and i do hearken back, and i m not saying it has anything to do with professor ford s allegation. however, credibility is a big bucket, and it doesn t just go to the specific. when he didn t shake that man s hand, and he says, i didn t know who he was. i got pulled away by security. it wasn t that i didn t shake his hand, that s just not true on the face of the video. i m not saying that it was right or wrong for him to shake his hand, although i do believe it was wrong. but if he was playing that situation and he was giving the answer that s convenient, how do you know that he won t give an answer that s convenient on something like this? well, i think she s going to show up at this committee room on monday and put his hand up under oath and say his true, which is i unequivocally deny this. let me go back to your previous question. why would she lie? i don t believe she thinks she s lying. i think something happened. she has a memory. i also think memories are fallible, and she s al
she s lying. i think something happened. she has a memory. i also think memories are fallible, and she s already told the washington post she can t remember various details. i think something happened and dr. ford deserves to tell that story. but i don t think a 36-year-old memory is in infallible, and i also don t think you can discount it when a man who is on the sixth circuit court of pales remember this isn t just about the supreme court. if he walks in there and lies under oath, it s not costing him just the supreme court. it s costing him his career. [ overlapping voices ] there s a lot on the line for both these people. i don t accept that [ overlapping voices ] i think a 36-year-old memory is fallible. you must have never suffered trauma, scott. that s really bold for you to talk about the length of time, you must have never suffered any kind of trauma because that is a vivid memory you ll never forget. even if you don t remember every single aspect u detail, whet
probe is back with us. david, speak to the point that michael says, which is both true but counter intuitive, how could someone else know more about what you loved through, but the whole point of intelligence gathering, the way investigators do it in a criminal probe is to gather the knowledge of more than one person. it makes sense, because our memories are fallible, but facts remain. and bob mueller has access to a range of things in this investigation, he has facts coming from other witnesses, he has facts coming from foreign intelligence, bank records and transactions, the financial crimes enforcement network. he s got no shortage of information. his job is to process it, put it all together and see what pieces are missing and what pieces do
it is made up of human beings and humans are the fallible. whether it is a system failure and we need to fix that to make sure it doesn t happen again or individual failing. i m certain the fbi director will get to the heart of it and fix. i say this. leaders set the culture of the agency. the federal government and executive branch is made of 2 million people. if you want to hold somebody accountable, if any of the 2 million people did something wrong, the president should be held being abccount. i think governor scott s call for removing the director of the fbi is wrong. congress will look into it and let s move on from there and make sure it doesn t happen. before we move on, we want to be clear. people handling the tips and calls coming into the fbi is separate than people involved in
over the internet that was heavily sexual and that i had met you twice while married and had sex with you on two different occasions and that i exchanged inappropriate photographs and videos with you that i wouldn t like to be seen made public, that you still apparently had all of those and were in a position to use them in a way that would negatively affect my career. that s the truth. david jolly, when you hear that and in the congressman s own voice and you consider that nancy pelosi told anthony weiner he had to go, is this a situation of paul ryan comes in and does the same thing that nancy pelosi did? it may be. and, lawrence, listen. there s a difference offalability and criminality. we are all fallible. i certainly am myself. we are seeing two things emerge from the national conversation and two important themes that emerged. one is beginning to see different degrees of offenses. they re all wrong.