show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. welcome to inside politics. i'm john king. thank you for sharing your day with us. the controversial president due at the white house any moment. the polish government purged its courts and seizes anti-democrat. we could hear from the two leaders soon. the trade war with china escalates and the white house unveils new tariffs and beijing is new to retaliate.

the republicans worry about election year fallout in the midwest and farm states. he said she said with a pivotal seat on the supreme court hanging in the balance. they are due to testify on monday and republicans are mad and the democrats are mad they won't investigate before the dramatic public hearing. >> we should do a full investigation. this should be part of the background investigation as are any other allegations relating to someone being nominated for a lifetime appointment on a federal court and in this case, the supreme court. this is not an effort to slow it down by months, but it is an effort to make sure we take days or weeks to ensure there is a thorough background investigation. >> we begin right there with the president's embattled nominee. judge brett kavanaugh meeting with white house legal team to prepare for a fate-determining

hearing we expect to take place on monday. christine blasey ford will could a she said he said being debated with a critical seat on the supreme court hanging in the balance. professor fort said kavanaugh attempted to force himself on her and believes he would have raped her if he weren't so drunk. kavanaugh said the incident she describes never happened. mitch mcconnell this morning saying both will have the chance to tell their story, but the republican who runs the judiciary committee said as of now he has not heard from ford and doesn't have an agreement for her to testify. >> had dr. ford accept and she has agreed to come? >> no. we have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or you four times by e-mail and have not heard from them. it raises the question, do they want to come to the public

hearing or not? >> that's phil matingly on capitol hill. will the hearing actually happen? >> 50-50 at best from an aide working on this. this underscores how deep the divide is between the republicans and democrats just broadly, but republicans and democrats. you have to remember, republican leaders did not want a public hearing. that's what they had to do to assuage the members. they did not consult with democrats until after they made the decision. as the chairman said, they reached out after they scheduled a hearing to professor ford. as of this moment, they have not heard back from professor ford and as of this moment, democrats are saying the monday hearing is not remotely adequate enough. they want to review the background investigation and they want more time and

accompanying witnesses including mark judge, named as a third person involved in the allegations. they want all of those things. the big question becomes republicans and democrats alike are questioning one another's intent and one another's motives and now they are questioning whether or not a hearing at all will happen. i will tell you two interesting comments picked up. susan collins and lisa murkowski, two senators expressed disappointment if there is not a hearing on monday saying it would be a missed opportunity. keep in mind all mitch mcconnell cares about is his republican conference, making sure they are comfortable with things. that will determine whether or not he moves forward, but it's clear democrats are not happy with the process and at this moment, nobody knows if professor ford would be willing to show up at all if the hearing goes on as planned on monday. >> keep in touch as the story is clearly still developing.

there will be changes today or in the next several days. here with me in the studio is dana bash and olivia knox and buzz feed. we expect this hearing to happen on monday or that was the plan. clearly now there is another fight over the process. let me bring into this chuck schumer. he mentioned on the senate floor, first mcconnell went to the floor and expected the hearing on monday even though they don't have an agreement with professor ford yet. chuck schumer said wait a minute. >> chairman grassley said there would be only two witnesses. that's simply inadequate, unfair, wrong. a desire not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth. it certainly makes sense for one witness to be mr. mark judge who was named in "the washington post" as president during the event in question. how could we want to get the truth and not have mr. judge

come to the hearing and be asked questions? >> i would cast a giant question mark because the republicans would have to agree to that. where are we heading? >> we don't know. they are really making this up as they go along, minute by minute. that's the honest truth. >> with two people's reputation, brett kavanaugh and professor ford. >> with so many implications for the mid-term elections not to mention the swing seat on the u.s. supreme court. last night the republicans on the judiciary committee met in the majority leader's office and had a discussion. this was after brett kavanaugh himself was on the phone for approximate about an hour with aides on the republican side. they decided this was the best way to do it. the mantra was her story should

be told. what other way to address problem that they have than to say there is going to be a public hearing. how you get from that announcement to the practical? they have not figured it out. in normal times which we all don't really remember at this point, these things were worked out in a grown up way between the chairman and the ranking member of the committee along with the majority leader and minority leader in the u.s. senate. that is not happening now for lots of reasons, but primarily things are so broken and so partisan. the fact that we are careening for guardrail to guardrail. this is going to happen or not going to happen. it's an indicator of how messed up and chaotic things are. on a human and personal level with the relationships that used to guide these basic and very important decisions about process. >> in the old days which i do

somewhat remember back in the cobwebs, the adults would say i blame you and the other side said i blame you and how do we figure it out. to the point mr. schumer is making, professor ford said it was brett kavanaugh and his friend, mark judge, who were in the room. they were in the room. the democrats said he's a vital witness. he wrote a book his time in prep school where he said kavanaugh was passed out drunk. if you are on the kavanaugh side, you don't want judge. you get into the culture of these kids in high school. we will have this argument play out again with professor ford's reputation. she had the courage to come forward. judge kavanaugh's reputation. he insisted it never happened and polarized washington will fix this out. >> you are assuming that polarized washington will fix anything at all.

this is incredibly broken. you can see why the democrats want judge. it opens up an avenue of questions and pointing back to kavanaugh's comments in e-mails and the bush administration and trouble reccollecting a certain party. i think the important thing is this is a dramatic development, but not the whole basket. you have questions about senator flake who does not agree with brett kavanaugh on executive power vz legislative power. roe vs. wade is important. lisa murkowski's problem is his rulings and native alaskans. the latest accusations are important and you have to keep track of the context. these senators, that's what they will look at for confirming him or not. >> you mentioned this as well, smartly. every senator gets a vote in the

end. the committee goes first. four people are front and center at the moment. jeff flake who is retiring and said he would vote no because he wants it hear her story. professor ford's story. bob corker also retiring with no loyalty to trump. he said let's go through this and the two female republican senators, louisa murkowski and senator collins. here's lisa murkowski earlier today. >> it needs to be handled in a respectful manner and all of us are anticipating and wanting to learn from the actual hearing. >> i don't think we should air drop in a republican woman who doesn't sit on the judiciary committee specifically for the purposes of questioning. my hope is that all will be respectful. respectful of dr. ford and respectful of judge kavanaugh. >> and those concerns come at

number one, the republican side of the committee is all white men. republicans have memories of the anita hill episode in the clarence thomas hearing with boorish questions to her at the time. murkowski was asked because he was thinking about it and had not settled on how it was going to work and open to the idea of bringing in a republican woman to do the questioning. senator murkowski said don't do that. >> i understand that phil said he thinks this is just a 50-50 chance this hearing happens and i think there is a lot of confusion and chaos about the specifics. i can't imagine that this won't eventually happen. it may not happen on monday if they can't work out the details. it's impossible to think -- >> kavanaugh won't be confirmed because senator flake, collins and corker -- >> there are enough republicans and democrats to demand this

story be aired one way or the other. it's going to happen. we are in for this period of crazy negotiations behind the scenes and leaks and discussions. all of the rest of the circus for the next six to ten days and however long it takes. >> here's a question. what is the standard in the sense that we could spend a month on how much the town and the senate and the country has changed in its conversation about women, sexual assault, sexual harassment. since the anita hill hearings. we live in a different world. in the sense that anita hill gave compelling testimony and clarence thomas said this never happened. two witnesses came across as credible and he was confirmed. if that's what happens again, what happens to judge kavanaugh? is the standard different even though the times are different? if someone is capable of such a thing as a teenager, it is a

black mark against his character and character is usually destiny. not only is there no other allegation against kavanaugh, the assault charge runs against everything we know about his life as attested to everything we know about him. lawry is making the case that judge kavanaugh denies it and there is no other black mark, he should go forward. is that the standard? >> you will see the four republican senators we mentioned decide the standard based on what they say after the hearing if this happens on monday. what we talked about whether it happens or not, even if blasey ford decides she doesn't want to come out, they need to get kavanaugh under oath and talk to him about what he remembers. some of the things he said in the last day has been i wasn't at that party. well, how does he know if he was at that party or not? we don't have many details on

when it happened and where it was. these are the things they will question him about it. if they feel comfortable, that standard will be decided. >> we will continue the conversation in a moment including what the white house is doing to salvage.

there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) call to see if you qualify to enroll in a medicare advantage plan right now. at humana, we believe great things are ahead of you when you start with healthy. and part of staying healthy means choosing the right medicare plan. humana can help. with original medicare, you're

covered for hospital stays and doctor office visits when you're sick. but keep in mind you'll have to pay a deductible for each. a medicare supplement plan can cover your deductibles and co-insurance, but you may pay higher premiums than you do with other plans. and prescription drug coverage isn't included. but, with an all-in-one humana medicare advantage plan, you could get all that coverage plus part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable monthly plan premium, and in some areas, no plan premium. it's all described in this free book. call for yours, and discover how an all-in-one medicare advantage plan from humana could save you money. there is no obligation and the book is free. call or go online right now. hi i'm joan lunden.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice.

a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. a clear strategy emerging and confronting assault allegations against the supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. the administration has a delicate goal. fortify his public image without impugning his image. let women who january kavanaugh well do the talking. >> she alleges she had this traumatic event and i feel like it is not the brett kavanaugh that we know. it is so wildly inaccurate to

his character that i'm not certain where it's coming from. >> so polar opposite of the brett kavanaugh i have known for over 35 years. >> he was someone who did have a beer, but he was never out of control. he never became someone different after drinking. >> it's smart by the white house so far. the white house has been very measured. a lot of this is to fill the time between now and the hearing assuming the hearing happens. judge kavanaugh's testimony. if you look at public opinion polls, the country was evenly divided on him. does this matter from the white house perspective? does it change anything or fill the debate between now and the hear something the fact th. >> this is only only thing we can do to fill the time, but in the me too era, 65 women could say they think this man is great and never has done anything

wrong and could attest to his character, but that doesn't disqualify an accuser with allegations we have seen this happen with. we have seen it with harvey weinstein and bill cosby and women going on tv with the allegations, one doesn't supersede the other and they get into that narrative more if this is their only strategy. >> the big question is how long president trump can stay restrained. he doesn't have a good history of being restrained. >> you are watching the president and the first lady of poland arrive at the white house. they have other meetings, sos on the possible reporters will be in the room. we have other issues to discuss as well. it will be interesting to see whether the president speaks publicly about the anti-kr

anti-democratic steps taken. let's listen to the president yesterday. that has been a big question. what would he say about judge kavanaugh. would he attack or say anything at all in in a world, he was measured. >> judge kavanaugh is one of the finest people that i have ever known. he's an outstanding intellect, out standing judge respected by everybody. never had even a little blemish on his record. at the same time we want to go through a process and make sure everything is perfect. everything is just right. i wish the democrats could have done this a lot sooner. if it takes a little delay, it will take a delay. >> it's perfect. >> the question is, as the rhetoric heats up around the president in washington, something is going to fill the time for the next six days. that will be potentially advertising and have a lot of back and forth and he will not

revert ted and that's his reactn to this. he sees all of these accusations through the lens of his own experience. accusations that have been made against him that he contends are completely false and the best way to react to the accusations is to attack, attack, attack. >> in this case he is being less aggressive than the republican leader in the senate. obviously it's the president's nominee, but he's mabel got more politically on the line than the president does. i was told that when the president heard the attorney for professor ford yesterday morning on cnn and other places use the word potential attempted rain, used other very clear language and also saying that she thought that her client should come and testify publicly, that is when he was convinced, you know what,

be uncharacteristically restrained. in the case of weinstein or les moonves or name your person who has been accused and had issues over the past year and a half, if there is a real problem, it has been the papattern of not just one, but more than one. they are also nobody is suggesting they know anything, but they are waiting to see how things play out. >> lastly on this point, the democrats clearly trying to get more witness fist there is a hearing and trying to get the pause button hit to reinvestigate and open the background investigation and the letter from the judiciary committee and saying you have to do this, the only fairw way to o this. my understanding is either the white house or the senate would have to specifically request the fbi do it. they won't do it on their own.

they will not do that. is that a moot point? >> pretty much. the white house doesn't throw requests at the fbi. just add this into the folder. >> unless there is enough political pressure. >> that's why we are where we are. an investigation which would delay it further. up next, outrage and anxiety over the latest tit for tat. what they said most consumers won't even notice. or get pumped up for your grand entrance. t-mobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in more places, without paying more. get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. and right now at t-mobile,

buy one samsung galaxy s9 and get one free.

if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today.

i'm ready to crush ap english. i'm ready to do what no one on my block has done before. forget that. what no one in the world has done before. all i need access, tools, connections. high-speed connections. is the world ready for me? through internet essentials, comcast has connected more than six-million low-income people to low-cost, high-speed internet at home. i'm trying to do some homework here. so they're ready for anything.

. more breaking news about thou proceed now that a professor made allegations against the supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. susan collins of maine is not on the judiciary committee, but how to allow judge kavanaugh to respond to the allegations, which he denies. susan collins of maine tweeting this. i'm writing to the chairman and ranking member respectfully recommending that at monday's hearing, counsel for professor ford be allocated time to question judge kavanaugh. counsel for the judge be granted time to question professor ford followed by senators. that will provide more

continuity and elicit the most information and allow an indepth examination. >> in one way she is not directly involved and you need to listen to her because she is one of what i call front ford. they call the two retiring senators. it's an interesting proposal. the reason we don't have a firmly scheduled hearing, this is debate over how to do it. who does the questioning. will that carry sway? >> it could. as you said, susan colins is not on the committee, but she is increediblely powerful. on a post of issues, she has been on the nature for politics, kind of a bridge. she embraces that and tries to be the compromiser on a lot of issues, particularly on an issue like this that she understands the power she has, but also the pressure on her. she is going to have to make a

decision at some point if they have a vote. she is a senator. she has to vote. i have been thinking about this. not just for her, but for all of them. it is going to be a judgment call for all of the senators, once they hear and assuming they hear each side of the story. the more facts that can be elicited and the more meat on the bone rather my recollection versus their recollection. this is clearly trying to bring out more independence and less partisan. >> it also allows if you went this way and you had the attorney for professor ford and judge kavanaugh, you could have a more confrontational trial-like atmosphere. the senators would be fearful of doing that. the attorneys representing these

two could be more combative and pushy than if the senators were asking the question. >> keep in mind if you are a good lawyer and either one of the lawyers in this case, you want preparation time before that happens. you want to be able to figure out the facts to the best of your ability. i'm not sure if this were to be settled on in the next 48 hours, you are at thursday before a monday hearing and do the lawyers come back to the committee and say this is not enough time for us to prepare this kind of questioning. >> it may not be a terrible idea having a woman asking questions of judge ford instead of having a number of older white gentlemen quizzing her about her story of sexual assault. that may not be a terrible idea for them. >> based on the tweets, she said that the cross-examination would be followed by questions from

senators. this was a concern that senator grassley brought up in a radio interview when he was asked if this was a proposal and having the third party doing the question, if he would be okay with that. they got around that concern. the senator would be more willing to do the proposal. >> one of the key senators whose vote is the decisive vote. senator flake on the committee and senator corker and senator murkowski are four so far who said i do not want to vote until professor ford gets to tell her story. that adds to the story that it was at stake here. she raised questions on hearing views on roe vs. wade. brett kavanaugh knew this in his confirmation testimony well before this allegation became public. it was clear that judge

kavanaugh knew they were key and in the area of public opinion, he needed to make clear this compassion for women. >> my mom was a trailblazer. the president introduced me tonight as judge kavanaugh. but to me, that title will always belong to my mom. i am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women. i have tried to create bonds with my daughters like my dad created with me. for the past seven years, i have coached my daughter's basketball teams. >> this has been an issue from the get go. >> it is central to the argument. they anticipated more of the roe v. wade than anything else. telling people to read his speech on that night when he was nominated. it's remarkable how many women he brings into this. how many women surrogates they had treat go to talk about this, for example, on cable

television. it was clearly central from the start. i don't know what they're doing in the nine-hour sessions on the the white house, but i have to imagine they are prepping him to talk more like this. >> to that point, we talk about the chaos in the white house all the time. the one thing where they have the discipline and the clear strategy is on the judiciary nomination. the stories that don't get covered enough, all the judges they put through. they have had a process on this one. they need it more than ever right now. >> yes. it plays into what we were talking about the president. it may not be characteristic of him to have the restraint that he does in general, but he had it in a remarkable way on his two nominations. >> they say mr. president, it worked in the past. we will see how it plays out. when we come back, a story we will get to.

fresh anxiety over a trade war with china. the best simple sal? great tasting, heart-healthy california walnuts. so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org. ♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪

all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ your insurance rates skyrocket you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782

on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

i want to let you know reporters are in the room and the president of the united states is meeting with the president of poland. the things we know he has talked about is the embattlement of brett kavanaugh. we will bring you that tape as soon as it's available to us. another story from the white house, the president has a message for china. after slapping tariffs on exports, he hopped on twitter with the story. we break down the numbers and

the tough trade talk. >> punch and counter punch. this is what a trade war looks like. the u.s. slapped tariffs on another $200 billion. a 10% tariff starting and rying to 25% by the end of the year. think taxes on printed circuit boards and a wide range of consumer goods and even food. the chinese don't technically pay those tariffs, companies will pay the tax to the u.s. government. they either pass that higher cost on to american consumers or they eat it. smart watches and baby gear was exempted as an exempt to cushion the effect on the american consumer. add that to the $50 billion already taxed earlier, you have about half of the chinese imports into the u.s. are subject to tariffs. the president accusing the chinese of taking advantage of the u.s. for many years and said he is the one who knows how to stop it. this administration is using tariffs as a punishment for

years. what multiple administrations have called unfair trade practices. the chinese are outraged and say the u.s. doesn't show integrity and respect for trade negotiations and vow $60 bill yo yon on their own. he argues american consumers will not feel the effects. 10% tariffs on thousands of items in a 19 trilli$19 trillio can be absorbd without too much consumer pain. history shows trade wars are damaging. president trump vows to tax every import from china. china is dug in. high level trade talks are in question and american business looking for an off-ramp. john? >> looking for an off-ramp. they are. american businesses. president trump ignored pressure from republican senators and republican members of the house

who said we get your long-term goal, but this is hurting us in the short-term. you hear that in the farm states. the president is sticking to his guns and thinks he is right. you have to have this fight and they have been using the rules for years and you have to have it even with short-term turbulence. >> whether it's forcing american companies that want to do to enter into the business. they have been talking about the fact that china is called national champions and steer business to certain companies and certain sectors. the question is if this is the best mechanism to force the chinese to stop these practices. the chinese have been working hard to reduce dependence on exports. one of the things is the trump folks figured out there is political pain and they move to

remove car seats for kids. they shelter some sectors of consumers, but asks farmers how they feel. >> to the point, blue tooth devices and fitness trackers and air pods exempted from this. the baby products as you mentioned, the administration is where the politics are. the president aware of it in his tweet. whether china said we will retaliate, we will pay attention to the map. we will target people where it hurts trump voters. china actively tried to impact our election by attacking the farmers because of their loyalty tow me. >> this is playing out. vulnerab vulnerable. a state the president won by 20 plus points. she is trying to use tariffs to her advantage. >> china is cancelling contracts to buy soy beans.

north dakota is losing hundreds of millions of dollars in business. he criticizes farmers. that trade war is costing my family a lot of money and you don't seem to care. >> heidi height camp is a classic case of somebody who can be politically helped by the fact that the president is hurting his own voters. his own constituents. the soy bean farmers in the ad we just heard. she is smartly not putting it on the president, but her opponent who is not on the ballot like the president. they are pushing this issue so hard. the question is, whether or not the argument that we heard and saw from the president in that tweet this morning pulling back the bail and saying to voters, don't punish me for snag china is doing to retaliate on for what i promised i would do in

the election. it's dicy when you are talking about your own pocket books and the fact that a lot of soy bean farmers and those elsewhere are not able to sell their goods. they are not making a profit or anything. >> the remarkable thing is not that president trump is not pursuing this agenda, but the handful of things that he has long believed to his core. the remarkable thing is that he is doing it without the cover that every other president has always sought in the trade battles. that's allies. people who as olivia said was taking advantage of the united states have always thought the best way to confront china is by allying with canada and the european union and other asian nations. the president has decided instead to anger all of those allies and go it alone. part of the reason the politics

are so stark right now is because there is no hiding. this is president trump and president trump alone waging a trade war with china. >> we are a minute away from hearing the president. to your point, the transpacific partnership was designed to stand up to create a counter balance the chinese might in the neighborhood. it was an obama negotiation and president trump pulled out saying it helped china. we are about to hear from the president and i think it's key. let's stop the conversation about trade for a minute. yesterday when it came to judge kavanaugh. i don't know what he is going to say yet, but he's always meeting with the president of poland considering sanctions for steps for which the united states of america has been silent about because he has a bond with the president of poland. what are you looking at here. here he is. the president. >> any way, shape, or form.

it's an horror. >> how long of a delay is acceptable on the hearings for judge kavanaugh? there is some discussion that they may not be able to come in on monday. >> it's a great question, frankly. we are looking to get this done as quickly as possible. he is a truly outstanding person, as you know. he has an unblemished record. it's a terrible thing that took place and it's frankly a terrible thing that this information was not given to us months ago when they got it and they could have done that instead of waiting until everything was finish and spring it. that's what the democrats do. it's obstruction and resist and whatever you have to do. with all of that being said, it's a process and we all feel, speaking for all of the republicans, we feel we want to go through the process and give everybody a chance to say what they have to say. we have time available. we will delay the process until

it's finished out. i guess we invited everybody i know. judge kavanaugh is anxious to do it. i don't know about the other party. judge kavanaugh is very anxious to do it. a delay is certainly acceptable. we want to get to the bottom of everything. we want everybody to be able to speak up and speak out. the fact is this should have been done a long time ago. when senator feinstein had judge kavanaugh in her office for a long time, she never mentioned this. that was a long time ago. never mentioned it. why would you bring this up when he is sitting in her office for a pretty extended period of time? it's unfortunate. he is an incredible man and incredible intellect, but we want to go through a process and we want to hear both sides.

>> did you ask the fbi to open the file? >> the fbi shouldn't be involved because they don't want to be. this is not really their thing. i think politically speaking the senators will do a very good job. they will. they will open it up and do a very good job. >> do you feel this is all politics, sir. >> how important is this to you? >> very important. security of poll aand is almost important. i can't say as. >> i hope that we will have trump together in poland. >> it's very important. it's a very special and brave country. one of my best moments was making that speech in poland. people liked me and i liked them. they are very, very exceptional people. the security of poland is very important to me and very

important to our country. we are going to see. we want transparency. what i want is i want total transparency. this is a witch hunt. republicans are seeing it. the democrats know it's a witch hunt, too, but they don't want to admit it because it's not good politics. it hurt our country and the things that have been found over the last couple of weeks about text messages back and forth are a disgrace to our nation. i want transparency and so does everybody else. congressional committees came to me and wanted this and i did it based on their request, but i think it's a good thing because we should open it up for people to see. thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. >> specifically i have one or

two. it's something that he will do very well. specifically i haven't wanted to speak to judge kavanaugh because i knew somebody would ask me the same question. have you spoken to judge kavanaugh. specifically i thought it would be a good thing not to. he can handle himself better than anybody. he is a very outstanding man. thank you. i'm totally supportive. i would say few people that i have ever seen, that i have ever known and i know people of great success have been so out standing as judge kavanaugh. i don't want to say that. maybe i will say that in a couple of days, but not now. thank you very much. >> the president of the united states in the oval office, trademark trump with one glaring exception. the witch hunt, using the term about the mueller investigation.

they love me and the president is talking about his speech in poland and how much he loved the applause there. completely out of character and very measured president of the united states when asked about judge kavanaugh, criticizing the democrats saying it should have been brought forward a long time ago. but respectful when it comes to let's have a process and we will move on from there. jeff is outside the white house. jeff, it is remarkable this president is known for say figure we are under attack, fight back, has decided to take a more measured and cautious approach. >> no question about it. i was the reporter in there asking those questions. i was not sure how he was going to answer it today. he didn't ratchet up criticism of the democrats, calling them obstructionists and singling out senator fine stip. he did not go there. at the end when the aides were hollering, i asked if he

believes this is all politics and he paused a moment and said i'm not going to go there. ask me in a couple of days. we know inside this building is president is frustrated by this and believes the way to handle this is to keep his powder dry and not to inflame any of this. interestingly, i asked him if he spoke to judge kavanaugh. he was in the west wing for nine hours yesterday and the president said he has not spoken to him and one of the reasons he has not is he asked that question. he knows that he has support there. we will see how long this measured approach will last. there is a sense here that this is a moment. if the hearing doesn't happen on monday, it's not judge kavanaugh's fault. he said judge kavanaugh wants to go ahead right now. he know his history and he was not saying any of that today.

i should say as well, melania trump was looking at him as he was answering the questions. answer measured and disciplined today. >> fascinating, the president's response. hasn't spoken to judge kavanaugh and ask me later. the president whose own standing with american women is in the tank. if you look at his approval numbers, the four key republican senators. corker, murkowski and collins no fans of how this president conducts business. it is a smarter approach because in so many otherifies might be quiet for a day or two, but then not. >> strategic and by the book which is uncharacteristic. in his office, historically speaking, more times than not, he feels that he has been successful by being the opposite of by the book. doing things his own way. it's not the case now. he was self-aware enough to say this might not last very long.

ask me in a couple of days. i might go back to being my true self. >> brett kavanaugh was there today and there for more than nine hours yesterday and the president said he has not asked him about this. this is an incredible pick for the short-term. he is under water in the polls and heading into a tough mid-term climate we will talk about the a pointes and neal gorsuch being one. 20 or 30 years from now, this could be the most consequential. i don't want to get involved because i will get asked about it and this is the most important thing in my life and i will look this guy in the eye and ask him. >> i think it's not only interesting that the president hasn't attacked the accuser, but he removed himself from the process. not talking to kavanaugh is one of the ways he removed himself,

but kind of repeating the same talking points and really leaving it up to the process, as you said, today and yesterday. the president doesn't usually even use the word process. he seems to be just kind of removing himself from things and say let the process go on as it should and let the hill do what everyone there needs to do. that's very different from how he operated in the past. >> think about the next question. if he said he had talked to kavanaugh, the next question is what did he say? did he deny it? do you believe him and her? this way, she able to fall back on the process questions and deflect the obvious follow-ups. as long as he is going to have a press conference, he will be asked these questions again and he will fall back on the same thing. >> that's fixture book, but not trumpian. >> as we have been on the air and listening to diane fine stein who is the ranking

democrat on the judiciary committee. he said you got this information in july and why are we learning about it in september. she said she promised confidentiality. this happened when she was 15 and her privacy should be considered, but she said the senate judiciary committee should conduct a full investigation before we hold hearings on the allegations. holding a hearing without investigation signals no interest in getting to the bottom of this. the president would just ask and he did not. he said this is not the fbi's thing. this is exactly what the fbi does. it conducts the background investigation for sensitive picks, but not the job to reopen them. the president would have to say do it. >> this does not automatically trigger fbi actions. that's that's what he meant when

he said this is not there thing. he would submit it to the white house and it's up to the president to direct them to reopen it. >> with that answer from the president as we speak on this day in washington, this is a developing story. things have changed so much throughout this. at this moment, the president said no. >> let's be clear. this is only at the last minute because the timeline that the republicans have put in place to consider it is compressed. this is neerp it had to be and they could have established a much longer process. there is no reason this has to help monday or even the following monday. that's the democrats's argument. >> sorry there any reason we should believe it will happen monday? over how many questions and who would conduct the questions and where they get to be involved instead of sitting next to their clients.

>> it's easy to imagine it not happening as happening. how's that for a nonanswer? >> thanks for joining us. stay with us. hope to see you back here tomorrow. jim acosta is here for wolf blitzer and starts right now. i'm jim acosta for wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 in washington. president trump speaks out about his embattled supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. moments ago he defended kavanaugh and blamed democrats for the turmoil surrounding his nomination. >> this is a terrible thing that took place. it's frankly a terrible thing that this information was not given to us a long time ago. months ago when they got it. instead of waiting until - everything was finish and spring it. that's what the democrats do. that's what they do. it's obstruction