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, judge nancy gertner, david gergen, thank you very much. Coming up next tonights other big breaking story. Reports that Michael Cohen and Robert Muellers prosecutors have been talking a lot about a lot. Late details. The possible legal impact and more. When we continue. Computer, order pizza. Of course, daniel. Fridge, weather. Clear skies and 75. Trash can, turn on the tv. My pleasure. Ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. Okay. And make ice. Pizza delivered. Whats happened to my son . I think thats just what people are like now. I mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. Even on social media. Hell be fine. [ laughs ] will he . I dont know. Could their journey inspire yours . Order your kit at ancestrydna. Com. Reportedly speaking with Russia Special counsel Robert Muellers team recently and repeatedly according to the New York Times citing two people with knowledge of the sessions. Now, talking according to abc news about some of the president s hottest of hot button issues and reddest of red lines including his financial and business dealings and any allegations about collusion with russia by the Trump Campaign in the election. In a moment, perspective from a former top federal prosecutor. But right now on the phone cnn political analyst, New York Times White House Correspondent maggie haberman. Maggie, what more do you know about the scope of what the mueller team had been talking about with cohen . My understanding, anderson, is a pretty wide range i think has covered areas related to the campaign. Has covered areas related to president trumps business. Remember, Michael Cohen was not on the campaign. He spent extremely little time there. He was not welcomed by most of Trumps Campaign advisers. But he certainly has a window into a bunch of the Trump Campaign excuse me, the trump
business activities. Among them a Trump Tower Moscow project that he himself had tried to get off the ground at one point that was scuttled at the beginning of 2016. But you know, typically speaking in these kinds of meetings that witnesses have had with the special counsels office there have not been limits certainly on the kinds of things that theyre being asked about, and Michael Cohen i think can provide a variety of information. The question is going to be whether cohen finds it excuse me, mueller finds it valuable. Whether mueller believes it either provides new information or whether it backs up other information that hes already received. Its yet another brick in what seems to be this case that mueller is building toward a likely report to congress. I cant imagine that this comes as much of a shock to the president. I dont think so. Michael cohens adviser lanny cohen excuse me, lanny davis. This is quite a night for me in terms of names. Lanny davis had been on tv making very clear that cohen had information that he was willing to give mueller, that he had stories to tell. They were all but picking up an Auction Paddle saying talk to me both before and after the plea. I dont think this surprises anyone. And i think theres a question if cohen provides valuable information for any of these investigations could he see a reduced sentence . I think that is certainly something his advisers are looking toward. No, i think the president feels under siege by a lot of these things. But i dont expect any of this is a surprise to him at this point. Youve written about the relationship between Michael Cohen sometimes tortured relationship between Michael Cohen and citizen donald trump. President trump as roger stone, another trump longtime adviser had put it to me for a
story i did several months ago. President trump went out of his way to treat Michael Cohen like, quote unquote, garbage. Now, trump is not exactly easy on anyone, as we all know from our reporting. But he could be particularly tough with cohen. Trumps allies and current advisers would say thats because cohen had made some errors and made some mistakes that the president was unhappy with, then candidate trump and before that Businessman Trump was unhappy with. But he was very tough on him. Unfortunately, trump has this sort of oneway loyalty that he exhibits with his aides. He expects it and he often doesnt give it in return. I think you are going to see potentially some of that playing out in cooperation with investigators. Maggie haberman, appreciate it. Thanks very much. Lets get some information from cnn senior legal analyst preet bharara. Before being fired by donald trump he served as u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york where Michael Cohen took his guilty plea. With cohen cooperating with mueller what doors does this open for mueller . We dont know what if Anything Cohen has on donald trump. We dont. But we have some basis to think theres a bunch, in at least three categories. We have what he said at his plea agreement. His Plea Proceeding where he said basically i committed a Campaign Finance violation at the direction of the president , trump. We also know that he might have some information or at least we can suspect he might have some information that may not carry the day on whether or not donald trump obstructed justice. If he was close to his lawyer and we see from some recorded conversations he had a lot of discussions with his lawyer about things he might not have talked about with other people. Theres that bucket. And then theres whats been reported that Michael Cohen may know a lot about Donald Trumps endeavors, business and otherwise, in russia. We dont know, but we know hes talking a lot and he has some reason to try to provide as much information as possible because it helps him. It is particularly remarkable, especially on the heels of Paul Manafort cooperating, also obviously michael flynn, gates, all papadopoulos, all these people who had been around the
president. The sheer number of people who mueller has turned is pretty extraordinary. I think hes basically gotten everybody. Ive said recently that based on the mueller track record i Dont Think Mueller goes after someone unless he knows he has the goods. If you read the documents in these cases, theyre really strong. Not just giving little bits of information about why someone is guilty of a crime. Theyre what we call speaking charges, speaking indictments. Even the ones against the folks for example at the gru, the folks in russia who were charged with various crimes, who were never going to get in the country, never going to be able to slap cuffs on. The detail in these Charging Documents is such that i think mueller appreciates even more than the average prosecutor the importance of the public having confidence that hes bringing cases that are well grounded in fact. According to this report also they have discussed whether or not Anyone Around the president had broached the idea of a
pardon. And if a pardon was broached, whats the significance is that a possible obstruction . Look, you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw from the questions that prosecutors ask. And i know Everyone Wants to jump to the conclusion. But ill tell you, when we were in Conference Rooms with cooperating witnesses and the people who work for me were doing the same thing you go through a checklist and you ask about the thing that you think is most likely true. Right . But then you go concentric circles around the core of what youre looking at with that person. Im not saying this is that. But you ask a lot of questions of people that may be a little bit out of left field just to make sure that youve covered your bases. And so it is possible that theyre close to bringing some kind of case that involves obstruction and thats at the heart of what theyre looking at and what theyre asking Michael Cohen about. But its also possible that its at the periphery and theyre just covering their bases because i think it would be irresponsible i think any witness that comes across their desk they have to ask questions about obstruction. You have to do that for exhaustive purposes. Cohens participation in this
has been voluntary. Whats in it for him thats sort of odd. Given that hes sort of playing around in three jurisdictions. You dont have that that often. It happens from time to time, you share a cooperating witness. Meaning you think normally he would try to get something out of it before cooperating . Yeah. You usually have a deal with the office with whom youre trying to cooperate. And usually you work all that out. If there are multiple offices theyll have a basis for an investigation, in a Organized Crime Office or corporate fraud or anything else, it gets worked out in advance so everyone knows what the promises are, what they can expect, everyone knows what the prosecutors going to argue for even if the prosecutor cant guarantee a lenient sentence because thats up to a judge. The fact cohen has had these interviews, does it make it any less likely or more likely that the president might sit down with mueller . It seems the more mueller knows the less it would be likely the president would sit down. My sense, were talking about likelihood in the sort of 1 to
2 range. I think the likelihood of the president sitting down is fairly close to zero. I dont know that that particular factor would play in it at all. Thank you. Other emerging details around the possible testimony v professor Christine Blasey ford and reaction to the story from a group of republican women in florida. You might be surprised what they have to say. Youll hear from them next. This is a story about mail and packages. And its also a story about people. People who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams theyre handing us more than mail theyre handing us their business and while we make more ecommerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget. That your business is our business the United States postal service. Priority you
with feria extreme platinum haircolor by loreal. Lighten up lightens hair up to seven levels. Feria is ammonia free with conditioning oil. Never dull, never flat. Live in color. Live in feria extreme platinum by loreal paris. Everyone that speaks about him. This guys an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation, sorry, i dont buy it. But in The Grand Scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we really . 36 years later . Shes still stuck on that . Had it happened. I mean, were talking about a 15yearold girl, which i respect. You know, im a woman. I respect. But were talking about a 17yearold boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasnt done this in high school. Please, i would like to know. Why would she come forward if this wasnt true . Because it has basically destroyed her family. Shes had to move, shes gone undercover. Shes gotten death threats. So if shes lying, why come forward . Shes also destroying his life, his wifes lives, his childrens lives. His law career. I mean, why didnt she come out sooner if shes telling the truth . Why didnt she come out when he was going into the Bush White House . Why didnt she come out hes been a federal judge for over a
decade. Why not have a thorough investigation instead of just the two of them he said she said . It doesnt matter. It does not matter what everyone else has to say. This is what happened, though, with Clarence Thomas and anita hill. The fbi investigated. It took three days. Done. Why not now . This is not the same. This is a high school kid. Theres no anita hill story. Does something that allegedly happened some 30plus years ago matter today . You cant judge the character of a man based on what he did at 17. And i would hate to think that 30, 40 years later somebodys going to destroy your life because someone at some party you its not right. But maybe you touched somebody the way youre not supposed to and who brought the alcohol for these kids . As women, though, do you have some sympathy for her for what shes going through . No, i have no sympathy. And perhaps at that moment she liked him and maybe he didnt Pay Attention to her afterwards and he went out with another girl and she got bitter or whatever the situation is. Theyre kids. If it is true, would it be
okwu if he became a justice on the Supreme Court . As long as thats an isolated incident, yes. He was 17. He was not even an adult. And we all make mistakes at 17. I believe in a second chance. Id be more than okay with him being Supreme Court judge. If the person made a mistake and they move on and they have been a good human being, you know, who are we to judge . Joining me now for perspective, cnn political analyst and usa today columnist kirsten powers. Also carrie severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director of the Judicial Crisis Network which supports the kavanaugh nomination. Im wondering what you make, what you heard from that group of women who believe judge kavanaugh. Well, i just want to say this idea that any 17yearold has done this is just completely incorrect. I went to high school. I actually went to a private jesuit high school. It wasnt all boys the way this was. It was coed. This was not the way the boys i went to high school with
behaved. Its not normal behavior. We have to be very careful about saying that, specially to teenagers today. We dont want them to think that this is normal behavior for teenage boys. I do agree that you dont want to hold a person to everything theyve done as a teenager and that people absolutely can do bad things when theyre teenagers and turn into great members of society. I dont question that at all. But if this happened, i do think that its not the Supreme Court is such a rarefied position, to be a Supreme Court justice in this society, and you are being a judge on the highest court in the land and you are held to a different standard than other people are. I think you can both say that yes, someone can make a mistake when theyre 17 years old and it doesnt have to haunt them for the rest of their life and also say, but you know, they proba y shouldnt be on the Supreme Court. Carrie, what do you make of the woman who said tell me what boy hasnt done this in high school . Did that concern you . That is a little concerning. I fear, though, its all too common. Ive had friends who had similar experiences happen to them. But i still dont think if there was attempted rape going on here, that obviously is something that should be taken very seriously and not discounted simply because its old. That said, i think all the evidence is pointing to the fact that Brett Kavanaugh did was not involved here. The experience she describes is horrible. But i think weve seen more and more people coming saying you know, the people that have been identified there so far. We had another one, p. J. Smith, who said i was identified as being at that party and i can tell you i was never at a party like that with Brett Kavanaugh, this is not like what i knew him to be. So that of course you couple that with all of the dozens of women who say they knew him at the time. It doesnt add up with him. His repeated adamant and very confident denials saying this was not me. I think its the evidence points to the fact that it actually wasnt. Kirsten, one of the arguments that some of the women randi talked to made is that why now . Why didnt she come forward with this earlier . Brett kavanaugh has been, you know, in the public eye. Hes gone through Confirmation Hearings and had Background Investigations in the past. Yeah. Its distressing to me to hear people saying that after what weve gone through with me too because i feel like this issue has been covered so thoroughly, that this is very standard for through sexual trauma and Sexual Harassment for that matter. That they feel ashamed, they feel like somethings something is wrong with them, maybe they caused it. They fear theyll be ostracized if they come out. Theres a lot of fear involved. And theres a lot of good reasons not to bring it up. We have to remember especially during this era. It was not an environment where a woman or girl could feel she could bring this up and be heard
and taken seriously. I wonder what you make of the reporting tonight. Were hearing professor ford does not want an outside counsel by the republicans, a female outside person questionings her or even a Staff Counsel that she wants the questions to come from senators. Do you see that as reasonable or political . Im not sure what the logic is. There are several of those. We just had reports of all the different demands shes making. If you watched those hearings previously. Having the senators do it, means you dont have a continuous line of questioning. Youve got people overlapping. Its very hard to follow. Frankly, the senators arent very good questioners, some people suggested its going to be harder questioning from a lawyer. Im not sure thats clear. We saw some very aggressive questioning at the Kavanaugh Hearing recently. I liked the idea. I heard a few days ago, lets have her lawyers question
kavanaugh and kavanaughs lawyers question her. I do know chairman grassly has tried to be as accommodating as possible with all of her requests. Im sure they will make every effort to be as accommodating as they can. We have to go. Kirsten powers, thank you. One quick note now about a cnn special you dont want to miss especially now. Take a look. One year ago, Hurricane Maria devastated puerto rico. The president claims the Recovery Efforts were a huge success. I think we did a fantastic job in puerto rico. Cnn has the real story. What do you want people to know . Please come here more. A decorated combat veteran living in a tent. The truth is that people died because the Trump Administration did not Pay Attention. Cnn special report, a storm
of controversy, what really happened in puerto rico. Tomorrow night at 10 00. Not cool. Freezing away fat cells with coolsculpting . Now thats cool coolsculpting safely freezes and removes fat cells with little or no downtime. And no surgery. Results and Patient Experience may vary. Some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort, and swelling. Ask your doctor if coolsculpting is right for you. And visit coolsculpting. Com today for your chance to win a free treatment. And visit coolsculpting. Com
what i just introduced you worto my parents. G . Psst craig and sheila broke up. What, really . Craig and shelia broke up . No, craig . What happened . I dont know. Is she okay . Craig and sheila broke up craig and sheila . As long as Office Gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. Craig and sheila broke up what . Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. Ok here we go guys, you ready . Hi cinturones por favor. Gracias. Opportunity is everywhere. Its gonna be fine. Its a door. Its doing a lot of kicking down there. Waiting to be opened. Whatever your ambition. Whatever your drive. Whatever youre chasing. Driver, are we almost there . Were gonna have a baby
daddy daddy opportunity is everywhere. All you have to do to find it is get out. Here. Im all about my bed. This
mattress is dangerously comfortable. When i get in, i literally say ahh. Introducing the Leesa Mattress. A better place to sleep. The Leesa Mattress is designed to provide strong support, relieve pressure and optimize airflow to keep you cool. Read our reviews, then try the Leesa Mattress in your own home. Order during our extended Labor Day Mattress Sale and save. For a limited time get 150 dollars off and Free Shipping too. Sale prices are available right now. Go to buyleesa. Com today. You need this bed. This Sunday The Cnn original series this is life with lisa ling returns for an all new susan. She takes us to a gang of ms16. Lisa ling joins me tonight with more details. In this episode you look at ms13 and you particularly tell the story of a young girl from virginia who was murdered by ms13. The ages of the people involved on the victims and the people in the gang, these are young people. Ms13 has been around for a long time. It started in the 80s and has been on the east coast since then. Whats different now is over the last couple years, theres been this wave of Unaccompanied Minors who showed up on our border and theyre vulnerable kids. Most of them have experienced severe trauma because their home countries have been decimated and are devastated by street gangs like ms13. They come here, some of them havent been with their Family Members for years and years, they dont fit in, and theyre just looking for a place to belong. And theyre placed in communities, whether its virginia, long island parts of boston, and theyre not able to deal with the population. Its kids attacking kids, and the Trump Administration would like us to believe that ms13 is this transatlantic criminal enterprise, but the reality is that while there are many members of ms13, its very disorganized. They dont actually make a lot of money. You cant even compare them to sophisticated Drug Trafficking organizations. And they prey on young, vulnerable kids. And the violence weve seen. The violence is horrific. What are some of the other things youre going to be focusing on this season. Well be looking at the scourge of methamphetamines that have been overtaking many states including oklahoma. We have an episode of gender fluidity. Im excited about this one. Were in the midst of this gender revolution thats being led by kids. These kids are very open about the fact that they dont feel entirely male or female. Theyre sort of like this third gender. And they speak about it very insightfully. And their Family Members, the ones weve profiled at least, have been so accepting. So its a really fascinating and exciting kind of episode and movement thats happening. Look forward to the whole season. Lisa ling, dont miss the season
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.