With all of that. Anderson, one thing we should also note, and its something you just mentioned a short while ago, that is that one of the reasons why Christine Blasey fords legal team is canceling some of these interviews that they had set up is that they wanted to show some good faith to the other side and according to this source that was a welcome sign. It signaled to them that theres sort of a commitment there to get this done. And according to this source, in the words of this source, we want to work this out. Anderson, one other interesting prospect in all of this that i think really needs to be underlined and highlighted, and that is that the conversations are continuing inside the Senate Judiciary committee to have a female attorney, a prosecutor or litigant of some kind to represent the allmale gop side of the Senate Judiciary committee. I was talking with a source earlier this evening who said essentially they dont want to have the image out there to the American People of a group of aging men on the senate gop Side Quizzing and questioning and
the therapist who dr. Ford went to . Shouldnt she be talked to . Its interesting that dr. Ford has gone so far as to take a polygraph. I wonder if judge kavanaugh is willing to take a polygraph. Shes done a lot, it seems to me, to reinforce her credibility. Credibility that was not at issue when she took these steps. It seems to me that the fbi ought to be investigating that and telling the committee what they found. Cnn, were reporting that republicans are looking to bring in a female outside counsel to question ford if the hearing happens. Beyond just the optics of it, could it also be more effective in terms of getting closer to the truth and do you think that person should also ask questions for the democrats or do you think Democratic Senators should ask questions . No, i think whats sauce for the goose also go for democrats as well, if youll forgive me. And i think having an outside counsel, given how sensitive this is. Remember what were talking about, anderson. Were talking about an allegation. And her side has used these words of attempted rape. We dont need Anybody Making Points back home, whether on the democratic side or the republican side if what were trying to do is to find out what happened. Because were talking about a lifetime appointment. We wont be able to do anything about it afterwards. Weve got to do it now. It doesnt seem like theres anyone on the republican side, though, on the committee talking about bringing in any other potential witnesses other than these two. Well, anderson, youve got to do one of two things. Youve got to have the fbi investigate these witnesses. For example, mark judge. Somebodys got to talk to him. Or youve got to have a real hearing where these people come before the public. Those are really the only two alternatives. Somebodys got to investigate those witnesses who are relevant
to this hearing. You can have the fbi do it. They can then work with the committee. Or you can bring those witnesses before the committee. Now, if theres any other alternative, as a member of congress i dont know what it is. As someone who advocated for anita hill,ings, if ford does end up testifying, what advice would you give her going into it . I think she has been able i think dr. Ford has been able to tell her story to professionals, that is to say, to a therapist. She apparently spoke to her own congresswoman and told her story there. She is herself apparently a very intelligent professional. So i would just say to her tell it straight. Tell it the way youve been telling it to all those who say they believe you. Congressman norton, appreciate your time. Thank you. I want to broaden the conversation. Back with us tonight is former federal judge nancy gertner. Now a lecturer at harvard
universitys law school. There is cnn political analyst Gloria Borger and david gergen. Judge gertner, when you hear these new details about negotiations between the committee and professor fords lawyer, how much do you read into that . Its still up to chairman grassley whether hell push back the monday hearing. Well, i mean, i think that its good that shes saying shes going to come to the hearing. She left herself open when she said without x or y, without the fbi investigation shes going to shes not going to come. But i want to underscore what the congresswoman said, which is that a hearing without other witnesses and a hearing without investigation sounds like an appeasement to the me too movement. In other words, it sounds very much like hey, well hear from you, now lets vote. In other words, theres no there will be searching entry of her but it becomes he said she
said more than it already is. While there may be other witness thats youre not going to. So it then relies on a high status male being accused by a lower status female. And that really, forgive me, is an empty ritual at this point. Having other witnesses is one thing. Having an investigation is another thing. This is really thank you very much for appearing, now lets vote. Gloria, the notion that republicans on the committee might retain a female outside counsel to question ford and, again, unclear whether that would be in public or in private, how much political strategy would be behind that move . Well, look, its all political. Theyre not dumb. They understand that you have all of these white men who would be questioning this woman, that there is no female to ask questions, and that it would the optics of it would look terrible. And you know, from the other Point Of View if i were
professor ford, i might rather be questioned by the committee, to be honest, in many ways because perhaps she would be able to handle the political questions just with her story whereas a practiced attorney might be better at it than the members of the committee. So you know, its kind of interesting. They have to on this phone call today, and ive been talking to a couple of sources about it, it was a good call but there are lots of issues that need to be resolved. I mean, if there is an attorney on one side, will there be an attorney on another side for the democrats an, for example, who would go first . How long would they be given . You know, theres still a lot that needs to be resolved. And theres no way and Everybody Knows it that they could have done it by monday. David, it certainly seems like there is no appetite, on the part of republicans, to have
an fbi investigation at this point. None. Zero. I think what we do know, anderson, is they have entered negotiations and both sides seem to want to get to yes. So i think chances are much higher tonight that shes actually going to come and testify. Even if its later in the week. And i assume chairman grassley as part of that would do it later in the week. But theres no indication of any give of witnesses coming in. Very importantly, no give on the idea of having a real investigation before you get there. Its just hard to know how you can put two people and conclude whats the truth if you have no real information about what other parties say. You need to hear from a variety of people under oath. So i think it does come down to he said she said, which means theyre going to vote and hes going to win. I do think also on the outside counsel, its important to distinguish. This is somebody theyre bringing in whos going to be on their side who is trying to
impugn and to discredit. This would not be a neutral this is not a neutral arbiter. So the democrats may be well advised to do that but on the other hand, theyve got people who are pretty experienced and theyve got women of their own who can ask questions. Im not sure they need to duplicate that. Also whats really striking is the disproportionate amount of power coming into this. Here kavanaugh goes into the white house every day and he has hours and hours of prepared testimony. Hes got a whole the republicans on the hill. They control a lot of this. In some ways its going to be a david versus goliath or christine versus goliath. That will be tough for her but she may be a more sympathetic character as a result. Judge, one the things that remains unclear tonight is what if any investigation it doesnt seem like there will be any investigation into the
allegations. Thats significant. I want to step back and say there are three choices here. One is to have an investigation. And no one in any court ever gets on the stand without a private investigation, depositions, discovery. Nobody except on judge judy does that. That would be one option which theyve now rejected. The other would be to have other witnesses so it is not just he said she said. And thats rejected. Now youre talking about sort of the classic troubling scene where yes, youre having her testify, having him testify, but as david gergen indicated this is unequal at the start. And theres no outside context. I cant emphasize enough how unusual it is to simply have people, you know, confront their accuser with no other evidence other than essentially their own words. Maybe there is no such evidence out there. But it seems to me we have to look at that before we proceed with this. I also have to admit that this stuff about talking about the optics. We should be talking about getting to the truth. Right. I totally agree with you. But youve also got to presume that the staffs of the committees are doing their own internal investigations. The outside groups are doing investigations. Theyre digging as hard as they can to find whatever they can. And i would presume that if the democrats do their own questioning there will be they will have their own information that they will then ask judge kavanaugh about. So what i think we would see coming out of this hearing would be sort of information that people have culled while weve been waiting for this to get started without really an official fbi investigation, which is what they should have had in the first place. I think theres a real chance that each side will introduce
ideas or conspiracies about the other side that are unresolved but that push the public in One Direction or another. And we do know that the white house forces are very clever at this. And thats why i think shes i mean, its extraordinarily brave of her to come in and do this because shes paid this personal price already. But the odds of winning this kind of argument, unless she can appeal to peoples sense of she really is a victim here, she really is being ganged up on. Were going to take a break, continue the conversation. Also well talk about the details of when, where, how well hear from judge kavanaugh and his accuser which are very much in flux. The latest on what we know. Also tonight Breaking News on the mueller investigation. New word tonight about the time the mueller team is spending with the president s former Attorney Michael Cohen and what theyre talking about. So you dont die waiting. Upmc does more livingdonor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. Find out more and get out of line today. Be right back. With moderate to severe Crohns Disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. Is she alright . I hope so. So i talked to my doctor about humira. I learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of Crohns Disease after trying other medications. And the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. Humira can lower your ability to fight infections,
including tuberculosis. Serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. Before treatment, get tested for tb. Tell your doctor if youve been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if youve had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flulike symptoms or sores. Dont start humira if you have an infection. Be there for you, and them. Ask your gastroenterologist about humira. With humira, remission is possible. Manu raju also has some new information and i do as well. That professor ford really doesnt want to be questioned by outside counsel. We were talking about that earlier. And she would like senators to question her instead. She doesnt want it to turn into some kind of trial where shes being questioned by an attorney like that. And that she does not want to testify in the same room as judge kavanaugh. She doesnt want to be in the same room with him at the same time. And that and manu is also reporting that she wants the committee to subpoena mark judge and these other alleged witnesses. And so those are just some new details were both learning this evening. Judge, what do you make of that . Well, i mean, i think that the candidly, with all due respect to the senators, theyre
not as good questioners as a lawyer would be even though the senators that are lawyers are not as good questioners as someone who is a litigator would be. I mean, thats an interesting choice. You wind up with less probing and more awkward questioning that way. Do you think theres a reason what do you think her reasoning would be on that . You can make the argument that a, she doesnt want an accusatory Prosecutor Type on the republican side asking her questions. The other side of it is some might argue she wants the visual of, you know, male senators of a certain age asking awkward questions. Right. I mean, if its the latter, then its a political decision. If its the former, i can understand it as a an issue of comfort more than anything else. The other thing is what were
heading for is a Hyperpartisan Hearing without a judge. I hate to sort of tout that but theres no one there to say hey, thats an inappropriate question or thats going too far except the partisans on both sides. Let me just add this, anderson. From a source i just heard from. One of the reasons i believe she doesnt want to be questioned by outside counsel is that she believes senators should be accountable for the questions that theyre going to ask and that the burden should be on them to ask the questions they want to ask and not an outside counsel who is a professional at doing this and let them be accountable to the American Public. She is going to be accountable to the American Public for what she says. They should be accountable, as well. I just dont know how this is going to be seen as anything other than a trial. Both are going to be have to make persuasive arguments. I just dont agree with her on that point. It does seem to me there might be a compromise and that is each
side can select three senators or four senators to represent anybody everybody. The stories are not that long. Its not going to take that long to question these people. I think a more relevant question is what is the order . I would think its probably advisable to go second if you can. But then if the first person is questioned and the other person goes, then do they get rebuttals . How do they keep each other out of the room at the same time . Do they take recesses . I think those are going to be important questions as well. Go ahead. As are the questions about subpoenaing other witnesses. Again, you make this this is already a he said she said. But you make it a stark he said she said when all you have are the two antagonists and not other witnesses in other circumstances. Were also learning that according to cnn that she wants no time limit on her opening statement. Gloria, is that what youre hearing . Yeah. Actually, thats manus reporting. They have to choreograph these things, as you know, down to the minute or else, you know, everything can go awry. And clearly, in telling her story it would seem to me, reading between the lines on manus reporting here, is that she wants to be able to tell her story as she recollects it and tell everything about it and tell how it has affected your her life. And so you know, usually in congressional hearings there are time limits about testimony. And i think this is one of the things she and her advisers have said. If shes going to do this and shes going to appear before congress and the world, she wants to be able to tell it all. David, were learning also, the Washington Post is reporting that thursday is a potential date. That seems to be a fair compromise. Its good for Senator Grassley for moving in that direction. But having said that, its going to be thursday, you know, there are several days now between now and thursday when they could be doing Background Investigations. And they could be collecting evidence under oath. Thats still the relevant question. But if it was to be an fbi investigation that would be something that would have to come from the white house. Yes. And it would have to come right away. But it gives you ample time. If it took three days to do the anita hill Background Investigation, why cant they do this essentially in three days . Judge, do you think there is if they do say thursday, then pressure builds to try to have some sort of Background Investigation . I think so. It also is the fairest approach. Thats what i was saying before, is there are three alternatives here, which is fbi, witnesses, or just one on one. And theyve chosen the least fair approach to either side. Gloria, so thursday the potential date. No time limit were hearing. The professor would like no time limit on her opening statement. I assume if that was the case judge kavanaugh would have no time limit on his opening statement. David raises the point, though, about rebuttals, would they be able to respond and who goes first. There are still many questions to be worked out. These are things that need to be worked out. And i think david raises a great point, which is while youre working out all the logistics why not actually have the investigators talk to witnesses. You know, this happened a long time ago. More than 30 years ago. Its not like you have to go through 5 million Text Messages between kids. This is a more limited kind of investigation. So while they work out one thing, why cant they do two things at the same time . It would seem to me that theyre able to do that if the president would say yeah, maybe we ought to do it. Rather than letting that go by the boards. She has made it very clear that this is what she would prefer. But if she doesnt get that, it seems to me she wants to be able to tell her story in full. Gloria borger, judg