got a lot going on in the news tonight. legendary investigate of reporter from reuters is here tonight. he has a scoop that answers a mystery about the russia investigation that has been lingering for months now and mark has got the goods on that tonight in a way that nobody else has been able to get. we've also got jody kantor here live tonight for the interview. he was "the new york times" reporter who broke the news about hollywood mega producer harvey weinstein and the numerous, serious, sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations against him. she broke that story last week in the "new york times." it has become a super nova in the news. it's worth appreciating that lots of different reporters and

new outlets took a shot at that story over the course of more than a decade. jodi kantor is the one who finally did it and got it to press. jodi kantor is here tonight. so it's a big show tonight. over the past few weeks, there have been increasingly detailed and frequent reports about some ethics trouble for a number of trump cabinet secretaries, including interior secretary ryan zinke. reports have found that he charged the taxpayers to fly him on private jets to do things like give an inspirational speech to a hockey team owned by his biggest contributor and to fly him to an awesome snorkeling tour that he took in the environmevirgin islands. and he also charged taxpayers to

fly him to a ski recourt asort awesome sounding steak house in alaska. almost all were for him to attend republican political fund-raisers. he's allowed to go to political fund-raisers, only if he does it on his own time and his own dime. we, the taxpayers, are not supposed to be paying for him to do it. so far the republican-led congress has shown very little a of appetite for policing anyone in the trump administration, but the congress hasn't even shown an appetite to police members of the trump administration over serious stuff like the prospect that some of these trips might have been illegal, if they violated the hatch act, which bans public officials from having taxpayers fund their political activities.

whether or not secretary zinke ends up facing the music for how he has behaved in office in his short time there thus far, you do have to sort of grudgingly admire the way he's treated this job as a boy's-only adventure. horseback riding, shut down traffic in d.c. screw you, taxpayers! i'm commuting by horse in downtown washington. how awesome is that? then there was the ski trip that taxpayers flew him to, then there was the trip to the steak house in alaska and the time to go to the pro hockey practice and the snorkeling. trump's interior secretary is making the most what he could conceivably get taxpayers to pay for. presumably he'll find a way to white water raft into his ethics hearing if they catch up with him and then he'll shoot his way

in with paint ball. he is treating the world's resources against the best funded cub scouts troupe. nothing against the cub scouts. in this new administration, the largest federal agency in government after the defense department and the department of veterans affairs is the department of homeland security. and there's been nobody running the department of homeland security since july. that's when retired general john kelly left his job as homeland security secretary to instead because the new white house chief of staff. now, there has been a thrum of reporting over the past few days about what john kelly's job is like these days in the white house. there's been vaguely sourced but sort of alarming reporting about the extraordinary measures that john kelly has had to take to basically constrain the president in terms of the president's access to people and information that he might

otherwise seek out and in terms of how john kelly is sort of allowing the president to be seen and who he's allowing him to have contact with. there's also been reporting over the last few days over the prospect that the white house chief of staff job over this president may be an impossible one for anybody. and john kelly may not be able to stay on much longer in his role running the white house. reporter gabe sherman at "vanity fair" adds some eye popping details with this short piece that has just been uploaded at vanityfair.com citing two sources familiar with the conversation. gabe sherman reports tonight, quote, trump vented to his long-time security chief keith shiler, quote, i hate everyone in the white house. there are a few exceptions but i hate them. also citing several people close to the president, who have

recently described the president as unstable, losing a step and unraveling, gabe sherman says, quote, west wing aides have also worried about trump's public appearances. one trump advisers tells gabe sherman that white house staff were relieved when trump cancelled his appearance on "60 minutes" last month. quote, he's lost a step. they don't want him doing adversarial tv interviews. also in light of thenbc news report from early this morning that trump randomly and out of the blue insisted at a pentagon meeting in july that the u.s. should add tens of thousands of nuclear weapons to our stockp e stockpiles and increase by a factor of ten the number of nuclear weapons that we have on hand nsh light of that reporting from nbc news, gabe sherman quotes a former administration official who was willing to speculate to a reporter about what the nation might now have in terms of novel nuclear fail saves for dealing with this particular president. quote, one former official

speculated that chief of staff john kelly and a second james mattis have discussed what they would do in the event trump ordered a nuclear first strike. would they tackle him, the person said? and just in case that's not unsettling enough, i'm going to quote this verbatim. "some west wing advisers were worried trump's behavior could cause the cabinet to take extraordinary constitutional measures to remove him from office. several months ago according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, steve bannon told trump the risk to his presidency wasn't impeachment, it was the 25th amendment, the provision by which the majority of the cabinet can vote to remove the president in the event the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. bannon mentioned the 25th amendment to the president. the president reportedly said in response, "what's that"?

bannon has told people that president trump has only 30% chance of making it through his first term. that would make it a 70% chance that he'll be removed from office or he'll be impeached or he'll quit or he'll be removed from office some other way. that's being attributed to former white house chief strategist steve bannon, giving him a 30% chance of finishing his term. and take that for what you will. bottom line, it is not good when that's the general character of the leaks that are being attributed -- the leaks and comments being attributed to current west wing staffers and former administration officials and people personally close to the president and people who have served as his top advisers. i'm highlighting this reporting, though, specifically because there is something here about

what may be about to happen next. quoting from the same report, "two senior republican officials say chief of staff john kelly is miserable in his job and is only remaining there out of a sense of duty to keep trump from making some sort of disastrous decision. today speculation about john kelly's future increased after politico.com reported that kelly's deputy, keers ten nielsen, is likely to be named secretary of homeland security. the theory is john kelly wants to give her a soft landing before his own departure from the white house. so politico.com was first to report that keers ten nielsen will be nominated for secretary of homeland security. who knows, maybe that expected nomination does foreshadow, did come about because of some yet

to come further drama in terms of white house departures and more top-level senior staffers fleeing this young administration. maybe that's why it's happening. i mean, presumably the white house could just keep running, even if it was just the president and his immediate family, right? maybe eric could be chief of staff. could the first lady fill in? i don't know. is tiffany busy? i mean, i don't know. when you have this many senior people leave the administration, you start to wonder how many of them do you really need? and then the whole trump organization was like six guys. right? who weren't related to the president, right? how many people do we really think he needs to run the federal government? but with -- if further departures are expected, if that's the reason we're about to get a homeland security nominee, maybe we are about to get a homeland security nominee. and you know what, that could matter a lot more than any of

the soap opera and palace intrigue and continually unspooling chaos around this president and his unbelievably chaotic, impenetrable white house. regardless of why it's going to happen, i don't really care why it's going to happen, if we do end up getting a homeland security secretary because of that mess and out of that mess, that would be important. if only because it would be really nice for us as a country to have someone running the agency that overseas fema, for example. fema's part of homeland security. who's running homeland security? nobody since july. today there was some very bad news ot ut of puerto rico. home to 3.5 million americans, three and a half weeks since hurricane maria made landfall. today the governor attributed

the deaths attributed to humans who are using water contaminated by urine from wildlife, particularly rodents, if it is not treated, it can kill you. the mayor told us having turned around some supplies she'd been given access to as the mayor to a mayor who needed it more. she was telling us on the air about people in other puerto rican towns where they had zero access to clean water and where they were already drinking from creeks and streams to stay alive. that's how you get something like leptosporosis.

this is me sitting in new york with a local official describing to me this was happening two weeks ago. this is puerto rican mayors letting people now as far as two weeks ago that this is what americans were having to do for drinking water, springs and creeks and springs. now we're two weeks on from that. it's three weeks into the crisis and that is still how these americans are having to cope, a third of the island still has no drinking water even as of now. so not by choice but by necessity, these american citizens three weeks on are still drinking from rivers, drinking from creeks, drinking from springs, collecting rain water. and scott pruett's environmental protection agency put this out as their update today "there are reports of residents obtaining

or trying to obtain drinking water from wells at hazardous waste superfund sights in puerto rico. the epa advises against tampering with sealed and locked wells or drinking from these as it may be dangerous to people's health. imagine your family is landlocked, you are penned in, no way out, three weeks without assistance, three weeks without electricity, three weeks without water. you can't live without water. so you're choosing between death because of lack of water or drinking from a creek or trying to drink from the sealed locked well from the epa super fund site. which would you pick? and now we've got confirmation from the top public official on the island that water-borne illness is starting to spike the death toll there. of course it is because that's

what happens when people in a -- when people end up having to drink from creeks and streams for weeks. before the governor's confirmation today, we had heard reports of death that were suspected to be from leptosporosis. that follows a pattern in terms of reporting on the overall toll of this disaster, and even though the death today today officially reached 48, there's good reason to believe it may be well into the hundreds already. they were able to find an additional 36 deaths attributed to the hurricane that were not listed in the death toll. npr identified another 45 bodies sent to a a morgue after the storm. there are 350 bodies being

stored at the state medical examiner's office, many of which are still awaiting autopsies. so a week ago the president went to puerto rico, threw people paper towels and congratulated puerto rico on the fact that there were only 16 people listed on the death toll. well, the official death toll now is 48 and it's not because the hurricane kept hitting. and it's continuing to climb, including deaths from water-borne illness when we know whole towns have gone for a couple of weeks subsisting on water sources like creeks and streams. yeah, this was a big hurricane and it caused a huge amount of damage but this is the united states of america and the deaths happening now are not the result of the hurricane. the deaths happening now are a result to the response to the hurricane, which is an organizational disaster. the deaths the governor is attributed to a treatable bacterial infection, you treat it with penicillin, with i.v.

ant antibiotics if you get it as an advanced case. these deaths happened according to the governor in one of puerto rico rico's beleaguered hospitals. one component of the trump administration's response to this disaster was belatedly to send the u.s.s. comfort" down there, this incredibly, floating miracle of a hospital ship. it was sitting in port in virginia for days instead of heading down to puerto rico to help, while the hospitals were struggling to find generators and people were dying in intensive care units because there were no power to fuel the machines. the "u.s.n.s. comfort" is a miracle. it's got 800 highly trained medical personnel on board. they've got hundreds of beds,

state of the art, full-service, it can provide power and provide advanced medical care to hundreds of people at a time. as of monday of this week, as of two days ago, the "u.s.n.s. comfort" was treating seven patients in total, while people were dying of treatable bacterial infections and having their dialysis cut short and being turned away from the hospitals on the island where the "comfort" is docked and sitting basically unused while americans are dying. so it is great to have containers full of food and water and medical supplies sitting in the capital city at the port there, it's great to have the "u.s.n.s. comfort" docked there, trained, ready, willing, able and desperate to serve but if your response is so poorly run that even three weeks into this you can't get those

containers out of the port, you can't get dying patients on to the hospital ship that is ready to serve them that is there, then the problem is not shortage of resources. the problem is not people's willingness to help, the problem is not first responders, right? the problem is not even the size of the crisis. the problem is whose in charge? the problem is who is running this ongoing catastrophe that is the failed response that followed the natural disaster? as of today there is a rumor that we may eventually get someone put in charge of the agency that overseas fema, maybe because of continuing chaos in the white house. and maybe that really is only happening now because maybe another senior white house official is going to quit. but at this point who cares why it's going to happen. putting somebody in charge is just starting to seem like a good idea no matter why they're going to do it. meanwhile, the death toll in the

california fires has risen to 21, with many of the worst fires in terms of threats and property in northern california, many of the worst fires still burning basically completely out of control. in parts of northern california, there are now warnings about the worst ever readings for dangerous air quality. there's ash falling from the sky in even far flung corners of the densely populated san francisco bay area. in the face of these ongoing, lethal and in fact worsening disasters, what's happening in washington? the president made news today at the white house by invaing against the first amendment saying in the oval office today that it is, quote, frank live disgu -- frankly disgusting that the press can say whatever they want. they threatened to take nbc news off the air by revoking nbc's

right to broadcast. and three officials in the room described the president springing the news that he wants the united states to go back to having 32,000 nuclear weapons, please, like we had in the 60s. our stockpile is about 4,000 nuclear weapons. he said he wants 32,000. he wants more than there's ever been. presumably because more is more, it's bigger. there are a couple of different kinds of existential threats to the citizens of a country that has unstable or incoherent or corrupted leadership, and one of them is the one you think about most often in advance when this is a hypothetical situation. you imagine such a leader might create a whole new disaster for the country, like starting a war or launching a nuke on purpose or maybe not, or, you know, trying to dismantle the other branches of government or something. that's one kind of crisis, one kind of potentially existential

crisis for the citizens of a country with a real leadership problem. you imagine that kind of president might create a whole new crisis out of whole cloth. the other is happening to some scale right now and it's already killing americans. and that's not some sci-fi distaupian thing. it's just the risk, the inevitability that stuff will happen, that crises will arise in the more or less normal course of events. disaster will befall us. we'll have a terrible hurricane season. and when that happens, we will not have the basic governing organizational capacity to deal with it. it's not a sci-fi hypothetical dispopian risk, that is what we are living through right now. that is what americans are dying because of right now in puerto rico. ing edge university counts on centurylink

to keep their global campus connected. and why a pro football team chose us to deliver fiber-enabled broadband to more than 65,000 fans. and why a leading car brand counts on us to keep their dealer network streamlined and nimble. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink.

whyou're not thinking clearly, so they called the fire department for us. i could hear crackling in the walls. my mind went totally blank. all i remember saying was, "my boyfriend's beating me" and she took it from there. and all of this occurred in four minutes or less. i am grateful we all made it out safely. people you don't know care about you. it's kind of one of those things where you can't even thank somebody. to protect what you love, call 1-800-adt-cares ...from godaddy! in fact, 68% of people who have built their... ...website using gocentral, did it in under an hour, and you can too. build a better website - in under an hour. with gocentral from godaddy.

it has been a mystery for months now as to how exactly this guy, paul manafort came to be running the trump for president last year. didn't have much of a relationship with trump before running that campaign. hadn't been working in american politics in dog's age but in former soviet union for pro russia-pro-putin interests. all of a sudden there he was running the republican nominee's presidential campaign. it has been an intriguing question as to how that happened and why. we've been told thus far was that a close trump friend wanted

manafort to deal with the republican convention and that paul manafort's pitch to do that can y included these words "i am not looking for a paid job." >> hire me. you won't have to spend anything on me. don't ask me why i want to do it for free, okay? but it has appeared thus far that the bridge between the republican candidate and this mystery out of nowhere campaign manager was this billionaire friend of trump's, real estate tycoon tom barrack. check out what he says about how paul manafort went to being in charge of electing president trump. a spokesman said it was tom

barrack who wanted paul manafort. paul manafort told mr. barrack he wanted to work as trump's manager. and then, quote, "i really need to get to donald trump," mr. manafort said according to tom barrack. maybe this helps us understand it. maybe this was bingo. maybe it was paul manafort who was really desperately trying to join the trump campaign. it want that he got sought out, it was that he launched himself at the campaign. he's the one that said he really needed to get to the republican front-runner. whatever happened, paul manafort did join the trump campaign a month later, by may, he was showing up in the infamous trump/russia dossier where he

was a quote, well developed conspiracy of corroboration. paul manafort absolutely and stridently denies that allegation but it seems like an important thing to know, how he came to be in charge of the trump campaign, given where he'd been before. and that partial explanation, at least that alternate explanation of how it happened, that comes today from this interview with tom barrack in "the washington post" and it comes today as reuters veteran investigative reporter has also pointed out something we have been trying to pin down for months, certainly we've been working on for months, today mark hosenball got it and that story is next. over the course of 9 days...

steve chooses to walk 26.2 miles, that's a marathon. and he does it with dr. scholl's. only dr. scholl's has massaging gel insoles that provide all-day comfort to keep him feeling more energized. dr. scholl's. born to move.

to be investigative reporters someday, mark hosenball is one of the textbook entries you'll be consulting for what it means to be an investigative reporter and why it's worth it. his national security reporting after 9/11, for example, is and will be taught for journalism schools for the rest of the time any of us are alive. he's the real deal and today he nails down something important in relatively low profile report

for reuters. three congressional committees fighting among themselves over the trump russia dossier put together by christopher steele, former british spy under auspices of dcs. key republican members of congress working to undermine the dossier and intelligence officer who put it together. we know the dossier has beens subject of congressional investigation. mark hosenball documents how some republicans are trying to undermine it and turn it into a scandal. valuable stuff. but there's a very specific part of this we've been trying to suss out for months. we have been trying to figure out for months if any of the investigation into the dossier thus far has disproven any of the claims in the dossier. we know they've been looking into it, we know they've been fighting about it, we know there's partisan fighting about it. but while looking into it, has there been a conclusion in the committees that anything in the dossier is false? we've been trying to figure it out for months.

democratic senator sheldon white house son the judiciary committee in the senate, which is one of the committees that has been doing this investigation. sheldon white house is privy to what lawmakers are learning about the dossier as they fight about it on that committee. senator sheldon whitehouse goes on the record with mark hosenball today. this is what he said, quote, as i understand it, a great deal of his information, in the dossier, remains unproven but none of it has been disproven and consider amounts of it have been proven. oh, really? tell me more. joining us is mark hosenball, national security correspondent for reuters. thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> the reason i'm keyed in on this quote from senator whitehouse is we've been trying to figure out if any of the investigations that have followed the dossier or tried to

problematize the dossier have found parts that are definitely not true. is he asserting he knows it hasn't been disproven or not in position it has? >> i think he's asserting he knows it's not been disproven. certainly bits of it denied by characters. trump has denied salacious bits about his unconventional behavior in moscow during the miss world competition in 2013. also trump's lawyer michael cohen has emphatically denied an allegation in the dossier that i think he went to prague and met weird people there. certainly no proof i'm aware of has surfaced to prove he was in prague. people i know who have worked on this in government are willing to accept the possibility he

wasn't in prague. though perhaps he was in prague. i don't think what's their name, steele supporters have abandoned that. certainly it's possible to get to prague from over land in the european union without using a passport across a bunch of country lines. so i don't think anything in the dossier's been conclusively disproven. certainly bits of it has been challenged. it's pretty clear that at least some bits of it have been confirmed. this character carter paige, who is suing everyone in sight, was in moscow at the time steele said he was there. whether he met the people steele says he met is unclear. denied some of it but at the same time it has been established he was under investigation with the fbi i believe because he was in

contact with russian undercover spy, officer of a bank based in the united states or bank office -- russian bank office based in the united states. some of this is certainly true. and there are a lot of people in the intelligence community that believe the basic point of the dossier and from what i can tell, the dossier itself really did help to touch off or literally touched off this entire investigation into trump and russia and remains kind of the spine of both investigates by intelligence agencies, the fbi and at least the senate intelligence committee, which is why two other committees in congress, the house intelligence committee and the senate judiciary committee seem to be devoting a bunch of energy and resources to try and discredit it. >> do you get the sense from your reporting of what you know about this story and how you're approaching it, do you get the sense that real investigatory work is happening on the committees, on any of the

committees? >> oh, have i no doubt whatsoever that the senate intelligence committee is conducting a serious investigation into the allegations that trump was somehow, you know, manipulated or compromised by russia or russia somehow manipulated the election. i certainly know also that the senate judiciary committee is conducting a rather aggressive investigation into christopher steele and his associates to apparently try and demonstrate somehow that the fbi misused christopher steele's dossier when seeking some kind of warrants to do surveillance on people in connection with its investigation. i also know that clearly congressman nunez, the nominal chairman of the house intelligence committee, even though he's been removed from its investigation related to steele and russia, he's still conducting his own personal investigation related to steele and only yesterday sent subpoenas to something called

fusion gps, which is a washington private investigations opposition research firm, which hired christopher steele to gather information on trump, initially for a republican supporter i believe of jeb bush and then later for the clinton campaign. so the committees are doing things but not necessarily things that complement each other, shall we say. >> mark hosenball, national security correspondent for reuters, i respect your work immensely and have for a very long time. thank you for helping us through this. >> thank you for having me. >> jodi kantor, who broke the harvey weinstein story, started this whole thing happening that has blown up the news cycle for the past weeks, she joins us next. stay with us.

helen: fand every year,, we get a giwe split it equally. except for one of us. i write them a poem instead. and one for each of you too. and one for each of you too. helen: cool. that actually yours... that one. yeah. regardless, we're stuck with the bill. to many, words are the most valuable currency. last i checked, stores don't take words. man: some do. oh. (alert beeps) not everyone can be the poetic voice of a generation. i know, right? such a burden. pay back a friend day is october 17th. get the bank of america mobile banking app today.

♪ so we created the only bed that adjusts on both sides to 9 out of 10 couples prefer a different mattress firmness, your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. you can even see how well you're sleeping and make adjustments. does your bed do that? the most amazing part is they start at $699. that's $200 off our queen c2 mattress during the final days of our fall sale. ends sunday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

let's get the lady of the house back on her feet. and help her feel more strength and energy in just two weeks. yaaay! the complete balanced nutrition of ensure with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. always be you. . one of the women who tried talking to him directly was named zelda perkins, she was an assistant, 25 years old at the time. she said her boss, the head of the understoodstudio, harvey we she was 25. he was the tippy top boss. and she confronted him, she told him to stop or else. according to "the new york time times", zelda perkins said he would go public if he didn't stop his behavior.

one of the entertainment lawyers from the company, miramax, got isn't over to london to offer zelda perkins a settlement. here, the company will pay you money to make this go away. that was 1998. how about taking it up with the company directly in writing formally. young executive at the company, a young woman had seen other employees coping with and quitting the company for years because of weinstein's alleged behavior. she said she had her own experience of it, wrote it up in scorching details, the "times" reports it made it to the brebtobreboard of directors of the company, one lawyer suggested they look into it and, no, instead they paid her a cash settlement and out the door. eight women got confidentiality

agreements. eventually, at least one april cu -- accuser, a young model, tried talking to the cops. the police wired her, put a recording device on her, she then recorded a conversation with weinstein in which he seems to continued to harass her and he seems to have explained his groping her the day before. that tape went back to the cops. the police took that tape recording and then nothing. local authorities dropped the case. go to harvey weinstein himself, go to the company, go to the police. finally how about going to the press. we have ronan pharaoh on the show last night who pushed the story further along and told us the tactics to keep the women quiet didn't stop when the women left the company. he said victims he talked to got

harassing phone calls from weinstein's lawyers to try to keep them from talking to him. one of those harassing phone calls had a very dramatic effect. one source ronan farrow spoke with was threatened with legal action and withdrew from the piece. ronan himself said he was threatened with a lawsuit from weinstein and we know that's also true about the "new york times," which was forced to report out when that bombshell stored opened up on thursday, which opened up this spigot of victims still flowing today. weinstein's abuse spanning decade, all along it has been a story about his alleged abhorrent behavior and victims. for the record, weinstein has

deneed any d deneed ad denied any allegations of noncon sensual sex. but beyond just the record of his behavior, this is a story after time after time, women coming forward for years, finding all different ways to raise red flags and all the different ways they were silenced, paid off and bullied into going away until finally that stopped working. joining us now for the interview is jodi kantor, the "new york times" investigative reporter. she broke the story about him this week. congratulations. >> thank you. it's great to be here. >> how come you were able to break this story after so many years of so many different people trying to and failing to get this to print? >> i can't talk about anybody else's reporting but i can talk a little bit about ours. first of all, the "times" has had a huge commitment to sexual harassment this year, we did the bill o'reilly stories, the silicon valley stories and we felt like we had a play book on how to figure these out.

i think the fact we reported so hard on settlements helped us. we were able to find the legal and financial trail that became almost like the ladder we were climbing in the story. normally what settlements do is that they hush people up, right? they involve using money to make things go away. but we found that there was that legal and financial record that said, hey, something happened here, it's not a conviction in a court of law but a lot of money was paid to a lot of women over these years and there's some sort of trail. so even though in these stories we of course always want brave women who will go on the record, we also want a lot of other forms of proof. we want the internal company memos you just described, we want as many settlement accounts as we can get, and we want the women speaking personally about what they experienced. because in a way our story was not only about the harassment allegation, it was about the coverup of those allegations again and again.

>> and which makes it a corporate story, which makes it a systemic story, but also makes it you're sort of unraveling the playbook about how these things get hidden, not just entertainment industry. >> the system seems so broken. settlements are kind of our society's way of dealing with sexual harassment. it means the women can't tell anybody about what happened. they can't warn other people, whereas the people who were accused of harassment, they get to pay money and the record is wiped clean. >> it's not their money that's being paid. >> it's not even that much money. if you look at what we were able to find that weinstein paid to these women over the years, it's like $80,000, $100,000. this is compared to movies that were making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. >> jodi kantor, can you stay right there for a second? >> yes. >> we'll be right back with jodi kantor right after this.

dynamic performance, so you can own the road.

aggressive styling, so you can break away from everyone else. the bold lexus is. experience amazing. ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. what's in your wallet?

because she's listening this to audible.ughing and this woman is pretending her boss's terrible story is funny. experience the comedy, not your commute. dial star-star-audible on your smartphone to start listening today. anyone who calls it a hobby doesn't understand. we know that a person's passion is what drives them. [ clapping ] and that's why every memorial we create is a true reflection of the individual. only a dignity memorial professional can celebrate a life like no other. find out how at sanfranciscodignity.com.

we're back with jodi kantor from the "new york times," who is the reporter who broke the story about harvey weinstein's sexual abuse allegations against him. thank you for sticking with us. >> of course. >> one of the things i was very struck by, particularly in your first follow-up piece in the "times" was the damage that you describe to women -- because of

saying no. is that litigatable? does that pave the way for there to be some sort of court-ordered remedy here? >> that's a really hard question. i would say both our social and legal definitions of sexual harassment are all over the place. if you just talk to people about this reporting, like even when i did this reporting, people don't agree on a common definition of sexual harassment. even with casting couch stuff. a lot of hollywood people will diminish it. he'll say, oh, yeah, he chased her around a desk once. and you talk to the women and their description is terrifying. legally, there's a lot of confusion. the supreme court definition of sexual harassment is that it has to be severe and pervasive. so, you know, who's to whether a court of law -- i would be fascinated to see how a court of law would treat the kinds of

charges that we reported. >> will it make a difference and how important was it in your reporting to find the way that the company was involved, the assistants were involved, the other executives, lawyers were involved both in knowing this was happening, witnessing it but also making it go away. >> i think we just have to raise the question of complicity because there is essentially a chilling description that emerges from this reporting of weinstein having a system. plenty of actresses in hollywood will tell you, okay, there's likes casual sexual harassment, i've had an unwelcomed hand on my thigh, a leering comment at an audition, a producer hit on me at a bar. this was something different, according to our sources. what they allege is that weinstein essentially constructed a system of harassment that -- and as ronan

farrow reported, sexual assault, that was constructed around systems to get all these women wome women -- >> which involved other people. >> it involved creating appearance of work meetings, but in fact when the women got to what were explicitly designated work meetings, they said something very different happened inside. >> jodi kantor from "the new york times," investigative reporter who broke this story, congratulations on breaking this. i know it was a daunting thing to approach, if only because of all the other people who tried to get there before you and didn't. but you're the one who did and broke it open and it's a deservedly huge story. congratulations. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. just like the people who own them, every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be help starting your business, vendor contracts or employment agreements. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you every step of the way

so you can focus on what you do. we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here.

in prime time. going on in >> rachel, i was watching your coverage of the latest in the harvey weinstein thing and this story is now mushrooming and every day. >> yeah. >> just moving in directions that you couldn't even anticipate a couple of days ago and it's hard to say where it is next week. >> well, just the number of women coming forward, you know, hour by hour, especially prominent women in the showbiz industry saying it happened to them, too. when the number -- we saw this a little bit with the cosby situation of very brave women came out at the outset and who made their claims, even when people wouldn't back them up and then critical mass hit. press coverage hit in a way that made people feel like they could come out. the dam was breaking.