tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN September 21, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
rico forgotten? >> yes. but i said to people, do you feel like a u.s. citizen. i thought that was an important thing. they said, yeah, they do, but they feel in this natural disaster and the aftermath of it, they were u.s. citizens who were forgotten. >> it's an important conversation and really, really important reporting. thanks you guys. great to see you here. you can watch that special tonight. thanks for joining us. "ac360" starts right now. good evening. by any count, the news breaking tonight is extraordinary. by any measure the impact could be profound. new reports that rod rosenstein once recruited cabinet members in an effort to remove president trump from office according to the 25th amendment, even more importantly discussing wires and wearing them with the president. will he say anything about it? we'll be watching him for that. more to the point, will he do something like that. will he try to punish or fire
rod rosenstein who as you know oversees the investigation. if he does, what else can come unglued. the discussions between rosenstein were documented in memos authored by fired fbi director andrew mccabe. the story first broke in "the new york times." adam goldman joins me now by phone. walk us through, adam, what you learned, what actually happened. >> well, let me just start by saying, you know, this story took months to report, okay? this wasn't a -- this wasn't a timed leak. we worked on this story for months, and we started gathering information and building up a picture of these chaotic days at the justice department and fbi shortly after james b. comey was fired as fbi director on may
19th, 2017. and so what we learned is on may 16th of 2017 there was a meeting, and in that meeting, the acting director of the fbi, andrew mccabe, wrote in a memo that rod had brought up the 25th amendment. and he memorialized that in a memo. and then in a separate meeting rod had raised the idea of wearing a wire in the white house. our understanding of the events in the room where rod had raised the yofd wearing a wire or secret listening device in the white house exposed dysfunction. so the two core fact os thf story is rod talked about wearing a wire in the white house, and in andrew mccabe's memo he cites rod bringing up the 25th amendment. >> in what context do you know the idea of a wire was brought up? one of your sources describes
the contents about secretly recording the president sarcastic in nature while others tell you he was completely serious? >> yeah. there's certainly -- the department of justice has their version of the context. our version from our "reliable sources" indicates that this was not a flipping comment, it was not sarcasm. and let me reiterate something i said earlier on cnn. the reason it took me so long to get this story is the fear people had in me finding out this information. if it had simply rod made a sarcastic joke, people wouldn't have been reluctant to tell me. people didn't want to tell me because the context surrounding the wire was deadly serious. at least they believed that. >> and they knew the potential impact this story might have. >> yes, they certainly did. >> i want to read the statement that rosenstein put out in
response to your reporting. he said, quote, "the new york times" story is factually incorrect. i will not respond on a story that's biased against the department and advancing their own personal agenda but let me be clear about this. based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th amendment. i want to give you a chance to respond to that. i also want to point out when he says there is no basis, he's talking the present tense. he's not saying, i never thought there was a basis. >> yeah. that was my read. i mean i'm not going to parse rod's statement. i think, myself and other news outlets have all now, including cnn, have recorded the basic facts that are now in dispute. the two basic facts are rod raised the idea of wearing a wire and in a second basic fact, in a memo andrew mccabe road that special counsel has rod raced the idea of the 25th
amendment. >> thank you. i appreciate it. adam schiff, ranking house member of the house intelligence committee, i spoke with him earlier. congressman, if this true, if attorney general rosenstein discussed wearing a wire when speaking with the president, is that appropriate, whether there's sarcasm or not? >> if it's sarcasm, said in jest, that's one thing, but if said differently, this is something completely differential. but, look, i think at any course of time during the administration, a great many people wondered if the president was fit for office and if they had to contemplate invoking this article. whether they came close to doing it, whether they were deliberating about it when the president was in one of his most erratic and dangerous moods, it's very hard to say. the idea of a discussion abo >> the idea of a discussion about invoking the 25th
amendment is a difficult thing to bring up, certainly with someone in his position. would you have concerns if he did have discussions about that, certainly about the wire? >> i would if it had rose to top people of the department or other cabinet officials who were discussing or room nagt about whether they needed to pull the trigger on the 25th amendment or whether they needed to start gathering evidence. >> would the president be justified in firing rod rosenstein? >> absolutely not. we can discuss the possibility, maybe the probability, this is being teed up by the president's allies who want to get rid of rod rosenstein. i think we have to look at this in the context of what happened over the last week. it begins with an about-face in congress. for months and months the democrats on the intelligence committee have been urging the
release of the transcripts of the witnesses in the russian investigation. the republicans refused. mr. nunes refused and mr. gowan refused. all of a sudden they wanted to go on fox news. what precipitated this? was it the manafort guilty plea? did the lawyers say we want access to this? because the very next day the president himself issues this injunction he wants classified documents released, a whole different set of classified documents. this looked like a coordinated effort. >> for those who believe there's a deep-seated conspiracy against the president, didn't this kind of fit into that idea? >> well, it could fit into a completely different kind of idea, and that is that the president is so unstable that lifetime career public servants who have worked in democratic administrations and republican administrations, many of whom are republicans like rod
rosenstein, have to contemplate whether the constitution applies when the president is incapacitated. i mean that is alarming. for those that are ready to believe there is a deep state, those kooky conspiracy theories, certainly they'll seize on this as they'll seize on anything else, and they may very well be pushed out there thinking it's a useful way to defend the president. >> if rosenstein is fired, what happens then? >> if rosenstein were to be fired, it would be another clear demonstration of obstruction of justice by the president. in the immediate aftermath, we'd have to consider, you know, what does that mean in terms of our system of checks and balances? what is the response of congress? and probably most importantly l there be any republicans who are willing to defend the institutions of our government? sadly they have been very few in number. i would hope if there's any effort to obstruct the investigation like the firing of
rod rosenstein, that congress would pass a bill in stating the independent counsel law that would protect bob mueller. >> congressman, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. i want to continue this discussion, how stunning and the facts of it all and where it might lead. joining us, cnn analyst gloria borger. i know you've heard about rod rosenstein's job security tonight. ? >> you wouldn't bet on it, but, again, for almost a year we've been talking about rod rosenstein's job security. the president tweeted about him. he stopped lately. he seems to be focused more on jeff sessions. i know he's very important in the mueller investigation. don't forget, he's the special counsel's boss. if the special counsel says, you
know, i want to subpoena the president, he's got go to rod rosenstein to get permission to do that. i think the president's attorneys believe they have a decent relationship with rod rosenstein. i'm sure they would rather he not be fired and create this kind of crisis, particularly right now at the same time as you're going through the kavanaugh hearings and the question about what happens with judge kavanaugh, but nobody can predict what donald trump is going to do. he's going read this story, and he's going to have to decide whether, a, he believes "the new york times," which he doesn't normally believe, and, b, whether he believes a memo written by andrew mccabe who he doesn't believe, and if he doesn't believe those two thing, then he's going to be really angry at rod rosenstein. he may ask him -- maybe rosenstein will recuse himself from the investigation, maybe sessions will fire him, or maybe
the president will. >> david, it's interesting because this is not the first time we've heard officials talk about the 25th amendment in the anonymous "new york times" op-ed alleged bibiy a senior official. >> i think that the conversations about the 25th academy are not big and damaging story. i don't think that's the big story. the story really is was he serious about taking a wire in to wire in and listen secretly and tape the president of the united states? that's unheard of. there are those, of course, who argue, not "the new york times," but others who have been trying to catch up with the story, that he was being sarcastic. it sounds like he was being sarcastic in many ways. >> bringing in a wire to try to capture disarray seems like an odd thing. disarray seems to be more like an ongoing thing. it's not something you could immediately capture. >> i think that's right.
i sort of assumed the wire was not only to capture the disar y disarray, but would apply to the 25th amendment issue, that here's what he's like in real li life behind the scenes. but i must tell you if it bears out -- and he spent a whole month on it -- he was serious about going in with a wire, then i think it's probably one of the dumbest mistakes i've ever seen a public servant make, to get into conversations like that. it just invites attacks, and i do think we have to remember that he works at the pleasure of the president. that's the appointment. and if the president can no longer trust him, he's justified in asking that person to leave. i agree with gloria. i don't think he'll do it quickly. i think they're looking after the midterms. they don't want to upset the kavanaugh business. but just as importantly, they
don't want to have this in the middle of the campaign. >> carl, is it appropriate to have him talking whether it was jokinging or not about surreptitiously recording the president of the united states? >> well, if it's a joke, i think it might be appropriate. i think we've got to look at a number of factors here. one is we are in a constitutional crisis. one of those is, for instance, there ought to be committees of congress to which mr. rosenstein could explain what happened, what he said, and there be a bipartisan committee of congress at which some facts could come out in an impartial way and we would learn the full story after "the new york times" has broken this huge important piece of reporting. unfortunately there is no such committee because we're in a constitutional crisis where the congress of the united states is totally dysfunctional. on top of that, we have a
president of the united states who's contemptuous of the rule of law, that one of the things that mr. rosenstein, we know has been concerned about for months and months, is that contempt for the rule of law, the president's lie, and now he joins a long list of people in this presidency who fear that the president of the united states is not fit to be the president, is a danger to the national security, does not understand what the proper use and function of the justice department is. so all of these things are converging, and they're converging at the time of a midterm election in which the president is going to throw all of this meat to his base and see what can be chewed up to somehow keep a majority in congress. but meanwhile we have the spectacle of little confidence in the president of the united states by those around him,
little confidence in the congress of the united states by almost anyone, and the one element of the system that's working, the press, the first amendment, the fake news s of "e new york times" as the president would have it has broken this story. cnn has confirmed elements of it. all of the kritzhe critics, thes doing its job. >> i want to get to john dean, but we need to take a quick break. coming up next, the president has just weighed in on this. used a new word "stench" when describing the justice department. and later, a new deadline for the woman who says supreme court nominee brets kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. details tonight. worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame,
on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name yes, we are twins. of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people. being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com.
sears makes it easy with kenmore. now get even more. get more value and get more performance with top of the line appliances. get more done when you shop kenmore at sears. now get up to 30% off appliances. plus free delivery. visit sears.com/kenmore to see how you can get more from kenmore at sears.
well, there's more breaking news on the story of rod rosenstein, about him possibly using the 25th amendment to remove the president and possibly wearing a wire. what did the president say? >> reporter: anderson, it didn't take the president long to bring it up. he told the crowd, look what's being exposed, look what's happened over there. he didn't mention attorney general rod rosenstein by name, but he said this instead. >> do you see what's happened at the fbi? they're all gone. they're all gone. they're all gone.
but there's a lingering stench, and we're going get rid of that too. >> reporter: so, anderson, no mention of rosenstein by name there, but you have to believe that's a findley bail reference to the "times" story. there still has been no official formal response from the white house, and we'll wait to see if he says anything else in springfield. >> thank you. we're back with gloria allred, carl bernstein, and david gergen. what do you think he means? >> it's hard to tell. he defines stenches in lots of
places. i think the thing with rod rosenstein and his leaked behavior, i don't think it's a fireable offense. if you look at the sequence of when this happened, this was at the time of the comey firing. they had done a job on him. they lure him into writing a memo and said that made for the pretext for firing comey. he was under a lot of heat as a result of that, and he had a lot of reason to distrust the white house at that point. the other thing is apparently he was present when some people went over there for interviews to the fbi director, and he was appalled at the president's interview techniques. so who knows what really goes on inside that white house. that might be why he was suggesting it. i don't find it outrageous. and i'll tell you, it's not unprecedent either. i was asked by prosecutors the wear a wire, and i refused to do
it. >> why did you refuse? >> because i think it's an unfair situation, the same reason i didn't have the recording capability on my telephone, although, a lot of people in the nixon white house people did. i think it's a shady act. >> gloria, i think the question right now is anyone safe at the justice department? sessions clearly, i mean, has lost the president's confidence. i'm not sure he ever had it since he recused himself. now with rod rosenstein, if the president wants to, he could clean house tonight or the day after the midterms. >> what about his new director for the fbi, chris wray. he came out and talked about the lingering stench over there. at some point chris wray is going to have to come out and defend his people and defend his department. so i don't think anybody is safe over there. i think it's a question of timing. it's very clear sessions is going to be gone, probably after the election. and i think sort of the game
right now inside the white house is to control the president and to try and say, look, don't do anything right now because we have this election coming up in 40 odd days and we want to get kavanaugh passed. this is important to your base. sit tight if you possibly can. we all know with donald trump that may last a couple of days, but we just -- we just can't predict. you know, he's going to bedminster this weekend. the last time, if i recall, he was at bedminster a while ago, that was when he wrote a letter saying he was going fire jim comey. so who knows what's going to happen. >> i guess the other question, david, is what impact would rod rosenstein have? >> i think it would be to take action against mueller and what adam schiff talks about is right. it puts pressure on the democrats to try to get republican votes to build a wall
to protect the mueller investigation. you know, the republicans have said we obviously don't need it. this suggests quite the opposite. the day is coming when you do need it. let me go back if i might. i want to bring up something. is the president fit. that's not a big deal. we talk about it all the time here. what is different is if you begin to say maybe i'll take a wire and i'd like to go over and talk to general kelly, chief of the white house, i'll talk to sessions and maybe we can get a group to plot the downfall of the president of the united states, that's a serious matter. i think that's why the story is big. >> carl, do you agree with that? that the mention of kelly and sessions? >> yeah. again, i think we need to know more about the context. the "times" story is a big
window onto something and now is the time for more information. but you need to keep the bigger picture in mind of mueller. this is all about the mueller investigation and the absolute determination of the president of the united states to obstruct it, to demean it, to undermine it, and shut it down. that's what he has told everyone around him he means to do, and this is his response and it's part of it and it's incumbent on the united states to make sure it does not happen. it is the other part of the system that is working. we have indictments. we have informations pleaded to. we know that the president's personal lawyer is now trying to tell things to the special counsel. the president is in the crosshairs of an investigation and is acting like someone who is trying to obstruct justice and keep the facts from becoming known. that's what a lot of this is all
about. >> do you see congress at some point wanting to question rosenstein about what he said or didn't say? >> i noticed before we went on the air, a number of tweets, one from the house judiciary committee asking that there be hearings where rosenstein and everybody in the meeting as well as the documents be brought forward so they can be seen. anderson, another thing on what would happen if he did fire rosenstein to mueller, the next person -- the last time i looked, the next person who has a confirmed post in the rankings -- in the seniority rankings of the leadership is the solicitor general, and that's who would take charge of the investigation at that point. >> anderson, here's the important thing to keep in mind about rod rosenstein also. right now there's negotiations going on about the president testifying, and if bob mueller decides that he wants to
subpoena the president, he has to go to rod rosenstein and seek permission. if rod rosenstein isn't there, say the solicitor general is there, is he more likely to get the permission or not? that factors in as well. >> thank you very much. we'll have more guests who join us. what about your reputation? is that small? owning your own thing is huge. your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 14 laptop with 8th gen intel core processors. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ )
we're going to get rid of that too. senator santorum, should the president get rid of rod rosenstein? >> well, look, if what is being reported is true, that he was actually trying to recruit people to -- or said he was going to recruit people to remove the president and that he offered to wear a wire, again, not in jest or otherwise but actually was serious about wearing a wire, those are pretty good grounds to remove anybody. i mean that's not something -- that's not a person that you want serving you at any level in government. so if that's the case -- but i have some real serious doubts about this story. this just doesn't -- this just doesn't sound right to me. >> so your doubt is that it was sarcastic or didn't happen? >> either. maybe part of it was sarcasm. maybe part of it was a faulty memory or a deliberate attempt
potentially of someone to stir things up here right before the election and get the president -- look. you have people in this town who believe they can prod and poke the president to do things, that he will react to thinks. so the idea that maybe someone would put some information out there, true or not true, to get the president -- to prod the president to act irrationally is not beyond the pale. >> jeff, what do you think? >> you know what would be an unbelievable story of donald trump, that he stays up night and reads briefing book. that would be a real shock. this story is just consistent with everything else about him. yes, it's an amazing story, but it's consistent with other people who talked about the 25th amendment with ore people who think this president is psychologically unfit. again, my hat's off to "the new york times" for yet another great scoop, but this is not like it's some bolt from the
blue that's uncharacteristic of this president. this is what a lot of people who deal with him think. >> although the idea of the fbi wearing a wire to tape the president -- >> justice department. >> justice department, i'm sorry. >> but it is -- it is amazing. i think it's worth noting he did not wear a wire, so that suggests, perhaps, it was said in frustration, in hyperbole. but the general idea, especially in may of last year when the firing of james comey was like a thunderbolt. i mean this was something that has never been done in american history since, you know, the laws changed to have a controversial firing of an fbi director who has a tenured term to precisely insulate himself from political pressure, it was a shock. so the fact that rosenstein thought extreme measures might
be justified seems reasonable to me. >> kirsten, senator santorum said this might prod the president to act irrationally. there was a tweet also telling the president to fire rod rosenstein right away. >> they've been saying this for a long time. they were looking for a smoking gun as a reason to do it. unfortunately if this story is true, it does give donald trump, i think, the rationale that seems reasonable to most people if he decides to go ahead and get rid of them, even though i think it would be a rationale they've been looking for for a long time. again, we don't know 100%. but, again, i agree with jeffrey. it's consistent with other stories we've heard in recent days -- or recent weeks, whether it's bob woodward's book or the
norm times article. it's even more newsworthy that it's attached to a name and such a senior person at the department of justice. but at the same time, i think if anyone heard the deputy attorney general was behaving this way, the president would want to fire him. >> rod rosenstein put out a news statement. he said, i never pursued or authorized recording the president and any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. that's the second statement. this one, i guess, clearing up -- jeff? >> i guess, you know, what you learn in law school is how to f offuscate and write in impenetrable ways. >> it's the present tense. >> it's the present tense.
and that revision does not address the present tensish. he may have thought at one point there was reason to invoem the 25th amendment. that new stamtd suggests he never advocated for the roovl of the president from the office, but the mere fact that the attorney general might discuss it, gee, is the president out of his mind, think that is in and of itself pretty remarkable even if he didn't advocate for it. >> jeff, if you were donald trump, would you want rod rosenstein working there? >> no. and i think he's gone. i think the day after the election if not the hour after the polls close both sessions and rosenstein are gone and we'll have an extraordinary fight over who the replacement is and whether that person can be confirmed because that person or those people will be the people deciding robert mueller's fate. >> senator santorum, if you were still in congress, would you want to get to the bottom of
this? >> no. i don't think it's really necessary for congress to get involved in this. it's a matter between the president and his number two man at justice, and listening to that second statement, i thought the first was weak. i'm not too sure the second was a whole lot of improvement. hearing those denials, not really on point as far as i can see is not -- is not encouraging me as someone who has real serious concerns about the way this investigation has been handled. it's not encouraging to me he didn't contemplate that. he didn't say he contemplated it. he didn't say he said something about a wire. he said he never did anything. so that to me, as jeffrey said, is running a bulletproof statement that doesn't get to the underlying statement. >> kirsten, when you hear the president tonight talk getting rid of a lingering stench, do you think he'll get rid of rosenstein? >> it would be surprising if he
didn't. it would surprise me he would believe the norm times report when he says everything else is a made up lie. if he does it, it's because he's been looking for a reason to do it and this gives him a good cover to do something like that. >> kirsten powers, rick santo m santorum, and jeffrey toobin, thank you. this blew up in his face and the real question is was he ever acting alone. ♪ and i don't care what we do ♪ just take me with you there are roadside attractions. and then there's our world-famous on-road attraction. the 2019 glc. lease the glc300 for just $469 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. get more value and get more performance.
get more done when you shop kenmore at sears. now get up to 30% off appliances. plus free delivery. visit sears.com/kenmore to see how you can get more from kenmore at sears. agent beekman was one step ahead of them.dits stole the lockbox from the wells fargo stagecoach, because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today. like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. ughhh! oh, boy. hey, joy, a lot of people, not a lot of party.
yeah, darryl needs to put the play in playlist. i can't stream out here. joy can, she's got the new iphone on verizon. just got it. best phone, best network. nice. and only verizon gives you six months of free apple music. (heavy metal music) darryl, no... read the room. sorry. that's okay. (mid-tempo funk) okay. i did it! yeah! dj! ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.
well, there's more breaking news tonight. a new deadline for christine blasey ford to submit her testimony. senator chuck grassley said if there's no agreement by 10:00 p.m. eastern tonight, which is 20 minutes away, there will be a new vote on monday. another part of the story has been unraveling. it could be about a group of powerful people trying to spin you. the story concerns an al ternive theory of sexual assault.
this is according to the "washington post," part of the effort to secure judge kavanaugh's confirmation. why he did it are key questions which they may ask judge kavanaugh next week. there are new reports from politico he did not do this on his own. the story erupted after a series of tweets which he has since taken down. in them he said professor ford may have mistaken brett kavanaugh for a different classmate. what's more and the reason we're staying far away from those tweets, he named the classmate who he suggests may have assaulted professor ford. the "washington post" contacted professor ford. she said, yes, she remembered that person, but, no, he's not the one. she recalled being friendly enough with that person, that she once visited him in the hospital. by this morning he was
apologizing for making a, quote, appalling and inexcusable mistake. since then questions have come up whether this was planned to take the spotlight off someone and put it on someone else. watch what judiciary committee member orrin hatch said on monday. >> he wasn't at the party, so, clearly somebody's mixed up. i think she's mistaken. i think she's mistaken something, but i don't know. i mean i don't know her. >> so there he is saying someone's mixed up, i think she's mistaken something. the comments got attention but at the time there was no massive significance to them. fast forward to tuesday when ed waylon and the other lawyers dropped a hint to what was coming.
he said a horrific incident similar to the one that accuser alleges may well have occurred. but if so, she's got the wrong guy. kavanaugh wasn't present, as this and much more will confirm. this morning right on cue "fox & friends" rolled it out to their audience. >> he looked at what christine ford told the "washington post" and figured out, okay, these people were name, these four people, where did they living and looked at what she had said and figured out what house it may have happened at because it was the house closest to the golf course and then realized whose house it was and then looked at the picture of the young man who lived there at the time who was a classmate of mr. kavanaugh's. put up side by side, they looked a lot alike. >> he took down the tweets and
apologized. then politico reported an outfit called crc public relations sliced him on how to hype the theory. they also reported judge kavanaugh was not aware of what ed was doing on his own behalf. according to the "washington post" kavanaugh and his allies, unspecified allies have privately discussed mounting a defense along waylon's tweets, namely whether or not the incident happened but raised doubts whether the attacker was kavanaugh. he tweeted, quote, i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford wassed a because as she says, charges would have immediately been filed with local authorities, by either her or her loving parents. i asked her to bring the files forward so we could figure out date, time, and place.
>> i was appalled by the president's tweet. first of all, we know that allegations of sexual assault -- i'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but we know that allegations of sexual assault are one of the most unreported crimes that exist. so i thought that the president's tweet was completely inappropriate and wrong. >> well, that after a remarkable week and day is where things stand tonight. joining us is cnn global affairs reporter and -- as i said earlier, he was reportedly working with a p.r. firm. just for the record, have they advised you on this story at all? have they given you any talking
points or guidance on how to frame this? >> i saw this the same time as everyone else did. i saw it on ed's twitter feed and was as surprised as everyone else. i think the key thing here is what's going on with this story because we've seen obviously these allegations coming out published by the "washington post" that, frankly, are very thin facts to support them. it would be very helpful for everyone to have the opportunity to hear dr. ford, and right now we're in this back and forktd-aforktth negotiation and we're learning whether she's willing to take the counteroffer, granting her several requests in order to testify before the committee. i think that would help really clear a lot of this up. >> right. i don't think you exactly answered and i want to give you the opportunity. just for the record, the p.r. firm that waylon is working with, have they given you any advice on talking points or this idea? >> that's my p.r. firm, so when
you said you guys are talking about ed waylon, i haven't seen it. does that sound like the right thing to say? sure. the question is really are we going to have this hearing and sth going to go forward, not some conspiracy theory you're interested on. >> i'm sorry. i don't understand what you said. i have a p.r. person, i know how p.r. works. i'm not clear. did the p.r. firm give you the same talking points they gave ed waylon -- >> look. you know how this works. i'm coming on your panel. great. i know about this, i know about this, and here's what we talked about before, here's what i'm saying. >> so they didn't say, you know, there's this alternate theory, here's evidence of it? >> no, not at all. no, no. that's -- >> okay. >> that's ed waylon's theory. >> okay. >> that's not my game here. >> all right. >> i'm more concerned about this
-- the judiciary committee and are we going to get to it where we can actually get some closure on this or at least get to hear some more of the information. they have, as i have said, acceded to as many of her requests as they couldn't they delayed the hearing to wednesday. they said she could have a single camera in the room only. >> they did agree to an investigation only, which was one of her biggest requests. >> they have been. they've taken testimony from judge kavanaugh, from mark judge, from another man who was allegedly at the party, and they've reached out to several of the people who were alleged to have been at the party including dr.fo ford. the democrats ought to be participating that. it should be a bipartisan investiga
investigatetory process. >> max? what ford wanted with us the fbi. >> of course, the fbi should be in involved in this, anderson, as they were with the clarence thomas case. it's i am ashamed to call me -- i have seen crazy things, this is the most crazy and callous i have ever seen, in order to get his friend brett kavanaugh confirmed onto the supreme kour, he named another person as a sexual person. >> a middle school teacher. >> an innocent person. this is despicable. this is disgusting. why haven't brett kavanaugh disavowed this and denounced this. this is nauseating. i say this as as a life long
conservative. this is madness led by conspiracy theorists donald trump. they don't care what norms they break. they don't care what rules they violate. they don't care what lives they zroichlt all they care about is getting brett kavanaugh confirmed to the supreme court. one other thing, we need to find out if brett kavanaugh was involved in this. ed whelan is not a random guy off the street. he is a pillar at the washington legal establishment. he is a friend of brett kavanaugh. he is confirmed in getting brett kavanaugh confirmed. brett kavanaugh needs to go under oath. did he know about this smear attack? he needs to withdraw immediately. >> that would be disqualifying in and of itself. >> is it appropriate what whelan did, putting out the name of somebody else? >> hes a apologized. he should not put the name and picture out as he did. for the same reason i'm frustrated the democrats leaked
dr. ford's allegations. >> you are leaking -- this is disgusting what they're doing. >> i'm saying it's all so wrong. >> there is no comparison about this. the democrats did not leak dr. ford's name. she came on on sunday. >> somebody leaked it the democratic congressman and for. >> they did not leak her name. she came out on sunday. okay. >> someone, it was only the democrats and her that had the story. >> i am watching a report in the washington post that ed whelan knew her name before it was paid public. that's something that needs to be investigated by the senate judiciary committee. >> we will leave it there. appreciate it. coming up, two people took a trip to kenya and joins me to talk about the memories of that trip next. i'll take you there.
with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future.
to say the final episodes of an thoiantony bourdain is sweet would be an unstatement. kamau bell joins me. what was it like working with tony on this? >> you know it was really, i'm not saying, it was a crime come truchl i had been watching him for four years on c in n and on the food network and sitting on my girlfriend's house and saying how'd he do that? when i got here, i got the bonus round. at the emmy, he says, do you want to do something together? i felt i won a contest. >> the thing that struck me, i never traveled with him. he would force me to eat. >> we talked about that, enjoying you to seat this. >> but the thing i always took aafrom watching his shows is they were real journey, you fell
it's an immersive journey. >> he talked a lot about the art of tv. he actually showed me a clip of the west virginia show, how he was working on this segment. he really was trying to get the music to workful he approached it. this was his life's work. >> the first time i understand you had actually visited affect? >> it was my first time at one point he said, where do you want to go? the kenya name is kokuyu. he hadn't been to kenya either. >> he hasn't been to kenya? >> that was reaction i have. i thought hadn't you been everywhere nine times? he hasn't been the affect. it was like he took care, he was reacting to me watching it going on. >> what did you think? interest for me there was two things, one was i read a lot about african-americans going to
affect and expecting this sort of i'm home. how that didn't work out. i was tentative about acting like that the more we were over there, it's not welcome home the other this sing nairobi is on incredible city. it's a mix of urban, rural. you will be standing like basically the modern coffee shop. somebody will walk by with a herd of get oats. we went on safari at this urban sa far, everything shifted, lions are walking around this, so it was a lot. >> it's going to be, i know bittersweet is a cliche, to see this and with him being gone, it's going p going to be hard to watch. >> it is hard to watch. nowhere near as hard as it is for people who had him as a part of their intimate lives some time. even someone like you, he talked about you. i sort of came into this late.
i feel i'm at the tip of this, we were beginning friendship. i seen tony raised on the show to be this incredible producer. he's still editing the show, for me i feel i have the easiest job in this. >> yeah, we all miss him. >> i look forward it to. i'm glad you did it. >> thank you. >> i hope you tune in for the premier anthony bore dawn, sunday, 9:00 p.m. chris cuomo prime time starts now? thank you, i am chris cuomo, welcome to prime time. it's into the busy night, it's a whacky night. less than an hour from now, christine ford has to decide whether to take the republican's terms to testify. she'll get a chance to tell her story, only if she agrees there will be no other investigation or witnesses allowed. in other words, she is to go it alone, obviously, if she says no, they are more than fine with that. the proof, if