how d you know she talked to friends? that s the reporting on it. from where? different sources that are reporting on it. but, look, you re making good point. do we know for sure, but why not go to the name she offers? has she offered names? has she been asked to offer names? of course she s been asked to offer names. i don t know that. but i m saying by the senate, has she been asked who else can we talk to? who can prove this? who can we point this to? shouldn t they be asking? your station ran a line that her lawyers asked for no additional witnesses. now, that was earlier in the day. i don t know if it s been changed or not. no, they want additional witnesses. i don t know what the process is. maybe you re right, maybe you re not. maybe the zipper was right. maybe it was.
feinstein who kept it until the hearing was over, and then tried to start the clock again, and you can t encourage that kind of behavior, in that respect i agree with ken cuccinelli, i agree also that with your other guest whose name is laura coats she said that this is not a court, that it s a political decision. part of the political decision is whether you want to encourage that behavior. i don t think you do. regardless of the process, and even if it was delayed. delay of what? there is no hard time for what this needs to be. pushing it beyond the midterms. that is the perceived goal. there s no reason for it to get to that point. the fbi looked into it three days. at least you show you checked the boxes, shame on the
yeah, i would have agreed with you just as you said it, chris. three or four weeks earlier in the process, and look, this just didn t arise. you can t ignore the fact that a late decision was made, laura may call the republican s move 12th hour, within hours of chairman grassley, knowing of ford s name for one. and desire to testify. he set the time based on senate rules which require a week s notice, and that s what he did. he did it immediately and he very quickly said under whatever conditions she wants. we ll do it in california by staff, she can do did here, public, private, i have never seen ever. i can t remember a time where a senate committee gave that kind of accommodation to a witness ever. well, this is an unusual allegation. i sure can t.
filings forward so we can learn date, time and place. your response? so, for me the issue really is that christie at great cost to herself decided that it was her civic responsibility when the background checks were being done for kavanaugh to come forward confidentially with evidence. she is a researcher and she s a scientist and she understands the value of information. and she came forward confidentially back in july with information that she thought should be part of the investigation. and so, i had the utmost respect for the way she handled this and only when her name leaked out and she started the story started being told incorrectly did she take a deep breath and come forward and allow her identity to be known and to
the hearing on monday is not possible. her strong preference continues to be for the senate judiciary committee to allow a full investigation prior to her testimony. let s bring in cuomo s court here, laura coats and ken cuccinelli. the idea of these conditions from ford if they are seen as a backing off of an original intent. is this a show of weakness, less credibility? how do you see it? i don t see it as a show of weakness to say you d like to have process and time to do so. anita hill had about two weeks from the time that the fbi investigation was concluded that only took three days. the time she testified on the hill, are we suggesting that now 27 years later, less process is warranted when you are aware that there should be a protocol