ms. ford should be heard. at this hour, it is still the official position of senate republican that is the exxon firmation hearing will go on as scheduled thursday. expect that to change soon though. democrats called for a delay and at least one republican member said the vote must not be rushed. jeff, a big statement from kellyanne conway, silencing the president. how is the white house going to play this? >> the white house and the president standing by judge kavanaugh and support his nomination and are pushing for his confirmation, but it is uncertain at this hour, no question. he is still here at the white house, we believe. he is not scheduled to meet with the president himself. he is meeting with others who are playing a role in his confirmation process here. the comments from kellyanne conway are certainly interesting. she intentionally is sending a message to everyone in the president's orbit and supporters to not play hardball, if you will and say she should be heard. republicans thin

over a foreclosure case involving ms. ford and it arose in 1996 and dismissed before the judge had to rule on it. this is the internet age where people can get everything. the property is still in a family trust. it was not taken away from them, but now that this is all public, this is what we have.

we want ms. ford to be heard but clearly to me, in august, she hired a lawyer, who is a very activist lawyer, does not like president trump, and paid for a polygraph. they were thinking about coming forward. why would you hire a lawyer and take a polygraph in august if you had no desire to come forward. ms. ford may be the victim of circumstance. but we'll go forward, hear her out, if she chooses, we're going to vote on wednesday. >> martha: let me ask you, you raised a question the other night i believe with sean hannity, about who paid for the polygraph and who's paying for the lawyer. do you see advocacy lobbyists at work here? is this part of the demand justice organization? what do you know about that? >> well, you don't have to be sherlock holmes to figure this out. the democrats knew about this for weeks, july, they never raised it in that timely fashion. they sat on it, never confronted judge kavanaugh. that says a lot about their tactics. ms. ford hired a lawyer in august and took a polygraph

senator said we need to hear from her, ms. fordm judge kavanaugh and the words to the effect of that should be it. the reason for this question from our senior capitol hill producer chad pergram is this the accusation is there was a third person in the room. a fairly colorful character by all accounts who has written a number of pieces on life in the boarding school that they attended or the prep school that they attended together back in the day there are yearbook notations. mike emanuel is up on capitol hill. chief congressional correspondent. seems to be the question of the day from democrats and from those on the left there were three people in the room, why would not hear from all three people in the room. >> that's correct. calling for expanding the hearing whenever it is held to include perhaps eyewitnesses like the gentleman you mentioned who was allegedly in the room, perhaps other people who may have attended a party if, indeed, there was a party. there is a loft questions about that. also, outside experts who might have

ms. ford's attorney, ms. katz.to what she said about the time that she is alleging 30 plus years ago. >> the reason she thought he might inadvertently kill her is he had her hand over her mouth and she was having a difficult time breathing. is he larger and was pressing his weight against her and so inebriated, he was ignoring the fact that she was attempting to scream and having a difficult time breathing. she believes but for his inebriation and his inability to take her clothes off, he would have raped her. >> a woman, an accuser that says she would publicly testify to this, believes that she would have been raped if he were not so inebriated. at one time she feared for her life. brett kavanaugh denies this. how do republican senators, especially female republican senators handle this now? >> it's disturbing to hear that and to understand that she's been having these thoughts and feelings for all this time. the best way to handle this is take out their partisan hats and take a look at this from a human standpoin

>> you know, i want to make sure we treat ms. ford same way i would want my wife or daughters or mother treated under similar circumstances. but, it's beginning to look like this is part of an orchestrated effort to frankly smear the judge's information. and claim refuted that there is additional incidents occurring like the one at yale, supposedly occurred there apparently telling people she wasn't even sure if she had the right guy but, yet, these allegations are being made. this is a terrible way to treat any nominee and certainly we saw from the interview last night the judge is not going anywhere. but is he paying a terrible price as is his family, including his two small daughters to be able to serve on the nation's highest court. it's really too bad. >> neil: senator, we are been told or got word that a lot of you guys have been told to stick around town. that there could, in fact, be a kavanaugh vote this weekend. is that true? >> yes, i believe if, in fact, we are able to move to a mark up, let's say as early as friday, voted

that was a disservice to absolutely everyone involved it was a disservice to all the senators and to ms ford and certainly to judge kavanagh yeah as you say it's an interesting point you make because millions of people around the world were watching the hearing and your suggesting that it wasn't good for the image of the u.s. judicial system and could have been handled differently you think it could have been handled completely differently and it should have been this wasn't a court of law this was a confirmation hearing for a seat on the supreme court of the united states and it devolved into talking about beer drinking and high school and flatulence and how somebody pronounce the f. word it was just it was embarrassing the the united states senate has never stooped this low. brett kavanaugh seems to be unwilling to endorse the idea of an f.b.i. investigation even the number of other women have now accused him do you think that slanted to damage his credibility. no absolutely not actually judge kavanaugh has had six very deep background investigations conducted on him by the f.b.i. and the

let's remember too that three other eyewitnesses that ms. ford identified have said that they have absolutely no recollection over the events that she says took place, none whatsoever. these are people that dr. ford identified as witnesses to the assault that she claims judge kavanaugh perpetrated yet the witnesses she identifies say they have no knowledge of such an event. we also need to remember the context in which all of this is occurring. 65 women who went to high school with judge kavanaugh have written a letter saying he has always behaved honorably toward them and treated them with respect. that doesn't mean dr. ford is not entitled to be heard, quite the contrary. she has a story to tell and as a father of twoo daughters myselfi want to hear that story. i want to compare to judge kavanaugh's unequivocal denial and judge for myself the reliability of each. as a former judge myself for 13 years and attorney general for four i feel to do anything less would he shirking my duty. we owe dr. ford our time, our attention and our best efforts a

we gave her, ms. ford two choices we could do it this thursday or we could do it monday. i understand and i don't know the basis for, this now i don't know whether it's ford decided, someone decided we were going to do this monday. i'm going to be there monday. i'm not interested in political and the cultural combat. i am interested in the facts. >> neil: if she chooses not to show up or lawyers don't go, you will still have judge kavanaugh and question him about this with or without her. >> i'm going to be here and i have a feeling. i know judge kavanaugh is going to be there he is raring to go. mr. ms. ford will be there i don't know. what i know i'm a united states senator elected by the people to advise and consent. he shouldn't have to get all my information from "the washington post and new yorker. they are great periodicals and all that. but this is not a political game. i'm interested in the facts. i have to hear ms. ford's story. and then i want to hear judge kavanaugh's story let us ask questions. not to cross-examine anybody. let's get the facts. that's all i'm

ms. ford's experience with him? >> i have no experience with ms. ford. i don't know anything about her and i don't claim to know anything about her. all i can speak to is the judge himself and what i and really the whole world at this point know about his character, which is overwhelmingly women have come out of the woodwork through this entire process to testify to the respect with which he treats them, with his championing of us in the workplace, and every other context. all i can speak to is the judge. and when i was speaking about the political motivations, i wasn't speaking about his accuser. i was speaking about the process by which this has come forward. >> well, but speaking about the process. i mean, her attorney made clear, the accuser's attorney on cnn yesterday, that they specifically asked senator feinstein's office not to release this. to keep this entirely confidential. at the wishes of the alleged victim. but you still believe it is politically motivated. what evidence tells you that? >> i'm not a political insider, so i don't pretend to

if she is trying to build a case to underline the credibility of ms ford, every five minutes she wascrats. it was like changing the twin court tv, public access, senate committee hearing, it was hard to follow any narrative. will there be causing arguments, some conclusion from this? that is an "chin and the format does not lend itself to that. the things people will remember as the opening testimony, maybe when she said, 100% certain that brett was the sealant. i was struck that she used his name, brett, suggesting that she knew him, he was not a complete stranger. he has denied knowing her, cc may have met her that he does not remember her as being somebody that she knew. —— he knew. earlier, iwas her as being somebody that she knew. —— he knew. earlier, i was struck by the fact that the taxi driver near capitol hill was listening to this hearing. give us a sense of the extent to which americans are listening to these healings, the impact that this could have on public opinion, and to what extent the man in the white house behind you is listening and what choices he faces ? being h

ms. ford, all i can say about ms. ford, i feel sorry for her, and i do believe something happened to her, and i don't know when and where, but i don't believe it was brett kavanaugh. and as a prosecutor, you couldn't get out of the batter's box because in america, before you can accuse somebody of a crime, you have to tell them when it happened and where it happened, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it did happen. the reason this case will never be brought in maryland or anywhere else, you just can't get there. if you wanted to get a warrant, which is a probable cause standard, to search or arrest somebody, you have to prove by probable cause where it happened and when it happened. how are you supposed to defend yourse yourself? is the burden really on you to prove you were not at a party 35 years ago and they won't tell you where it was and when it was? so all i can say is that under any reasonable standard, any concept of the rule of law, this would not go forward. there have been five allegations here

or conclusively whether it is ms ford oer conclusively whether it is ms ford or mr kavanagh who is tellinggations? well, first of all, i don't think this is a criminal trial. in virtue, first of all, i don't think this is a criminaltrial. in virtue, —— number two, we have been treated to a committee of republicans who have done everything possible to hide the fa cts done everything possible to hide the facts from the senate and the american people. senate republicans on the shared 7% of his records with the public, so who knows what is in the public, so who knows what is in the rest of his background and experience. there are very serious claims that brett kavanaugh misled the committee and several different issues, so this comes before a committee, number one, where doctor ford is very credible, telling the truth. two, he has come before the committee with many, many mistakes. what about the argument that i have heard republicans making in the course of the last day or two, but this was, even if it happened, it was 36 years ago, it was one indiscretion of a teenage boy, not the same thing

or ms. ford herself that there needs to be this fbi investigation that democrats are calling for. more likely than not it is going to happen, but it is not a done deal because we have not heard affirmatively from her that she is going to testify for sure on monday. >> jill, you remember so well as do so many of us the moment where anita hill took that witness chair in front of the all male committee there that really aggressively questioned her. times have changed, of course, since 1991, but you say that you shutter to think what will happen when christine blasey ford is questioned on monday. why is that? >> i do, because the senate judiciary committee then as now is not an investigative body, it's a political committee and politics hangs over these proceedings as heavily as it did back in 1991. back then the republicans on the committee who was actually in the minority then still went in with a vicious strategy to undercut professor hill's credibility. they called her even an erotomaniac, they h

tonight the attorney for ms. ford has told the committee her client is not ready to proceed to testify on monday. this is 24 hours after she said on the "today" show, that her kindly would do anything she needed to do to get her testimony forward. what is going on here tonight? >> you know, i think this is a really interesting wrinkle as well. the reality is that she basically went out on the air on a variety of tv appearances and essentially said, i want to testify. i want to tell my story. i don't think the vote should be had until i've had a chance to tell my story. and it sounds like what they're doing is giving her an opportunity to tell her story and now she says i want to wait. i think this is an interesting wrinkle. i think it's better for everyone if she has a chance to air what she has to say. the damage has been done. me might as well have an opportunity to refute it. this is the risk to bring allegations years and years after the incident. >> helge, also is the following program. in the 36 hours since her

during a visit in san francisco yesterday nancy pelosi urged senators to first hear ms. forde out and don't rush to a vote. >> i hope that they will ave an investigation. r a fair in addition to a hearing. >> republican senator susan collins of maine says the lawyers for both ford and kavanaugh should question the two in order to, quote, elicit the most information. >>> most of the rain from the former hurricane florence has stopped. now it is time to start assessing the damage back in a couple of hours president trump will head to north carolina where he will get a firsthand look at the destruction. we already know that at least 237 people in three states have died . thousands of homes are destroyed at least 10,000 peopl businesses are still without power this morning. we have been talking to lauren blanchard every morning since before hurricane florence came ashore in north carolina. we will check in with her again coming up in the next half hour. >>> san francisco police arrested a man suspected in several burglaries over the past few weeks. investigators released 61-year-

and i do think it could mean potential peril for ms. ford because remember there are questions you could ask her in a respectful but firm way that could make her look pretty bad. you know, where did this take place. who else was present. what time of day? how many people were there? all of which she has said she is not entirely clear about. that is -- those are the kinds of questions that senators who are generally incompetent in asking questions would not be able to ask. so it's not just about the atmospherics of a woman asking questions. it is a prosecutor asking questions and i think she could potentially do some damage to ms. ford. >> as you were speaking there, jeffrey, we saw live pictures of the president's motorcade arr e arriving at the un. we're going to continue to monitor the president's appearances there. but meanwhile, more to discuss here. >> we are interested in your take on what we heard this morning on cnn and in john berman's fascinating interview. let's listen to one of the points that she made. >> what i find most fascin

that's directly contrary to what ms. ford said. like brett kavanaugh said, i believe something happened to ms. ford. my heart goes out to her, but we cannot smear an innocent man with no corroborating evidence, and refuted evidence, because all individuals say they were not there. we cannot smear an innocent man. we have due process in this country, and my hard goes out to ms. ford. it likewise goes out to judge kavanaugh. this process has been very dirty because of democrats. misford said in her opening statement on july 6th i had a sense of urgency. i wanted to get this information to the president, to the senate. that could have happened had dianne feinstein marched over to the white house and given this information to the white house and to the senate judiciary committee. she did not. in doing so she disrespected miss ford. >> not true. she didn't do it because dr. ford asked her to not release the letter. >> she could have done that. she could have given her anonymity. >> she had to move out of her house. senator fine tine was

ms. ford's attorney sent to the committee yesterday was clearly intended to get to yes and the fact that this judiciary committee has been receptive means that it is very likely they will get there and makes it even harder for the republicans on the committee to say no at this point. but let's just fast forward to that point. and i keep kind of bringing this up because when we get to that point, if we get to that point, you have one person saying one thing, presumably if they're assuming that brett kavanaugh is not going to change his story, emphatically denying it and we're still going to be in a place of he said-she said and it will be up to these senators to decide who they believe. and it's going to be tough. >> that, molly, still puts senators in a difficult position there because if you hear two credible people, right, make two contradictory accounts, what do senators do, right? you are not in their head, but it's going to be tough. this idea that, yes, they come to agreement and she testifies, everything is settled. no, the bigger question is what you do after the testimony. >> th

not ms. ford, but certainly them, making a bunch of speeches, and ms. mitchell methodically went through the facts of what happened that day. leading up to that day, and how we found ourselves there. from my point of view, i am pleased with what i saw. >> your background as a prosecutor, sitting up there, did you find a doctor forward it to be credible? >> i did not find her allegations to be corroborated against mr. kavanaugh. i don't doubt that something happened to her, but she can't say the house, the city, the month of the year. he is saying i didn't do it, but here is what you do. when you have an emotional accusation and an emotional denial, you use the rule of law, the presumption of innocence attached it to the person accused. you have to give them time and location. you ask if there's anybody to verify this, and all of it goes the other way. having said that, what i think about ms. ford, very confident, accomplished lady. something happened. i don't know what. you are asking me to say it was brett kavanaugh, and i don't know what happened, whe

victims of sexual assault said that it should have been a private one on one consultation that allowed ms ford to talk uninterrupted and then experience question or to help or fill in the blanks but instead we had this outrageous public spectacle that it was a disservice to absolutely everyone involved it was a disservice to all the senators and to miss ford and certainly to judge kavanaugh . so i want all the news balun the palestinian president has used his speech to the un general assembly to launch a strong attack on the u.s. and israel mahmoud abbas said the u.s. is no longer an independent mediator in the peace process and contrast israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu barely addressed the issue in his speech on diplomatic editor james bay is has more a request political when the israeli prime minister spoke to the un there was one thing he hardly talked about the palestinians he instead focused on iran claiming israel had discovered a new nuclear storage facility in tehran he then went told to boast about the strength of his relationship with the trumpet ministration so i want to us

ms. ford deserves to be heard. she has come forward. i don't necessarily know if that is something she originally intended to do. it seems like the republican leadership in the senate, both mcconnell and grassley, are trying to steamroll this thing through and the nomination through, are not doing their due diligence to listen to these accusations and take them seriously. they were looking at monday they wanted to have potential testimony come forward. i think this deserves an investigation. let's hear from both sides, because this is a serious and significant issue. if we don't -- the challenge for the republicans is this sort of reinforces the challenges they face with women. is certainly women in the battleground districts. it reinforces the struggle trump had with women in many districts. if there is an investigation and we are able to hear from ms. ford, it certainly makes navigation tricky for house candidates on the republican side. sean: is this something to bring up on the campaign trail? charlie: you are seeing an important co

brett kavanaugh and you will have ms. ford. for the first time americans will see this woman, a mother, professor, see her face as she makes this claim. there are risks as well for republicans, are there not, as they make this vote, particularly for women involved here, senator collins, et cetera. it is quite a fine path for republicans to walk, is it not? >> absolutely. i mean, thursday is going to be the be all, end all. we will know after the questioning, after seeing both of them come forward in front of the committee who is the most credible, who is the most forthright. and you're right about women. you know, women voters are incredibly important in this election. a lot of them are moving towards the democrats. so remember, not only is there a me too movement, but a lot of woman are also mothers who have sons or, you know, obviously daughters or brothers. so they also project on brett kavanaugh and look at him and wonder what if this was my dad? what if this was my son? so i think we're not always adding that to the decisi

in terms of what has been released, the opening statements for both ms. fordnd brett kavanaugh has been released, the lawyeree and ford's coming out. here are some excerpts starting with ms. ford. she will say during her opening statement that i don't want to be here but i'm terrified. i believe i should tell what happened between me and bring kavanaugh in high school. these last couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life, i have had to relive my trauma in front of the entire world and have seen my life picked apart by people on television come in the media, and have never spoken to me. my motivation in coming forward was to provide the facts of how mr. cavanaugh's actions have damaged my life so that you can take that into consideration as you proceed. it is not my responsibility to decide whether mr. cavanaugh sits on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell the truth. that from remarks. this from brett kavanaugh's prepared remarks, posted by the judiciary committee last night. he will say in part, i spend most of my time in high school focused

the committee is negates with ms. ford.ut certainly if the hearings happen, republicans are saying right now there will be a vote. but i think you see the tactics emerging on both sides. republicans now sticking to their new time line and you are increasingly hearing from democrats, including senator chris kuhns who said he wants the fbi to investigate. republicans clearly want a vote. democrats are embracing the new tactic delay, delay, delay in the form of an fbi investigation. >> committee members on the senate judiciary committee, the republicans all men on the republican side in the judiciary committee are thinking clearly about what happened in 1991 with anita hill and how she was questioned. let's listen and remind people so some of what was seen as the most insulting lining of the questions towards her. >> are you a scorned woman? >> no. >> are you interested in writing a book? >> why make the calls that you agreed to, how are you doing? or i'm in town. or tell his secretary you're in town. why drive the man to the

kavanaugh, by ms. ford, by mark judge. they have a lot of people to go to from the get-go.k's time are they going to be able to investigate this thoroughly enough to one clear him and say nothing happened, which would be a good thing for kavanaugh going into the court without this cloud over his head. might they find enough to correspontorpedo him? is it enough mike emanuel was saying earlier on to give the moderate democrats cover to vote yes on a vifertion. >> trace: if you heard judge kavanaugh yesterday a week is an eternity. it's got to help john bussey that mark judge has said he will cooperate. he is in. he is going to cooperate. he really is the key witness in a lot of. this better to get out in front of the inevitable, isn't it? the alternative is for the fbi to subpoena him. one way or the other, he is going to have to be giving his witness testimony to the fbi in the circumstance in which he can't lie to the fbi. so this will be a step forward in the investigation right there. but you are right about the time here as well. a lot can happen in a short amount of ti

ms. ford's allies said should happen, a public reckoning under oath for the accuser and the accused. that does happen this coming monday or later will have parallels to anita hill. that brings us to a question we want to probe tonight, should one allegation of sexual misconduct prevent a promotion to the supreme court? that was part of the issue facing clarence thomas in 1991. anita hill facing off against a committee that was made exclusively of male senators. we're about to hear two senators. the female accuser was worried about the risk of stepping forward. today, we are seeing that played out in all kinds of attacks. there's also the question whether the alleged conduct cast doubt on whether that person, thomas or kavanaugh, should be held basically to a position where they decide on the life and death of other individuals. tonight, kavanaugh's defenders insist to the contrast. hill was accusing thomas of conduct when he was a 33-year-old attorney. kavanaugh faces allegations that would have occurred when he was about 17, if true. hill's allegations involved repeat instances, whe

this really presents considerable peril for ms. ford to have an aggressive and intelligent effective cross examiner ask her questions and think about what her answer is going to be. who else was present? i'm not sure. what house did it take place? i don't know. describe the house. i don't remember. if you do a real cross-examination of her in a courtroom style, she could look pretty bad. that's independent of the fact it's a woman asking the questions. now, she could be too aggressive this prosecutor and generate sympathy for ms. ford, but i think, yes, it is a question of optics, but it is also about the substance of how this examination goes, and i just think it was a very intelligent decision by the republicans to deputize this woman as their advocate. >> thank you very much. >>> will rod rosenstein keep his job after meeting with president trump tomorrow? and if he doesn't, what will congress do to protect the russia investigation. we'll discuss next. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safe

victims of sexual assault said that it should have been a private one on one consultation that allowed ms ford to talk uninterrupted and then experience question or to help or fill in the blanks but instead we had this outrageous public spectacle that was a disservice to absolutely everyone involved it was a disservice to all the senators and to miss ford and certainly to judge kavanagh yeah as you say it's an interesting point you make because millions of people around the world were watching the hearing and your suggesting that it wasn't good for the image of the u.s. judicial system and could have been handled differently you think. it could have been handled completely differently and it should have been this wasn't a court of law this was a confirmation hearing for a seat on the supreme court of the united states and it devolved into talking about beer drinking and high school and flatulence and how somebody pronounce the f. word it was just it was embarrassing to the united states senate has never stooped this low. brett kavanaugh seems to be unwilling to endorse the idea of an f.b.i. in

investigations from this committee and to delay this vote in this committee for a week so that judge -- that ms. ford, dr. ford could be heard and she was yesterday. so it's with that agreement that i will advance the bill to the floor. senator grassley: the clerk will call the roll. senator flake: wait. can dianne speak? senator grassley: we are voting on the motion to report the nomination to the floor. he clerk will call the roll. senator feinstein: that's not my understanding. mr. chairman, let the senator explain. senator flake: my understanding, and if the democrats could speak to it, chris or you, the democrats would accept and endorse a one-week f.b.i. investigation limited in time and scope. senator feinstein: that's correct. senator grassley: since you're the deciding vote here, we'll vote and if there is discussion we'll do that after the vote. call the roll. [calling roll] senator feinstein: on the nominee, no. mr. senator coons: on the nominee, no. senator booker: no. senator grassley: aye. the nominee will be reported to the floor. >> mr. chairman, may i be recognized? senator grassley:

obvious person to call as a witness, you know, the guy who was allegedly part of the assault on ms. ford. i mean, this is -- that's how you do a real investigation is you try to get corroboration or the lack thereof for multiple stories. i have seen no interest on the part of the republicans who run that committee in calling ms. ramirez, but that would be an appropriate way to deal with it, i certainly agree. >> it's also very possible that the president will not second that notion on twitter this morning or later today in that, in fact, sarah sanders possibly spoke before talking to him since yesterday he called these all false accusations. >> and, anna,dana, grassley and mcconnell, they've shown no wiggle room on this hearing, no inclination to let anyone else testify, maybe which is why sarah sanders felt comfortable suggesting something she knew wouldn't happen. >> right, they are the ones in charge. so far the answer is, no, they haven't, but, you know, if the whole goal is to make the allegation baseless and if they believe that they can do that based on what they read in "the new

you can send the fbi agents out to interview ms. fordview judge kavanaugh under oath. and report back to the judiciary committee. the leadership of the committee and the other members can decide whether more hearings are necessary or not. it may not be the case you need to have more hearings, but you want to find out what people are going to tell you under oath first. that said, i find -- i doubt that a lot new will turn up, because this happened so long ago. about 35 years ago. the only other corroborating witness who was there said it didn't happen. judge kavanaugh said it didn't happen. ms. ford doesn't remember a lot of details apparently, not even the year when it happen. i don't think you're going to have any new information that is going to make a difference. but the senator still may want to look judge kavanaugh on the eye, the amount done like me want to look ms. ford in there to make a judgment about credibility. i don't think they should take longer than a week or two, at most. >> dana: is at the white house that has to ask th

well, it seems that way, kate, and i'm actually glad that ms. fordo testifying, even though it is disappointing that the white house and the republican senate have been completely closed off to an fbi investigation before she testifies, because really, at the end of the day, that is going to be the only way that a hearing would have been done with fairness, both for ms. ford as well as for kavanaugh. you know, one thing that i think we have been so apt to leave out of here, kate, because we're all political animals, and you know, jeff is right. for the white house, this is all about the midterms, but let's focus on the humanity of this situation here. not just for christine ford, who believes that she went through a traumatic, horrible, tragic situation more than 30 years ago at the hands of brett kavanaugh, but also for brett kavanaugh, if he believes that he is being unfairly accused. if that is the case, you would think that both sides, including kavanaugh, would want to get at the truth of this, would want facts, would want, you know, everything

ford alleges. so, after 36 years as ms. mitchell was able to develop, we know that for obvious reasons doctor ford's account has some inconsistencies and gaps regarding the timing, location, and details about the events. i think we need to listen to her. we need to take her story into account. as i said, i want to treat her the same way i would want my mother, sister, or daughters treated under certain circumstances. but we can ignore the inconsistencies. we also can't ignore the full throated defense and heartfelt denial of judge kavanaugh. or the testimony that none of this is in the character of judge kavanaugh. we heard that from people dating back to 1982. indeed, as ms. mitchell, professional prosecutor prosecuting sex crimes in arizona, she told us last night that with more than two decades of experience with the kind of case brought forward by ms. ford, she would not file those charges against the defendant. there simply is not enough evidence. in fact, the only witnesses identified by doctor ford denied the event oc

ms. ford, all i can say about ms. i do believe something happened to her, and i don't know when and where, but i don't believe it was brett kavanaugh, and as a prosecutor, you couldn't get out of the batter's box because in america, before you can accuse somebody of a crime, you have to tell them when it happened and where it happened, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did happen. the reason this case will never be brought in maryland or anywhere else, you just can't get there. if you wanted to get a warrant, which is a probable cause standard to search or arrest them, you have to present by probable cause when and where it happened. how are you supposed to defend yourself? is that britain really on you to prove that you are not at a party 35 years ago? you do not know when it was or where it was. all i can say is that under any reasonable standard, any concept of the rule of law, this would not go forward. there have been five allegations here. but this allegation was brought to me by senator wh

ms. ford is a real person, not as a political pawn in the would have left the democratic operatives now hired to dig up to dig up the mix. i want to say chairman grassley throughout all of this has been a generous as we would all want him to be an i want to commend him what began because he's had a very difficultun job trying to run te judiciary committee, trying to be fair to the nominee and the accuser alike when thrown in the spokes of the committee operation has created more of a circus like atmosphere than it has a sort of deliberative process in search for the truth and testing the background of the nominee, which is something allto nominees deserve. no nominee deserves to be dragged through the mud like this. chairman grassley has been patient because he knows how important essays, how much is on the line not only for the supreme court, but also for women across the country who see a little bit of themselves in dr. ford m and want to make sure her voice is like there's are heard. over t

ms. ford's allegations and not just him but everyone else she described at the party as well. this was not a he said she said situation, this is a she said versus what four people have said. jillian: that she come across as credible? >> he was sympathetic, ernest but there were a number of inconsistencies. she said she cannot name the hearing this past monday, her attorney said that is because of her fear of flying and she says that is because of what happened in this incident. they asked for a few days that she would be able to drive to washington dc from california. we heard the rumors and wasn't sure where that was coming from. >> you speak through your lawyers and that was from her legal team. it turns out she took a plane to washington dc to this hearing today. shannon: and costa rica. >> is a world traveler, regularly takes planes, can't remember if she showed the washington post reporter therapist notes a couple months ago. and she wished they could have come to california, the senate committee staff, chairman grassley offered public information to go out there. shannon

well, ms. ford lied about flying. she was scared to fly but come to find out she flew all over the place. and number three, what people have to understand is, not all women tell the truth. i was investigated for eight years under false allegations. host: sexual assault allegations, scott? caller: sexual assault allegations. i came home and found five policemen that had kicked in my front door, standing at my front door from vacation. they told me i sexually ssaulted a girl the day before , and she said, i don't have any witnesses but he sexually assaulted me in his home. there were crime scene investigators at my home. i was 418 miles away with 70 witnesses. host: how long did it take you -- how long did it take you, scott, to clear your name of these allegations? caller: i actually sued the state and won. host: this is south carolina, you're talking about? caller: well, no, this didn't happen in south carolina. but i sued the state and won. and the girl walked away. i mean, there were four different girls, they were

ms. ford's credibility. you've not seen niche come out and defend him publicly. it comes down to do you have the votes. can you get a couple of these senators to come on. >> just in terms of president's role, when he inserts himself into any of these controversies, he seems to do so in a very polarizing way. when you look at the balance of power in the senate, there would be risks. is there an attempt to try to keep him quiet on this? >> i did talk to someone. he said on the outside, the president's allies and the president's supporters in kor congress are really waiting for the president to come out. that will the wave that gives them cover to come out on their own and start defending cavanaugh. one thing the president would do is send a signal to every one we are standing behind them. it's safe for you to come out. we would expect to see a tweet from the president this morning, we didn't. >> thank you for joining us. thanks to jeff bennett as well. he had to run. reporting for the white house. we have been told the son and daughter sew dish -- the questiw is is

some democrats want to hear directly from ms. ford, the alleged victim before moving forward. now senator chuck grassley, chairman of the committee said he is actively working on following up with both bret cavanaugh and ms. ford before proceeding with the confirmation process. now, those are the facts based on what we know now, at this point, here's my opinion. one, none of this changes the fact that bret cavanaugh is qualified for a seat on the court and that his judicial philosophy is not only in line with what donald trump said in the campaign but good for the country. too, diane feinstein has been unfairly casted in all this. it was not her but the intercept that put this matter in the public domain. three, some on the left have politicize this in a deeply disturbing way. just look at the statement from the liberal pro-choice group. the charge of sexual assault against bret cavanaugh is disqualifying and we call on him to immediately withdraw his nomination for supreme court. the charge? an accusation on its own is disqualifying, imagine if we accepted that as the new sta

ms. ford's testimony and also ms. ramirez. uncover and turn over every stone, but remember, fbi acts will not be able to determine voracity or truth. they're simply going to write down exactly what was related to them, and another hurdle here is, people that they go seek to interview can tell them, thanks, but no thanks. and the only thing that could compel those people to testify would be a subpoena from congress or if the state, meaning montgomery county, maryland, decided if a charge was actually filed there, they could possibly use a grand jury subpoena. this is going to be difficult. if people don't want to cooperate, the fbi cannot compel them to do so. >> and shan, do you have confidence that this investigation is going to bring anymore, solidified detail to assist these senators in their decision-making? >> it should. i mean, most of these allegations have already been made public, but as james is pointing out, this is going to make it a formal part of the record. people have already spoken, can be interviewed and thei

testimony, for example, susan collins was quite unsettled last friday when donald trump sought to derive ms. ford as credible. >> to your point about the he said/she said, it's important to point out as of this moment, no other witnesses allowed and no fbi investigation, which dr. ford would have wanted to be part of this. let's also consider the negotiations that are ongoing now as to whether this will be a public or private hearing. that's the very highly significant issue because on whaund, republicans are concerned about the optics around dr. ford and how she's being treated, but there's also this. scott, take a listen. >> you watched the fight, you watched the tactics, but here's what i want to tell you, in the very near future, judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. so, my friends, keep the faith, don't get rattled by all of this, we're going to plow right through it. and do our job. >> plow right through it, he says. clearly, scott, some would prefer this to remain private, not a public hearing. >> well, first of all, just a reminder, that is the first priority should

blasey ford and ms. ramirez, reminding us once again that he has been credibly accused of committing sexual assault himself and denigrates not just women who accuse him but survivors everywhere. that's not all. the chief counsel of the senate judiciary committee tweeted after dr. blasey ford's sexual assault allegation, quote, unfazed and determined, we will confirm judge kavanaugh. and according to ms. ramirez' law, the judiciary committee isn't even interested in taking her claim seriously or getting information from her about her claims. instead of getting the facts, instead of even wanting the facts, they tried to dismiss this as a smear campaign and plow right ahead. for anyone who has ever wondered why so many survivors of sexual assault don't come forward, obviously there's trauma. but there's also the fear of this very kind of retaliation and scorn. mr. president, the question i have, that i know you have, do we value women in this country? do we value women in this country? do we listen to women

the immediate reaction to that though has been one of skepticism from a lot of americans suggesting ms ford has the offer to testify perhaps she should go ahead with the monday meeting we will find out on monday. beyond painting kavanagh as the victim trump has been pretty restrained in engine small instances that. he has you know there's been some story lines that he has been counseled by his daughter ivanka that apparently she has suggested it might be time to back off supporting kavanaugh from the white house i think mr trump also knows that if this goes worse it gets worse from here he perhaps does not want to have his fingerprints on the kavanaugh nomination at the end of the day larry and this is just one republican's opinion my recommendation is kavanagh should actually withdraw his should come to the decision himself to withdraw when speaker boehner was speaker of the house and he was facing a challenge to his authority he could have won the vote but he alternately decided to resign and that day that he resigned he said i did not want to put the institution through this turmoil bret

and if ms. ford does not go forward and tells her story as republicans have given her a chance to do, they have no choice but to vote on the confirmation. i don't think it really matters much for women voters. story will go away if she does not testify. neil: you know, dan mitchell, i always wonder about that, and you don't want to get ahead of a bloc of voters, be it female any more than african-american, you know how they dice and slice the voting electorate, as they're part of a homogeneous group. republicans are worried they could be playing an anita hill hand dealt nearly a generation ago. do you think that's the case? >> i'm not sure we can make a judgment at this stage whether or not this fight over kavanaugh is going to have an effect on voting. what i can say with more confidence is if the economy is doing well, guess what? people no longer worry about the economy. so i'm not sure that faster growth will help the republicans in 2018, because now people feel, okay, i can set that aside, shoul

the president is apparently unhappy with him and been too an co -- accommodating to ms. ford.ack from the beginning and said this is not credible, women across the country would absolutely be up in arms. they have to give her a fair shake. the midterms are coming up in a couple of weeks. i think six weeks now. the republicans are in trouble. the house is in trouble. house majority runs through with educated women who don't like trump and do not trust this president. >> no one studies these numbers closer than you, harry. how do the midterms loom over everything that could happen on wednesday and the optics of someone pressing someone in her words was sexually assaulted. >> i think republicans should be tough. i would argue they should vote to confirm kavanaugh. if you look at the swing districts. this is a senate thing. if you look at the congressional districts, you see kavanaugh's numbers are higher than they are nationally. remember, go back to the tax bill last year. it was unpopular. everyone said they should not vote for it. when they voted it through, we saw trump's num

a polygraph administered after ms. ford retained counsel.his was not an 11th hour attempt to derail kavanaugh. you have a number of facts that should the re-opening happen. >> sudden light is t-- sunlight the best disinfectant. what's the argument to slow this down, against having people come forward and answer some questions. not racing towards this thursday's vote. >> the argument for slowing down is that there's a precedent for it and it happened in the clarence thomas hearing. you have those who regard it add a character smear. the allegations were not serious and that id brought down the character of clarence thomas. this is an excellent window into how society looks at sexual assault. we should ask ourselves what kind of crime and what kind of allegation would be sufficient for everybody to think it would be proepappropriate to re-open supreme court hearing. is it murder? is it arson? the notion we're pausing that there suspect an automatic to reopen says something serious about how we as a society tend to disregard claims of sexual as