to tell her story. they have offered her the chance to testify publicly, to testify privately, or even go to california to interview her. my view is that i think it's important for her story to be told, and she deserves to be treated seriously and with respect. but, i don't think she has the right to essentially dictate to the senate how they run this process and how they should fill their advise and consent to function in terms of staging

things, whether it's an investigation before she testifies, or vice versa. in my view, she should come to washington, she should tell their story under oath, and we should also hear from judge kavanaugh and anyone else who might have information to shed light on this. >> melissa: adrienne, do you think that's fair? they said they will come to her, she doesn't have to go forward any longer because they were are willing to go to her house in a small group and hear her story. she's uncomfortable in front of the cameras are out front, which is understandable. she doesn't even have to do that. >> adrienne: look, i certainly hope she will talk to the committee even if it's in a private setting, so she can tell her side of the story. but i think it's also important to note that her attorneys made it very clear, she wants witnesses. she wants people who were witnesses, who are friends with her, colleagues, i guess not colleagues but who knew her when she was 15 years old when this happens. she wanted them to to have a chance to go forward so she's not standing there by herself in a public stage in front of millions of americans watching this televised. i think we all need to take a deep breath, take a step back,

why are we rushing this? >> melissa: harris? >> harris: we have someone who is new on the couch, and they want to hear from you, emily. i seed my time and you can come back to me later. >> emily: thank you for that. a few things. we absently should afford her the opportunity to have her story shared, absolutely. i do think that i find it disingenuous at a minimum that senator feinstein sat on a letter and then released it "because she didn't want to be public," when it's obvious that it came from outside of the aisle. frankly, especially because it was leaked to the press. i find that standing behind the alleged victim at this point, for those reasons, it just -- it doesn't hold water for so many other reasons. to take another step forward about the process, it's important for viewers to understand that the fbi has unfolded this information as part of the background investigation. that is their purpose. it was surface allegations like this that then could be flushed out. it is not their job in this particular instance to

investigate a federal crime, because there is no allegation of such. that being said, if they can pursue an additional investigation after come if she does testify. i do not think judge kavanaugh should testify without her on monday. there needs to be both. they need to have the opportunity to face the accuser. >> harris: i don't think the determination has even been made, that she has to say by 10:00 tomorrow morning for them to prepare for a public hearing are a private hearing on monday. what senator grassley has said that has not indicated whether or not kavanaugh would still sit down. we don't know that yet. my question has to do with what the fbi can do, because it's my understanding, tom, that the fbi can look at the situation where now she is basically in custody. because they've got to protect her. her home, or private property, her private life has been entrenched upon. there's this notice that she came forward, she was unearthed, and from what democrats told me it was likely one among them. i pressed "the washington post" yesterday, when i had on speed 26, i press the reporter, "are

you actively looking for the leaker?" i feel like you've been looking since generate 20 us a couple ago now. can the fbi take a look at the situation where her protection is needed and open an investigation into what is necessitating that in terms of this case? i don't know. >> tom: i think they could. it deftly was some kind of skulduggery behind the scenes. for the very reason -- >> harris: that was a great halloween word! [laughter] >> tom: it accurately captures what was going on! if the fbi ultimately does step in, i think absolutely right that they need to take a 360-degree view of this and investigate not just the underlying allegations, but also how this information will -- >> harris: see like an fbi investigation? >> tom: i don't think, where it is right now, i don't see a need for an fbi and a solution. i think the senate can get information it needs from interviewing here and talking to judge kavanaugh. your question is "if they have the power to do that?" and the answer is yes, they have the power. but i trust the senate's judgment as to whether they need that investigation in order to

fulfill the constitutional duty to advise and consent. >> harris: okay. >> melissa: it is being called a direct shot at nancy pelosi after months of complaints about her leadership. what some rebel democrats are now doing that could make it harder for her to regain the speakership, if the dems do win back the house. and, whether this shows a deep divide within the party. plus, fallout continues from president trump's order to declassify documents related to the russia probe. now some former intel folks are up in arms. >> the alarm to send up the flayer, it's simply to say "if you want this done, mr. president, it's going to have to be done by someone else." ♪ oh!

oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles.

do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. no mathere are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today.

are you in good hands? our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected.

and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. ♪ >> harris: fallout continues from president trump's orders to declassify documents related to the russian investigation. with the first batch of those documents possibly coming out by tomorrow. the white house and republicans say it's all about transparency and the bias. but politico.com is reporting some democrats see a sinister plot to undermine special counsel robert mueller. and fire of the president's base ahead of the midterm elections. now former cia director michael hayden is echoing another former

director trump credit, john brennan, saying it's getting close to the time when the community leaders need to stand up to the present. watch it. >> sooner or later, we are going to come to a point with the president demands is so egregious that the right thing for them to do, to signal the alarm, dissent of the flare, is to say "if you want this done, mr. president, it's going to have to be done by someone else. >> harris: the last 2 minutes, little bit of breaking news related to the story. sources are telling fox news that the wife of bruce ohr, a state department official at the center of the russian investigation, is refusing to talk voluntarily to house lawmakers. she worked on that gps dossier. the justice department, his wife, nellie ohr, now saying "i'm not going to step up and do that. that deposition voluntarily." what does that mean to you? >> tom: that shows there are still people who are resisting

transparency, here. the president ordered the other day, basically, directing the government to make public a lot of these documents is a blow in favor of transparency. look, i am generally a fan of transparency. if you look back at our nation's history, the time when government officials say "no, that must be kept from the public," it's because of the legitimate reasons. because they the to want to ben bear spread they want to keep secrets. we don't know if that is the case here. i think the fbi, the cia, the people in the intelligence committee nothing of the president's order, we'll go back and look at these documents. if there are documents or portion that need to be keep secret for that would like legitimate national security reasons, and as a former doj official, i can say that's a legitimate reason to keep the document classified. but, i think we need to go back and take a fresh look at all this and then comply with the order that the extent they can do so consistent with protecting those sources and methods. >> harris: i had a congressman this week, emily, tell me that the sources and methods a couple get it here because they are on

the cell phone come for the most part. things that are not, you know come outside the sources and methods that they normally look at. so they might not be the need to, and it's up to those agencies to figure out what needs to be redacted. but it might not be what democrats are demanding to keep so much of the secret. we should just see it all. >> emily: i do think that the reliance on technology, having exceeded the structure, is not a good defense, here. i think that the scope and the presumption of transparency has been flip-flopped. i agree with you in that, now, the presumption is that it should be classified. it is classified, and the public should not see it, so it's not in favor of transparency. i think that's the wrong way to go. the classification system, to me, is apparent as well. everything has to be classified, and it's not really for aid genuine reason of it being actually for purposes of national security. this was testified by knowing or, is an indicator of exactly what the public needs to know. which is what all the answers to the questions, why was there outside of the chain of command

of that investigation? with former forces? why was information being given to courts? what was relied upon? was on that thumb drive, et cetera. all those questions need to be uncovered, and it's for the public to learn, and of the present. that selfish approach of "trump is doing everything," it doesn't bode well on this particular instance. >> harris: it's interesting, because you think she can answer those questions. i think most americans want to know one question -- "were you and your husband asked changing information that was coming from the dossier and christopher steele?" i love the fact that you go deep on that. they may be as simple as "what do you know, when did you know it, and did you?" senator shaheen has said this. she thinks this is dangerous. she has written this letter. the u.s. intelligence community often faces profound dangers in rejecting such intel come up until the president's 9/order, this there has always been the

implicit understanding that methods will not be released for public purposes, which makes the risk. the decision to personally insert himself into the investigative process constitutes a dangerous attempt to infringe upon the impartiality of the doj. and the fbi." >> tom: that is all garbage. >> melissa: it is absolute garbage. first of all, in this investigation, every time something is on-redacted or receive something held back, there was no source and method in it. i understand that argument in general, but hasn't been true in this case so far. so forgive me for being skeptical about it. the language around the idea of "this is egregious, and you must stand up against the president when he makes his outrageous demands for transparency!" you're going to stand up against transparency and accountability? is that really what you want to stand? >> harris: i will piggyback off of what moses sang with you, adrienne. where is the demand?

>> adrienne: let see it of the criticism is that the president's cherry picking. if that's the criticism, i'm going to agree with you on this. there publicans on the judiciary committee have the least information, and it's a very cherry-picked manner, which is why you're seeing some democrats come forward and say "this reminds me of wikileaks, in 2016. when they were emails." >> harris: this is the president to classifying somethings. it's it's not wikileaks. >> adrienne: absolutely. it's a cherry picks comparison pay that's where i'm coming from here. the bottom line is, yes, they saw the information, you have to redacted, fine. the people deserve to know the whole -- >> harris: the opposite that i also hear from democrats as "if he releases it all, then he is really getting involved in the mueller investigation." i mean, i can't figure out what you guys want. >> adrienne: i think the president from the beginning has gotten himself to involved in some of these investigations, and that is where that's coming from. >> harris: i will give you

less would come emily. >> emily: when i say that, do you think on part of the america public? that he's being an advocate to that transparency representing those who want that information and deserve a question mark or do you think it's not for the better? >> adrienne: no, i don't tickets for the benefit of the american people. i think is doing it for his own benefit. >> harris: mm. [laughter] welcome to the party. a growing supreme court battle. a red seat democrat now up for reelection, she says she will vote no on judge kavanaugh. will more vulnerable red state democrats follow senator claire mccaskill's lead, or are the midterms just too big? stay close. ♪

your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

>> melissa: fox news alert, new questions on the political impact of the show down supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh as we await a decision by the woman accusing kavanaugh of sexual assault to decades ago. on whether she will testify. now, red state democrat claire

mccaskill, who is up for reelection and is seen as vulnerable in november, announcing that she will vote no on kavanaugh. the missouri senator is 1 of 5 vulnerable senate democrats to do so. she writes "while i am also uncomfortable about his view on presidential power, as it relates to the rule of law, , ad who position that corporations are people, it is his allegiance to the position that unlimited donations and dark anonymous money from even foreign interests should be allowed to swamp the voices of individuals that has been a determining factor in my decision to vote no on his nomination. "she says good nomination allet the basis for her vote. other red state dems may see it is enough to buck the president's nominee in the state that he won. three of the dems of her election voted for his last

nominee, neil gorsuch. mccaskill voted against him. she is locked in the tightest of races with republican josh holly, a really clear poll has his lead at less than 1.5%. oh, boy, this is dicey. i will go to you first. what do you think these folks are due, because first and foremost, i don't know -- they've got to be concerned about their own reelection. >> absolutely. i think if you're claire mccaskill, you're looking at two things. where is the base on missouri on kavanaugh? where are white suburban women? they are obviously the swing vote in every election, especially in 2016. they are again in 2018. white suburban women, who tend to swing either way, republican, democrat, many of them are dependent. they are very opposed to kavanaugh's nomination, as the polling shows. if you are claire mccaskill, you're probably looking at those two factors to help come to your determination. of course, a number of other reasons why she's opposing him.

but she is a very calculated, very smart politician, and she knows exactly what she is doing by coming out and saying this. >> harris: one quick follow-up, i looked at that same polling and there's been quite a bit of it about white suburban women. it also shows that they are very anti-trump and some of those. it might be less about judge kavanaugh and more about her feelings about the president's tweets, so on and so forth. is there an opening, though, for actual information to come through rather than a personal feeling about this candidate? where the supreme court? >> adrienne: yeah, absolutely. >> harris: from the numbers he looked at, to drill down on the question. >> adrienne: yeah, and i think there is potentially an opening, i think if dr. blasey ford testifies, that might change things. again, if you look at these kavanaugh numbers, they are down there with the harriet meyer numbers. of course, she ultimately did not go on. she withdrew her nomination. not very popular, he's one of the least popular supreme court nominees that we have had in the last 20 years in our country. i think you are seeing that

unpopularity reflected in these polling's. >> tom: i have always thought -- and maybe this is wishful thinking -- but i had always thought and hoped that when the american people saw judge kavanaugh testify and talk about his understanding of the constitution, and when they looked at his extraordinary record, that they would say "look, he may not have been the guy that i would have chosen if i were president to put on the supreme court, but you can't dispute that the guy is incredibly smart and incredibly qualified." i think. i think that right now the calculation that a lot of these red state democratic sarah and to to senators are making, that they don't have to worry about merit at this point because thee enough political cover for a "no" vote based on the accusations. of course, we will see how this all plays out, because of these accusations turn out to be baseless, i do think it makes it extremely difficult for senator mccaskill and others to maintain their opposition to judge kavanaugh. >> melissa: you give the american people a lot of credit to have times to watch those hearings. that's the only thing. >> tom: i was mesmerized. >> melissa: i think a lot of people are very busy with their families. >> harris: i didn't see the

ones on monday. >> melissa: it's been different, because they are so much attention to that. also it'll be clipped up, are they going to watch the whole thing? >> harris: it's such an important voting issue for people, you know? i think this is a two and-end point for them. they know the economy is doing well, so they don't have to watch everything that's put out about that. this one's different, i thought. >> emily: for those who didn't have the time of access, that's when it can come up on the center to digest that information for them. two things struck me about her comments. number one, she didn't sympathize with how judge kavanaugh testify that has meetings, it is hearings, because what she listed had nothing to do with his defense y of them. in fact, it was kind of based on assumptions prior to his testimony in which he fastidiously defended the fact that he is angered so squarely to the president. you can get an opinion from him one way or the other without him rooting and going back as why he decided that way. that's number one. number two, the fact that he

said irrespective of the assault allegations. i think that was covering her base and away, and i find that interesting. to me, it shows more of a tactical decision. right when this is brewing, i would think that she would save her decision for after. >> melissa: i don't mind the main tactical in that sense. adrienne, i loved your analysis of what everybody's district looks like. i trust politicians to be political. so i think they are going to do what's right for them. what do you think of joe manchin? what do you give him, heidi heitkamp, joe donnelly, based on the district? you were in charge of their campaign. what advice would you give them on this boat? >> adrienne: my advice would be "listen to the democratic base." i think you have some of these moderate senators sometimes who try to sort of straddle the independents and moderates and their party, and try to straddle the democratic base. on this issue, a majority of americans are opposed to kavanaugh's nomination. listen to her base. you've got to give the base something to get excited about, right? this is not something that

people are seeing as a positive thing. they are generally concerned that putting brett kavanaugh and supreme court will overturn roe. that is igniting in energy and a fire in the democratic base like we have not seen since 2016. i would listen to the base. you've got to get those people out there to vote. >> harris: that didn't work out for you, even with all that fire in 2016. just saying. >> adrienne: 3 million more votes. >> harris: i knew you were going to say that. [laughter] >> melissa: also, mueller's investigation may be heading to the fourth quarter. that's according to james comey. why he believes that, and whether he is right. what it could mean for the midterms, and more. we will debate. ♪ while your spouse was serving our country, you were serving too. taking care of the family. moving. paying the rent. trying your best to save up

to buy your own home someday. today is that day. because, by using your spouse's va home loan benefit, you could buy a home with no down payment. no. down. payment. at newday usa, you don't have to save up to move up. why rent when you can buy? newday usa has been granted automatic authority by the va, too. that means they can say yes when banks say no. and they can close your loan faster. you could be moving into your own home in a matter of weeks. that's why they can do more for those who serve and their families. helping veterans and their families buy a home of their own is what newday usa is all about. call newday usa right now. go to newdayusa.com, or call 1-855-595-9641.

>> harris: former fbi director james comey says special counsel robert mueller could be nearing the end of his investigation. of the term campaign ties to russia. here is comey explaining why, and praising what he sees as the professionalism of mueller's probe. >> incorporation by palm nana pl manafort, because the way you do have a sagacious work from the bottom up. we are getting pretty hard. again, the reason i'm hesitant even to say that is, bob mueller has it done i conducted his investigation like a pro. >> harris: so he's not hesitant not to say anything, because he is to blame. [laughter] he's just waiting to see like the rest of us how it's going to turn up. >> tom: the app. i can't believe my about say these words, but i think jim comey is exactly right. >> harris: wow! >> tom: i think is exactly right and that bob mueller has to be in the fourth quarter his investigation. if you look at the way investigations are typically conducted -- jim comey is right. you start from the lower level,

you gradually work your way up. muir has been at this for sometime. he's gotten pretty high up within the scheme of things. it's an open question as to how dumb i else he needs to talk to, or whatever evidence he would need to gather before you can start rendering some conclusions. the one asterisk i will put on all of that is when you look at back at american history, an independent counsel investigations often go pretty unforeseen directions. bill clinton, whitewater, all that. so it wouldn't totally shock myth mueller picks up on something else and veers off on a tangent. but from what we can see right now, i think he is a point that mueller may be nearing the end. >> harris: present jump on paul manafort. watch this. >> paul manafort was with me for a short period of time. he did a good job. i was very happy with the job he did. i will tell you this -- i believe that he will tell the truth. and if he tells the truth, no problem. >> harris: no problem, emily, if he tells the truth.

>> emily: yeah, i think it's great for him to say that. i think, though, that nobody knows anything. certainly, there is no opacity. it [laughter] >> harris: let's go to lunch! >> emily: again, for the conjecture, it could really be about so much. certainly in that plea deal that manna fort has struck, it could really be about a multitude of things. comey is right in concept, that, yes, it rises to the top. but i also think that there is a lot of visibility and insight that manafort has or allegedly has that than the scope could be shifting toward that. i hate to be that annoying person who says "it remains to be seen," but i think we have no idea what next steps are going to be taken, frankly. >> harris: you know what that shines a light onto me, adrienne, is the fact that when all of this was going on with the plea deal and everything, he was being reported with paul manafort, some democrats or like "okay, this is it. we are going to give a smoking

gun." actually, we don't know that at all. >> adrienne: we don't. but here's what we do know -- we know that paul manafort is potentially looking at spending the rest of his life in prison. he has every single reason to cooperate with this plea deal. in turn, whatever information, provide whatever information is necessary. because if the strictly plea deal that allows them to spend just a minimal amount of time in prison, it's worth it. he is not a young man. he is looking at at least ten years. he has every reason to cooperate. >> harris: will democrats let it go if nothing points to -- and the climb really is conspiracy, not collusion. but we throw that word around. i think i'm right about that. >> tom: i think you are. >> harris: if it's all put to bed, can you walk away? or what happens of democrats? >> adrienne: is not just democrats, i think the american people want to see and understand why -- >> harris: that's my question to you because it's got so political. >> adrienne: i think the answer is yes. once investigation is closed and we find out what the mueller investigation comes forward with, all we want as a country.

he has conducted a very above-the-board investigation. we have no reason to question his findings. >> melissa: would here's my question -- why is james comey calling to local public radio? >> emily: i was going to ask the same thing. >> melissa: he needs to get on with his life. when you see other people on television afterward, they are establishing a new career and they are trying to become, you know, tv pundits. he's calling into local radio! [laughter] >> emily: we don't care. >> tom: he starting at the bottom and working his way up, too. [laughs] >> harris: start of the bottom, now we are -- no! [laughter] >> harris: rebel democrats taking a new shot at nancy pelosi. they are planning to make it more difficult for the minority leader to take back the speaker gavel to him in the house. what this is about and whether this shows deep divisions within the democratic party. stay close. ♪ george woke up in pain.

but he has plans today. so he took aleve this morning. hey dad. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. aleve. all day strong. all day long. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain, for up to 12 hours of pain relief with just one pill.

>> melissa: more outnumbered and just a moment, but first we were going to touch base with harris and what's happening on "outnumbered overtime" in just a few minutes. >> harris: we have a lot coming up. the latest in the battle of supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. is it fair to demand his accuser to testify tomorrow by 10:00 a.m.? is it fair for her to demand the

fbi investigate first? should senators vote if she does not testify? what would that look like? he never minces words, and are democrats being ridiculous about their demands? that's what some are asking. we'll put the question to it the democrat from rhode island. he will weigh in. we know from this program, he doesn't hold back. melissa question marks be tubes i can't wait for that, harris. the rebel group is pushing a petition to change party rules for electing their speaker, and what many see as a bid to stop nancy pelosi from regaining her former role. at least ten anti-pelosi democrats have signed on to a letter seeking to raise the number of votes required to nominate a candidate for speaker. currently, a nominee need support from only a simple majority of their party's caucus. the letter seeks to change it to 218, a majority of the house. says one signee, new york democrat susan rice, "it's no secret that i think our caucus needs new leadership, but more

than that, i think we should have a process that fosters consensus, gives each member a voice, and affords prospective leadership candidates a genuine opportunity to make their case before their colleagues. that's precisely what this proposed rule change sets out to do. the proposals expect to get shot down, it comes as dozens of democrats say they won't support nancy pelosi for speaker. if they do take back the house. okay, so i had to read this rule change about 15 times to try and understand it, because it's so swampy and it's so complicated. to win a majority, 218? adrienne, can any democrat -- forget nancy pelosi -- who could win that many votes question >> adrienne: your exec the right. this is a silly tactic, bottom-line prayer that's why only ten democrats assigned it so far. >> melissa: is a targeted at her to get rid of her? >> adrienne: yes, but if she runs for speaker, the democrats,

she runs for speaker, which she has given every indication that she will do, she will win. it's a silly tactic, but i will say this -- i agree with congressman rice saying "you know what? i want to see more newer members of congress and the democratic party come to the table, be allowed to have leadership positions, be a part of the house leadership." i think that's very important. if this is something that helps them get that message across, fine. but i think this is much ado about nothing, and it's a waste of time. we should be uniting as a party. again, if pelosi decides to run for speaker, she will become the next speaker of the house if democrats take that control. >> tom: i agree that the house democrat congress do not caucusg nowhere, but the intriguing thing to me as there will be an election. it's entirely possible that we will see a different democratic caucus come into office in january. if that is the case, i am wondering whether either this proposal or something similarly designed to remove nancy pelosi as the leader of the party will get more traction.

because of the democrats do take back the house, they are going to be sure that they will come in with a lot of grassroots energy. we have seen there are a lot of new candidates who are determined to push the party further to the left. it will be interesting to see how that plays out. >> emily: i think what's more interesting is that we have so many younger wonderful people, a long list of especially women, e coming in. they deserve to have their voices heard, and they deserve to have a seat at the table. >> melissa: emily, what do you think about this? >> emily: i like to that it's committed to the new breath of fresh air coming in, that we are somehow dedicated to that diversity coming in. i think coming from california that pelosi and senator feinstein, they have overstayed their welcome. frankly, by years. as we saw a come of the democratic party refused to endorse senator feinstein. the stent that she pulled right now with the accuser of judge kavanaugh. bottom line, yes, there needs a refresh. i think for them to be truly

representative of their constituents, if she's not aware enough to see that, that it's up to the rest of the dems to see that she does. >> melissa: gotta go. good session. more outnumbered in just a minute.

>> melissa: thanks to our #oneluckyguy, tom dupree. we love it. always fantastic. i can't leave you out. a good time.

i think we solved all the major issues and there's basically nothing left for harris to do over there. no, there is a lot left. we'll be back at noon tomorrow, here's harris. >> harris: supreme court standoff now, judge brett kavanaugh's accuser given a deadline, 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. let's go "outnumbered overtime" now, i'm harris faulkner. chuck grassley has asked professor christine blasey ford to tell congress by tomorrow if she will testify about her allegation of a three decades old the by judge kavanaugh. chairman grassley has also called for ranking democrat diane dianne feinstein to release a letter she received about those allegations. the a committee for florida saye plan to move forward is unfair. many republicans saying if