well you know we're in two different arenas take mr katz's comments hard and i take them at face value but one interesting thing about your introductory topic topic in question was whether mitch mccall and statement over in two thousand and sixteen really rang true and is something that is contributing to a tit for tat mentality well it's not because you have to understand when garland was prohibited from even to have been a vote on his advisement and potential subsequent confirmation this was going to be the potential changing of the guard in two thousand and sixteen meaning a monumental presidential election was coming up if there was to be a change in the presidential candidate who would then be elected by the people well then that person and that person's government should be allowed to appoint this supreme court justice the same way it has been throughout eternity now i understand what mr katz is saying and i think he is spot on in the sense that it is very difficult to take a stance attacking in this case dr ford but as an experienced defense attorney i'm sure mr cass would agree

. >> well, i agree with mr. katz, i'm so glad that we have extra time now, independent body that can take a look at trying to just drill down a little bit more and since there are witnesses from that time period that we will get some more information that will hopefully shed more light so we can understand what happened. jon: everything that we've read so far from the witnesses is that they cannot recall anything such party, that they, you know, have not -- they have no recollection of this event having taken place, you think the fbi investigation might change that? >> absolutely. they are professionals, they are used to do this. there's a big difference between sitting down and filing an affidavit saying i don't remember this and sitting down and having a conversation with professionals who can, you know, ask the right questions to -- to create that timeline and fill in the gaps. jon: david as a former federal prosecutor i'm sure you've watched the grilling that dr. christine blasey ford took as well as judge kavana

which is russia's military intelligence agency now bella katz says that according to sources in russia mr chepe is a high ranking colonel within the g.r.u. but the same source within their article says that this type of operation would have been usually carried out by a low ranking field officer no higher ranking than captain now in the past there have been those who have called into question belling kat's billeted to carry out these types of investigations independently and without any bias what is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves era level analysis is a method used by hobbyists never been to syria. doesn't speak arabic and he can't duck says press and research from the content of his armchair now ever since that incident in seoul very early this year the u.k. government have held the russian government responsible for what took place and that's a theme which repeated itself today in the un general assembly the u.k. saw the consequences of these norms being the road it insults pretty this year when russia recklessly deployed a nerve agent on our streets the united kingdom ha

but debra katz representing mrs.ly representing kavanaugh accuser christine blasey ford i has also represented her in the past at different things. there is some type of relationship there. susan collins evidently, man, does this matter, was especially upset about the latest allegation. and many people think that she might want to hear something from her before she goes ahead and casts a vote. the question, too is, is mark judge and susan collins asked this question. is mark judge, who brett kavanaugh -- wh evidently at brett kavanaugh's side through all these accusations is she going to get subpoenaed? she asked that question as did others. steve: she did offer to speak to the fbi. brian: the fbi? steve: has offered to speak to the fbi or the judiciary committee under oath. ainsley: it's his words against her word. we are going to hear from both sides today. keep in mind, there is no evidence. this is a long time ago. we still want to hear from her. she still needs to speak out and i'm glad she is. steve: tell her s

mr. kavanaugh made it clear he would come. but, if she didn't talk, why would he show up. then, as it turns out, her attorney, ms. katzled the committee and they talked for about half an hour and they started negotiating an appearance which is unusual for a congressional testimony. ed: started with the accuser saying she wanted to be heard. and so the republicans have spent the last week okay we want to hear you. let's have a hearing on monday. and she didn't initially want to do that. and now you see her team trying to dictate the terms of that testimony. ainsley: they have listed a few terms. they say she will only talk, she has agreed to be interviewed by the committee only, no questions from lawyers. says that judge kavanaugh cannot be in the room when she is testifying. and that judge kavanaugh has to testify first. >> steve: the reason accord ing to "the washington post she doesn't want any lawyers asking the questions because her attorney doesn't want to make it look like she is on trial. and also she would like to have the optics of all these men asking her questions. ed: men all republicans. men ganging up on