grassley: yes. a you are saying by setting time for that, you will break with the tradition of this committee. certainly, the tradition in the 40 some years i have been here, giving all the members all the time they needed to debate. what you are saying by setting a , you could arrange it so that only one person will be allowed to debate it up to that time. say has never been lastin certainly over the 40 years on it neither the republican or democratic. sen. grassley: it was done in 2003 by chairman hatch. >> that is when he broke the rules on debate and everybody realized he broke the rules. the fact that you are saying you are going to set a time and you may not intend to do this but you could get the quorum when we came in and you could talk up to the time and nobody would be allowed the chance to speak. wouldn't it make a lot more thing, allowthis debate, and then if you feel it is going too long, go ahead and break the rules? at least allow everybody a chance to speak. right now you're setting

senator grassley: just a minute. all i have said to senator flake is that i would advocate for the position he took but i don't control that. >> mr. chairman. senator grassley: senator chobe char. senator chobe -- senator klobuchar: there may be -- there is not a set agreement. all of us already said we were voting no. it is simply senator flake working with all of us to say for the good of the senate and the good of the court, the american people deserve to have the facts followed up on. i really appreciate his willingness to do that. and that is what this is about. this is simply about -- and by the way, if senator mcconnell wants to go forward in light of that and we still have several senators that haven't said how they're voting on this nominee, i actually think this is very important what just happened right now. so it doesn't have to have an agreement. it is one senator who's standing up. senator grassley: senator cornyn. senator cornyn: i want to express my appreciation for senator flake for allowing this pro

grassley: call the role. [voting] sen. grassley: the motion lost. would it be possible for us to vote and we will stay for the opening statement at the end? >> i would like to make one brief comment and put my opening statement in the in the record. >> go ahead. , and i think he was not concerned at all. said, senator,u if i may, if i understand it, we did not get the documents from the library and that is the problem. a lawyer was sent in to select the documents and i see that as a problem. documents coming from anybody's archives seems to me, for a purpose like this, should not be selected by a president's lawyer. it ought to be selected by the archives. if i could ask the senator to invoke my name, -- may i respond my friend senator feinstein. it has been the same practice used by previous presidents because the archives has no way of knowing absent the intervention of the lawyer or former president whether or not there is actually a valid claim or even a coble claim of executive privilege. there has to be a process by which the request for docum

senator grassley: the two hour rule. >> did we come in at noon? senator grassley: we did. the two hour rule. we had to get this all done by 2:00 p.m. >> is it done or did you cut off the vote? senator grassley: we did not have a motion. this is all a gentleman's and women's agreement. but i am committed -- >> let him say what he is committed to. senator grassley: no? [chatter] >> here is a look at the schedule this morning. "washington journal" starts shortly featuring your calls and guess talking about the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. at 10 :00 a.m., speeches from the united nations general assembly leading off with president trump, followed by is really prime minister netanyahu and the palestinian president. fictionuest on in-depth edition. our live call-in program. with her most recent book "the secret port." her other novels include "people ." the book watch in-depth fiction addition with author geraldine brooks live sunday from noon until 3:00 p.m. on book tv and be sure to watch in-depth fiction edition .ith author jodi picot on book tv on c-sp

if chuck grassley knows that yet. >> and chuck grassley is on the record in writing over the last two days saying he wants to move forward on this. his word, in a precedented matter. there is one precedent, from when he was on the judiciary committee before in 1991, and, yes, people thought that the fbi investigation of anita hill's allegations was cursory. but the fbi investigated her allegations and did do witness interviews in that proceeded the hearing. all professor ford is asking for is for that precedent to be followed. and the idea that they will reject her on that and say, nope, we're going to go ahead without anybody looking into this. we're going to ram this through because we can, i mean, they can try, but it's belied by everything they've done before on issues like this. and i just -- i see him hurtling toward the sun. >> yeah, it's as if i'm hearing dr. ford and her brilliant lawyer say to the judiciary committee, republicans on the judiciary committee, you might have learned nothing in the last 26 years, but we have. >> yeah. >> and they are in control. thank you, rache

grassley: good morning. i welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of -- >> mr. chairman. sen. grassley: -- brett kavanaugh to serve -- >> mr. chairman, i would like to be recognized for a question before we proceed. mr. chairman, i would like to be recognized to ask the question before we proceed. the committee received just last night less than 15 hours ago -- sen. grassley: the chairman asks for order. sen. harris: -- thousands of documents that we have not had a chance to read or review or analyze. sen. grassley: you are out of order. i will proceed. sen. harris: we cannot possibly move forward, mr. chairman. sen. grassley: i offer a very warm welcome to mr. cavanaugh, to his wife, their two daughters -- >> mr. chairman, i agree with my colleague senator harris. mr. chairman, we received 42,000 documents that we have been unable to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed sen. grassley: i know this is an exciting day for all of you here , you are rightly p

grassley andairman our colleagues on the judiciary committee will reconvene. they and the american people will hear testimony under oath. the wake oft in extremely serious and troubling allegations about supreme court nominee judge kavanaugh, chairman grassley announced he would hold a hearing of the judiciary committee next monday to examine the allegations. i want to salute the six republican members who i believe changed senator grassley's mind and leader mcconnell's mind. the first instinct was to wrestle through, have this ridiculous phone call with republican staff, with both people on the phone, both of the now witnesses on the phone. made no sense. but because a good number of our republican friends said there ought to be hearing and testimony, senator grassley and senator mcconnell backed off the position of no hearings. we have one. it is a good thing that we have hearings. but they have to be done right. there must be an agreement on witnesses, and the fbi should begin in time to reopen its background check investigation into judge kavanaugh to spea

chairman grassley has refused dr. ford's request that the committee subpoena the testimony of mark judge who dr. ford says was in the room when brett kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and participated in that assault. the ten democrats sent a letter to chairman grassley today saying "the committee should at a minimum hear from the fbi, the individual who administered dr. ford's polygraph test and all witnesses to the event, including mark judge, each of the individuals republican staff have contacted. there is no reason not to hear all the facts, the committee should also hear from character witnesses for judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. one aren't democrats want outside experts to testify is a tweet by the president of the united states this morning. i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she said, charges would have been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities by either her or her loving parents. i ask that she bring those filings forward so we can learn date, time and place. as ba

four minutes past when chuck grassley wanted a vote and chuck grassley is no longer in his seat. he left the room. so this is to stephanie's point, this is the drama of one of the most historic moments to ever see. here's senator coons talking to senator whitehouse. and i don't know what he's saying. i'm sorry. talking to -- is that durbin or whitehouse. durbin. okay. whitehouse left his seat, it seems. coons reporting to others it seems what conversation he's had with jeff flake. >> we haven't seen jeff flake. >> we haven't. garrett, does anybody know where jeff flake is at the moment? garrett haake? all right. garrett may be getting information for us right now. so this is -- you're right, stephanie. five minutes beyond the vote and not having debates of senators of what's going on and there's leahy and graham and hatch and durbin who i see. >> remember, yesterday was extraordinarily emotionally charged and draining for everyone. you saw how upset graham was, flake was, dr. ford was. i mean, it was massive. and brett kavanaugh also performing for a party of one. lindsey graham

i'm glad that chairman grassley is following standard practice and regular order. and he's stated he plans to pursue this matter by the book with bipartisan interviews of both judge kavanaugh and dr. ford. i have great confidence in chairman grassley and his ability to proceed through this process. process. >> over to the left for the past few days, new allegations have come to light about president trump's nominee to the supreme court, bret kavanaugh. these allegations are to be treated with the utmost gravity. the allegations are extremely credible. they were made by someone who voluntarily submitted to a lie detector test and have been discussed in the past, long before kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court with a family therapy. i believe her. many, many, many americans believe her. many, many women in america who have been taken advantage of certainly believe her. for too long people have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. it would be a disgrace if this body and our fellow republicans let that happen. chai

senator grassley: let me -- >> i'd be happy to speak to it. senator grassley: hold just a inute. would you -- could you make your remarks short, please and speak now and then we will vote. proceed. >> yes, mr. chairman, thank you. we heard yesterday from an extraordinarily courageous, strong, survivor, dr. christine blasey ford. every one of us, i think, were riveted and powerfully impressed by her truth. we heard her provide details in that story that can be corroborated and other facts that can be uncovered. senator blumenthal: if we hear from other witnesses who have very relevant, important knowledge about what happened to her. on that evening in that room. the third person allegedly in the room was mark judge. evidently he has never been interviewed by the f.b.i. he has never been questioned by any member of our committee. he has never submitted a the tailed account of what he knows. -- a detailed account of what he knows. so i move, mr. chairman, that we have him before this committee as a witness. he could be interviewed beforehand on a burn basis. i recognize that he has

senator grassley: no? [chatter] >> following the vote, president trump spoke to reporters and later instructed the fbi to investigate the sexual assault allegations against brett kavanaugh. after senate republicans -- agreed to a one-week delay on moving forward with the nomination to the supreme court. >> mr. president any comment on the request for a delay? president trump: i will let the senate handle that, they will make their decisions. they have been doing a good job. very professional. i am hearing a little bit about it because i have been with the president of chile and we are talking about very important subject. i am sure it will all be very good. i guess the vote was a positive vote. there seems to be a delay, i will learn more about it as

the staffers who are reporting to the chairman chuck grassley. we set up a time to have a call where we would discuss how my client is going to convey her information to the committee, under what circumstances, how this is going to happen. and then they call in at the appointed time and it's only democrats there. none of the republican senators, none of the republican staff. that's just -- i mean, it's just -- it may be unprofessional. i don't know how the professional standards work here. it's weird. >> it's way beyond unprofessional. when we get started here, we have lisa graves, former member of the judiciary staff on the democratic side who is going to dissect that one for us. >> all right. >> thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. >> we're going to go straight to the phones now washington post congressional reporter sean sullivan joining us by phone, part of the reporting team who is delivering the news tonight about this mystery lawyer whom the republicans on the senate judiciary committee are engaging kavanagh's accuser. and at this point

senator grassley: no? [chatter] >> following the judiciary committee vote, president trump spoke to reporters, and later instructed the fbi to investigate the assault allegations against brett kavanaugh, after republicans agreed to a one-week delay before moving forward with his nomination to the supreme court. mr. president, comment on senator flake wanting a one-week delay. president trump: i will let the senate handle that. they have been doing a good job, very professional. i am hearing a little about it as i have been with the president of chile, and we are talking about important subjects. i am sure it will be good. there seems to be a delay, and i will learn more about it. >> [indiscernible] >president trump: i thought her testimony was

senator grassley: senator . umenthal bloomum: thank you for -- loom i'm going to be remarking further on what procedurally i think is appropriate here. ut i want to begin by thanking judge kavanaugh and your family to your commitment to public service. i thank the many, many americans who are paying attention to this hearing, not only in this room, but also across the country. i want to thank them for their interests and indeed their sustains at is what democracy. ordinary tment to every day americans participating. there is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around this building saying i am what is at stake. is proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of america can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, whether consumers are protected against defecttive product and financial abuses. and whether we have a real system of check

ford's lawyer said to senator grassley tonight. quote, as you are aware, she has been receiving death threats which have been reported to the federal bureau of investigation. and she and her family have been forced out of her home. she wishes to testify provided we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety. a earring on monday is not possible and the committee's insistence it occur then is arbitrary in any event. >>> so, we don't know how these negotiations are ultimately going to land. if we get a call on the air this hour, i will let you know as soon as we know. but as far as we can tell, the bottom line is her attorneys are saying monday is impossible. some other day next week might be possible. they want terms they believe are fair and, quote, ensure her vaft. we're not sure what that might men, what kind of assurances they may be looking for there. dr. ford is expressing her strong preference there be a full investigation prior to her testimony. >>> now, how could that full investigation happen? they don't w

he responded to that from chuck grassley, quote, really? when? who will locate and interview witnesses? has the judiciary committee hired independent investigators that we don't know about? when will the witness statements be taken? when will they be shared? will the minority get to call the witnesses or will that just be the republicans who get to call witnesses? senator grassley has also run into a problem in the form of his top staffer on the committee, the person who he has apparently tasked with investigating this attempted rape allegation. the investigator is named mike davis. he says that he is the chief counsel for nominations working for chairman chuck grassley on the judiciary committee. last night mr. davis decided for some reason to get on twitter and let it all hang out in terms of how the supposed investigation is going. he said online, quote, i personally questioned judge kavanaugh under penalty of felony and five years of imprisonment if he lies. i'm still waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys. which means by his own d

chairman grassley just got the letter. cnn's kaitlan collins has been working her sources at the white house and joins us now. what are you learning? >> reporter: we know brett kavanaugh spent the day mounting a defense and getting prepared and briefed by his confirmation team ahead of what was expected to be that public hearing on monday. now with the breaking news, that seems to be thrown into doubt. what we have learned from what will republicans have been saying all day, they've been getting more forceful in their defense dfz kavanaugh and seem unwilling to negotiate an alternative date for the hearing on monday. even senator lindsey graham and others say that on monday, that would be her opportunity to come forward to tell her story. they were going to move forward with a vote. if they're unwillito go forward that testimony on monday, there's a really good chance they could move forward with in and vin judge kavanaugh confirmed as a supreme court justice possibly by next week. for the white house, we've been discussin

chairman grassley should provide the american people the forum to hear her out. i believe she's credible. a lot of my republican friends don't. what are they afraid of? are they afraid that she might be very persuasive? well, if she is, it is a whole different ballgame, isn't it? so chairman grassley should and must provide the american people the forum to hear her out and decide for themselves whether her testimony reflects on judge kavanaugh's character and fitness for the supreme court. of course he can have the chance to testify again, too, and both of them have said they would. so why, in the good lord's name, why wouldn't we do that? why? there's no reason. no reason. there is no requirement, rule, or precedent that says the judiciary committee must move forward on judge kavanaugh's nomination this week. none. what's the reason we have to rush it through? when these allegations are hanging out there, when women who are victimized deserve the right to be heard, at the very minimum? and then the gall -- the gall of my dear friend, the republican leader, who d

and we're waiting word from senator chuck grassley or christine blazey ford. she's accusing brett kavanaugh of assault when they were in high school. it's a tense back and forth as they attempt to hammer out details for a hearing next week. both sides can share their story in the potential testimonies. grassley gave ford's attorney until 2:30 p.m. this afternoon to respond to the hearing conditions. no word yet if the deadline will be met. now just one minute away. we'll be right back. the a...is stolen.es... hijacked from dreams. pulled from decades of obsession. taken from the souls of artists. we confess. we stole everything we could. from everything we've ever mastered. and put it here. the all-new lexus es. every curve. every innovation. every feeling. a product of mastery. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. this is a story about mail and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries

>> a lot of frustration from judiciary chairman chuck grassley. he still wants to see professor ford's original letter. he still has not gotten it from ranking member dianne feinstein. other republicans say they hope she shows up to testify, but it if not, they have to go forward with information they have. >> i encourage, and i wanted the committee under senator grassley, to provide her an opportunity in a forum she was comfortable into sort of chauvinist information. she has been given that opportunity, is my understanding. either do it publicly, or privately. ultimately, if that doesn't happen, number one, she should be criticized for not doing it. >> the uncertainty is causing tension to build here on capitol hill, since professor ford's attorney has not officially said no. deanna? >> dana: mike, thank you. as the latest drama plays out in washington, the spokesman for the senate judiciary committee says that democrats are eccentrically bystanders in ine process. >> they have not participated in this. as i said, there's a lot of transparent pr

grassley and the white house. they put this on a fast track at every moment and to delay now will represent a very serious set back. >> and there is senator coons, but you see leahy and whitehouse and ben sasse. >> he is reporting back to the ranking democrat. >> he is reporting to dianne feinstein, the tom democrat on the senate judiciary committee. after his conversation with senator flake in a separate room outside the committee. as far as i know, senator flake has not yet returned. i assume once he returns and briefs the chairman and lets him know where he stands, he announced he will vote in favor of the confirmation and gloria, let's be precise. there are 11 republicans on the committee and 10 democrats. if flake doesn't change his mind and i don't think he will, it would be 11 republicans in favor and 10 democrats oppose and it would go to the full senate for consideration and there presumably would be a procedural vote as early as tomorrow morning. >> for he voted no for the purposes of a delay, wouldn't t

senator grassley's 10:00 a.m. deadline today came and went, and now the end of business is 10:00 p.m. than is still no word as to whether or not the accuser will show up. we take up the latest in the left-wing efforts to derail judge kavanaugh and keep him off the supreme court with republican strategist ed rollins. presidential historian doug wead, and president trump calling for the end of the russian witch hunt. president trump: it has to come to an end. it's so bad for our country. i call it the witch hunt. when you see strzok and page and mccabe with his lies, he gets fired for lying. you see all the things. comey for lying and leaking. you see what went on. it has to come to an end. lou: this morning president trump delayed the release of the documents he had ordered declassified. he says he's doing so out of concern expressed by some key u.s. allies. judicial watch's chris farrell and "russia hoax" author gregg jarrett weigh in tonight. our top story. the "new york times" reporting the deputy attorney gener

chairman grassley led a transparent process. as soon as he heard about these allegations sunday, he moved to set up these background calls to start the investigation. the committee and the senate has a constitutional duty to look at the nominees and see whether they are qualified or fit. the fbi stated they closed this part of the investigation. the senate is moving swiftly under chairman grassley to investigate these allegations. we would like to give dr. ford the opportunity to share these allegations with the committee and judge kavanaugh an opportunity to clear her claim. >> shannon: her attorney said she was traumatized and threatened. they said it's not fair to rush her into this on monday. >> let me say this. chairman grassley has been clear in condemning any threats towards dr. ford. that need to end. that is wrong. the second part is that the attorney for dr. ford was on multiple morning shows saying that her client was willing to testify. chairman grassley set a hearing for monday so she would have the opportunity to d

how blindsided was senator grassley, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, and senator mcconnell, majority leader of the senate, when flake made the announcement he would not vote for the nomination on the floor unless he had a one-week delay and investigation? guest: it was amazing to watch 1:30, when they were supposed to come in and it looked like they were going to push the nomination through and the drama had already happened. circumspect,retty he doesn't display a lot of emotion other than occasionally irritation. when they came in, he essentially gaveled in, and he said senator flake has something to say, flake said his peace, and it was amazing, none of the sensors could figure out what the next move was. -- none of the senators could figure out what the next move was. they didn't know what he was demanding. some of the democratic senators thought flake was going to propose an amendment that would a week delay for an fbi investigation, but instead he voted to approve the motion to advance him out of the senate. that removes some of his own leverage, but even the democrats

if those phone calls give grassley information or raise new concerns to grassley where he says you know what? we need to slow things down, we need to delay the planned thursday vote, then they want to do it. or then it is possible that they would do it. but, until he hears back affirmatively from dianne feinstein that they can at least get a little bit more information than what's been reported in the press, then he is really just keeping his cards close to the vest and the office is also pointing out they didn't know this accuser's name until yesterday, when it was reported. so, they're learning everything basically at the same speed that we have and trying to get a little bit more help with their democratic partner. so far complaining they are not getting it, shep. >> shepard: we are waiting to hear from susan collins peter whom you and your team informed us they will be speaking in a matter minutes now. do we have an idea what to expect from her? >> >> so far we have heard from her on twitter she says she wants kavanaugh and accuser to testify under oath. as you were just saying we d

chuck grassley, his staff, they offered to have a closed hearing. they offered to fly to california and interview her in private. whether this will happen in any format right now, neil, is a big question here on capitol hill. >> neil: you know, she's obviously been advised, recommend fbi investigation. then maybe you'll talk. fbi investigation could take two weeks. let's take that two-week extreme here and they agree or chairman grassly agrees to this. i know unlikely. how would that affect the time frame? we're looking at what would happen to happen? >> brett kavanaugh would not be on the supreme court by the first monday in october when they start. keep in mind, even if they were to say have a committee vote on monday, which is unclear, but hypothetically, when you go through the senate parliamentary hurdles, if you started on monday with a committee vote, it would take you until friday night, you have to have a procedural debate, the confirmation vote, which could happen 30 hours after that vote. that would take you to friday night if you ran all

grassley also said she sounds mixed up. even though grassley is giving the appearance that he is being accommodating saying he wants to make her comfortable, it's easy to see that the gop senators are more prone to believing him than her, and they want to set up the he said-she said and take his word. >> she has 24 hours. the deadline is 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for her to decide if she wants to do this, and then if she does not, it sounds like the monday hearing is canceled for brett kavanaugh as well, and it sounds like that's the direction that chuck grassley would lean in, and then they go to a vote. so they would by definition be voting without all the information. >> right, that appears to be the dynamics here, and if not to appear, the republicans not only on the committee but the sort of handful of republicans that have always been seen as the sort of deciding -- sort of the deciding votes on whether or not kavanaugh will get on the court have all signals, senator flake and corker, they have indicated if she doesn't appe

the chairman chuck grassley gave ford until tomorrow to decide and grassley rejected her call for an fbi investigation first. in a letter to ford and i'm quoting, the constitution assigns the senate and only the senate with the task of advising the president and his nominee and consenting to the nomination if they merit. we have no agency into conducting our due diligence. let's bring in manu and kate rin c collins. what are you lawyering about whether or not ford will be willing to testify? >> both sides expect that it's possible that she could very welcome on monday. both sides, republicans and democrats will tell you they don't know exactly what will happen before chuck grassley's friday deadline for her attorneys to respond to that offer to testify on monday. but one thing is very clear. republicans are rejecting the demands by democrats and ford's attorneys to set some conditions or limits or delay the hearing on monday. one of the things that ford's attorneys raise last night was to bring in outside witnesses to testify and corroborate her story and allow the senators to assess

christine blasey ford, senator grassley ending on a gracious note. there you see the question of rachel mitchell, also shaking hands with dr. blasey ford. a little over four hours ago smiling in her face, waving after her friends and joined by supporters in that room today. submitted questions from ten democratic members of the committee, 11 republican members of the committee, but all of the questions from that sex crimes prosecutor ritual mitchell. that final round of questioning from ms. mitchell, fascinating to me. she seemed to be simultaneously as she talked about how sex crimes victims are usually interviewed, what kind of process they usually go through. you see dr. shaking hands. question after question after mu like rachel mitchell was doing today in public in that questioning. she seemed to be saying those republicans who hired her, i came in to do this my way but it couldn't be done effectively -- >> i so related to her. i have been saying this for weeks. this is not how assaults, sex crimes are investigating. generally you work with eith

there is the deadline, the deadline from senator grassley. if she says no to those terms or if she and her lawyer do not respond by 10:00 p.m. eastern tonight, senator grassley is telling her fine, you are out, we'll vote on it on monday morning unless we hear from you by 10:00 tonight. i am providing notice of a vote to occur on monday in the event that dr. ford attorney do not respond of dr. ford do not testify. we can't continue to delie aay we are unwilling to accommodate your unreasonable demands. so, that's happening right now. this is the new precedent that we are setting for americans who may have important information to bring forward of senate confirmable of lifetime nominee. we are unwilling to accommodate your commands, take it or leave it unless we hear from you by 10:00 p.m. we are waiting to see how this is going to resolve. if you want to know why republicans may be sort of seeming a little desperate on this right now, trying to end this as fast as possible, we need to stop talking about this has to be over, if you are looking

here chairman grassley said they prefer to have a call. we are talking about the politics of that and the danger of the kavanaugh nomination. this is a box for everybody. a situation that is complicated for everybody. let me start with the republican at the table. chairman grassley is trying to say we will listen to ms. ford, but this indicates he does not want to do it in a public setting which is a huge risk for republicans and judge kavanaugh. since she is willing to testify publicly, can they do that? >> as your previous guest mentioned, on the one hand it's extremely important to make sure that republicans are doing all they can to say we want to hear from this person. in fact, it's a shame that democrats for weeks and weeks and weeks knew of this woman's testimony and knew of her story and kept it silent until the moment it would be the most politically advantageous to bring it to light. however, i do think that even if senate republicans don't go along with an open hearing, they will have the argument available to them. he was alrea

ford's attorneys tonight made public by senator grassley's office, grassley insist, quote, the committee does not take witness requests from other witnesses. quote, you said dr. ford wants to chance to tell her story in public and under oath. this is the country we have given her. we don't need to subpoena additional witnesses to do that. end quote. so that's the word tonight from senate republicans. that's how they want to handle this. they have told this woman, who is alleging this serious sexual assault by this nominee that she can take it or leave it. they'll allow her to testify on wednesday, alone, no witnesses allowed. it will be her versus judge kavanaugh, period. and then there is the deadline. the deadline from senator grassley, if she says no to those terms or if she and her lawyers do not respond by 10:00 p.m. eastern tonight, senator grassley is telling her fine, you're out. we're going to vote on it. we're going to vote on it monday morning unless we hear from you by 10:00 tonight. quote, i'm providing notice of a vote to occur monday in the event that dr. ford's attorneys

>> they have not participated, chairman grassley led a very transparent process. as soon as he heard about these allegations sunday he moved to set up these background calls to start the investigation. the committee and the senate as a constitutional duty to look at these nominees the president nominates and to see whether they are qualified and fit. the fbi said in a statement they closed this part of the investigation. the senate is moving swiftly to investigate these allegations and we really would like to give doctor for the opportunity to share these allegations further with the committee and brett kavanaugh an opportunity to clear his name. >> she says she has been traumatized and threatened, she and her family, outlining all things that she is going through not fair to rush into this monday. >> chairman grassley has been very clear in condemning any threats toward doctor ford. he thinks that is inappropriate and needs to end and anyone who is doing that, that is wrong. the second part of that is the attorney for doctor ford on multiple morning shows in her

senator grassley has been down this road before, david. back in 1991 with anita hill, clarence thomas, et cetera. now he tweeted a few times, yesterday into the late night saying as chairman of the judiciary committee, i just granted another extension to dr. ford to decide if she wants to proceed with the statement she made last week to testify to the senate. she should decide so. we can move on. he is directing that to the nominee, kavanaugh. then his tweet later says let's move on with it. but i want to hear her. >> it is pathetic anyone would threaten dr. ford or her family in any way. at least senators on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree this is a priority for the fbi, maybe for capital police and law enforcement to protect her and kavanaugh's family. that's first of all. the deadlines strike me as arbitrary. it would be one thing, i don't want to get through the weekend without some rough agreement, that makes sense. to set a random time, 2:30 today, four hours from now, seems likesque pushed by issues that don't have t

senators grassley and graham said they will not concede that point. my sources are telling me the conclusion of many republican lawmakers is that professor ford's liberal attorney, not in any way, i want professor ford to be heard. i want her story told in a fair manner. she has been offered all sorts of opportunities, in private, in public. they will come to her. she doesn't have to ever go before a television camera but her attorney has adopted a strategy. it is called running out the clock. by the way, the republicans see it for what it is, to blame the gop for not making proper accommodations when they have done just opposite. it shouldn't surprise anyone that republicans think this. after all, this lawyer, debra katz, is highly partisan, long-time democratic activist, tens of thousands of dollars in donations, clearly has a political agenda. her views on sexual assault and misconduct allegations have been incos sinconsistent. she said about paula jones, her suit is very weak. she has alleged one incident in a hotel room that lasted 10 or 12 minut

and at least he says he does not remember we hear chairman grassley wants to bring in outside counsel as if doctor ford were on trial. this is so unusual that it shows a fear on the part of our republican friends that something bad will come out. madam president chairman grassley leader mcconnell continue down this road we are headed for a hearing that is far from a fact-finding inquiry in what it should look like far from fair. the american people should ask those that support judge kavanaugh who is more credible? >> doctor ford? >> you want the fbi to investigate her allegation to corroborate her account our republican friends who are running away from anyin objective and not only does she want the fbi to look into this but she took volunteer lie detector test and she knew she was inviting harassment and ridicule and abuse for going forward and she feared her life would be appended for still has the courage to do this not the rushed kangaroo court with members on the republican side. that will say things behind her back. who is more credible? >> doctor ford to submit to all this or

but now senator grassley insists that it can't happen here. it can't happen here with this allegation against brett kavanaugh. senator grassley today. quote, committee investigators are following up on the leads from dr. ford's allegations and news stories. no other outside, all caps, outside investigation is necessary for the committee to do its investigation. yeah, but why not have the fbi look into it, since that is what they do for supreme court nominees and all other nominees for which they do background checks? why are you trying so hard to stop the fbi from looking into this which would again be the normal process here? what's the problem of them looking into it? this is also perhaps a good point to remember that when senator grassley talks about how he only wants his staff to look into these things instead of anybody outside, instead of the fbi -- there's no need for anybody else other than his staff to look into this. one of chairman grassley's staff members who works with him on this committee, on judicial nominations specifically is

hast: senator grassley offered to do this privately. it is all out in the public now. it would be good to do if it hadn't been made public. that senators will come out and the rest come out and of us don't get to assess this. so i don't like the private position, the private function of doing it. but he has offered it so. mark. host: let's go to fred. hello. caller co -- caller: i want to make a comment about the guidelines that senator grassley has put down for ford's testimony. he said she cannot allow to bring any other witnesses. not even a therapist that she told about this. years ago. quicklys the sports are and insists there has to be about next week because brett kavanaugh has to be on the supreme court by october 1. and it is hypocritical when you consider that republicans allowed a vacancy on the supreme court for an entire year to deny rightful nomination for the supreme court. dr. ford should be allowed to testify. and should be allowed to bring forth any corroborating witnesses she can. that would be the fair thing to do. notthe republicans are just being

senator grassley insist that it can't happen here. your senator grassley today. "committee investigators are following up on the leads from dr. ford's allegations and news stories. no other outside investigation is necessary for the committee to do its investigation" och." why not have the fbi look into it since that's what they do for the supreme court nominees and all nominees for which they do background check. why are you trying so hard to stop the fbi looking into this which would be the normal process here. what's the problem of them looking into it? this is also perhaps a good point to remember when senator grassley talks about how he only wants his staff to look into these things and instead of anybody outside or the fbi. there is no need for anybody else other than his staff to look into this. one of his chairman staff members who works with him is named barbara ladean. if the name is familiar to you in the context of brett kavanaugh's nomination. you may remember from his confirmation hearing of whether or not brett kavanaugh ever reviar received do you

grassley grassley where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink. you might or joints.hingicles, for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. . >>> a bit of breaking news on the committee front. as they say, this just handed to me. chuck grassley, chairman of the committee has responded on twitter. he writes at 11:27 eastern time tonight, five times now we have granted extension for dr. ford to decide if she wants to proceed with her desire, stated one week ago that she wants to tell senate her story. dr. ford, if you changed your mind, say so, so we can move on. i want to hear your testimony. come to us or we to you. the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley. that's t that's the state of play as of ten minutes ago. this controversy over this nomination is not the only storm

grassley set 10:00 a.m. friday for her to make her decision. will she show up or not? the next question is what next step is after that. if she doesn't show up, does the committee hearing still go on? does a vote potentially happen? all of those still an open question tonight. >> that's right. big questions. thanks very much. >>> "outfront" now, david gergen, former presidential adviser to four presidents, laura coats and greg browder. david, if i could begin with you, so, christine blasey ford's attorney with this new statement in effect making a new demand regarding monday's or requests we should call it for more witnesses to appear at monday's hearing. is that a fair request? >> i think it has to be seen in the context of history. i'm frankly rather puzzled by the arguments that have been made by the white house and by the republicans that the fbi really doesn't want to do this and doesn't do this sort of thing and by the way, it would take a long, long time and take us through the summer and so forth. in 1991, when anita hill came forward with her allegations again