you get what you need ♪ >> with the control of congress in question this election day, see the competition for yourself on c-span. watch the debates from key house and senate races. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. >> here is some of what we are covering on friday on c-span at 8 p.m. eastern time, i debate between congressional candidates in iowa's first district. c-span2 has live coverage of the senate as members debate the brett kavanaugh supreme court nomination. , the group women forcoming up in an hour, washinn post reporter greg miller talks

about his bush -- his book on russian interference. former assistant secretary of state jen diane fraser on the lonnie of trump's trip to africa. frazer on melania trump's trip to africa. ♪ it isgood morning, friday, october 5 and today is the day the u.s. senate holds a key vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. your opportunity to tell senators how you think they should vote. [video clip] >> i think his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. be a product of an incomplete investigation that was limited, perhaps by the white house. i don't know. >> i would like to have the future mending things so we can do things in a collegial way

that the united states senate ought to and particularly when it comes to supreme court nominations. call officee and for as long as i need to and every other >> senator planning to vote yes. all you have to do is look at the polls > over the past three or four days and it shows that their rage-fueled resistance is starting to back fire at a level nobody has ever seen before. host: if you are republican, dial in at 202-748-8001 this morning. democrats, 202-748-8000. independent, 202-748-8002. join us on twitter @cspanwj or facebook -- facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your calls in just a minute. the senate will be coming into session this wanting at 9:30 eastern time.

vote, a is a key procedural vote expected around 10:30 a.m. eastern time. if this vote passes, a final vote could occur on saturday. ,enators susan collins of maine jeff flake, republican of arizona, joe manchin, democrat of west virginia, and lisa murkowski, republican of arkansas. the wall street journal front page, "senator jeff flake and senator susan collins sounding like they were satisfied with the fbi report and could be voting yes." " we have seen no additional corroborating information." "ittor susan collins appears to be a very thorough investigation." senator heidi heitkamp of north dakota is up for reelection. yesterday telling a local abc station she is a no. [video clip] with us heitkamp shares

what led to her decision on a brett kavanaugh vote. >> the most important thing you can tell a victim is that you believe them. >> in this historic u.s. senate vote and perhaps one of the biggest in her senate career, shares inidi heitkamp an exclusive interview how her vote will go. buthe process has been bad, at that ends the day, you have to make a decision and i have made that decision. >> that decision will be what? >> i will be voting no on judge kavanaugh. >> many political circles have called this vote a no win for the senator. a yes vote upsets her win -- her base. and no vote gives conservatives campaign ammo. height can't -- heidi heitkamp says this decision is personal. >> it is a lifetime appointment. a political decision.

if it were, i would be deciding the other way. there is an old saying, history will judge you, but most importantly, you will judge yourself. i cannot get up in the morning and look at the life experience i have had and say yes to judge kavanaugh. kamp came at this from a unique perspective. a former general, senator, and mother of a daughter. what impact will this have went north dakotans head to the poll a week from now? host: an abc station with coverage in north dakota of heidi heitkamp telling her constituents she will be a no vote. now the eyes are on two undecided senators. brett kavanaugh went to the wall street journal opinion pages last night to try to as the new york times says, convince these

undecided senators he has the right temperament to be a judge. "i am an independent, impartial judge. i was very emotional last thursday, more so than i have ever been. i might have been two emotional at times. iknow my tone was sharp and said a few things i should not have said. i hope everyone can understand i was there as a son, husband, and dad. i write this with five people in mind. -- i testified with five people in mind. hard-working, even keeled, open-minded, independent, and dedicated to the constitution and the public good. if confirmed by the senate, i will keep an open mind in every case and strive to preserve the constitution of the united states and the american rule of law. we turn to all of you this morning. what do you think senators

should do? tom in illinois, a republican. states i think united senators, it is time for them to vote and my feeling is they .hould vote to approve i can respect anyone not feeling that way. it is time to move this country forward and make a decision. it's almost 90 days since the first hearing -- the nomination was submitted. all the facts are out. everybody has the information. senator flake probably did a favor for everyone that he asked for a little more time for review. i don't think the other side will ever be satisfied. it is time to move forward and placed their votes. in fairness, it is time to move on for the kavanaugh nomination and it will likely be approved. host: will you be watching this

morning at 10:30? caller: absolutely. for the most part, i think this will help republican candidates for the senate and the house in districts that are republican districts. most of the competitive house races are republican districts, obviously, there is open seats as well. it should help republicans on boostuse as well as republicans in the senate seats and red states. senator heitkamp, donna lee, a few others will be more honorable. int: lyndon is a democrat mississippi. it is your turn. you are on the air. timer: yes, i think it is for them to vote no. i was initially impressed with kavanaugh. he has a great judicial record, but when he blew up at the

-- i hadd kind of questions about his innocence and the charges given to him in his ability to make good decisions on the high court. host: did you see what. -- john paul season -- john paul stevens had to say on this? caller: yes, i did, and i was impressed with his thoughtful insights. even though he was a lifelong timelican and i am a long democrat, i respect the man. he was a good justice. hads very disturbed the fbi such a limited investigation theren the report was were 40 people who had offered to give information.

why were they not contacted? host: ok. lyndon in mississippi, a democrat. michael in pennsylvania, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. thanks for c-span. i would like to say i think this process has become a mockery. this senate confirmation has poll oren up to a character assassination, what has happened. i used to have a modicum of respect for senator feinstein, but she has shown her true colors in this and she will go out of the senate at some point. maybe not this election, as someone who has lost a lot of respect from both republicans and democrats alike. senator her, but also

schumer, they have transformed this whole process into a mudslinging fest and there is no justification for it. kavanaugh was a good man and one of the criteria -- none of these -- he has done nothing to justify -- to keep him off the supreme court. host: what about his testimony last week and the criticism by yesterday, thens retired supreme court justice and others who said he displayed a temperament that is not suitable for a supreme court justice by making political accusations? that justicesk have some politics. everyone has some politics in their bones. it is the democratic party that

has done this and has made -- brought shame to him and his family without justification, with mere allegations that were not corroborated. unfortunate that he has -- every supreme court justice has politics in him. he was so infuriated by what they have done to him and his family that i don't blame him for lashing out. host: let's watch that moment from last week. [video clip] >> this whole two weak effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent up anger about president trump in that haselection, fear

been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left wing opposition groups. this is a circus. the consequences will extend long past my nomination. the consequences will be with us for decades. this grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our , intry and as we all know the united states political system of the early 2000's, what goes around, comes around. host: judge brett kavanaugh in his testimony last week testifying for hours after the senate judiciary committee heard from professor christine blasey ford. yesterday, retired supreme court justice, 98 years old, john paul

stevens in a small crowd in florida interviewed by a local florida reporter was asked about him previously saying that judge kavanaugh should serve on the supreme court. here is what he had to say to this crowd. [video clip] >> no, i don't think he is the best we can do. we are certainly able to do better because it is an issue of credibility that should be resolved on its merits, not on the basis of political speeches back and forth. i should explain that with regard to judge kavanaugh -- that i have a picture in my book -- i have written a book called "sixth amendments," in which i recommend changes in our fundamental law and one of them is to reverse the citizens united case which allows unlimited political contributions to a candidate.

[applause] feel, as apparently some of you do, that my dissent had the right in that particular debate. in my book, i describe some of the reasons for the rule that i think should apply and which really did apply for many, many years before that case. , i describeussion an opinion written by judge kavanaugh on that very issue. the issue in the case was whether a canadian citizen and a citizen of israel living in new york temporarily could make elections going followingtime and citizens united, they brought up a proceeding in the federal

court asking for an injunction against enforcing a statute that prohibits expenditures by foreign citizens in american elections. judge kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding the statute and holding that they could be barred from giving contributions to an american election and i thought that he wrote a very persuasive opinion and as a matter of fact, i put his picture in the book to illustrate my admiration for it. one of the cases he cited in that opinion was my dissent in citizens united, which i thought showed the fact that he was a very good judge and had very follow.te in cases to i forget what the point i was -- -- at that time, i

thought he had definitely, the qualifications to sit on the supreme court and should be confirmed if he was ever selected. i have changed my views for reasons that have really no relationship to his intellectual ability or record as a federal judge. he is a fine federal judge and should have been confirmed when he was nominated, but i think his performance during the hearings caused me to change my mind. i think there is several commentators, larry tried among --m, a professor at harvard have written pieces in which they suggest that he has

--onstrated a potential bias enough potential litigant see that he would not be able to perform his full responsibility. i think there is merit in that criticism and the senator should senatorsy attention -- should really pay attention to it for the good of the court. good not healthy to get a justice that can only do a part-time job. host: c-span had a camera at the event with retired justice john paul stevens. if you want to watch the entire thing, go to our website, c-span.org. he was also asked about the comparisons between judge brett kavanaugh and judge clarence thomas when he was nominated to the supreme court. we are getting your thoughts this morning as the senate is expected to vote at 10:30 a.m.

eastern time on judge brett kavanaugh. this is a procedural vote. the final vote could come as early as saturday. republicans, how should the senators about this morning? 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. there was some speculation last night that senator cory gardner, republican of colorado was undecided. a reporter of cnn tweets out responding to reports, cory gardner has been and still is supportive of kavanaugh. he had the opportunity to review the report and nothing in the report changed his mind and he remains supportive of judge kavanaugh's nomination. withm tweeted out chatted steve daines, who is very excited for his daughter's wedding. he will be here for cloture vote and then he will fly home.

if he is needed for the confirmation vote currently scheduled for saturday, the vote could be held open for a very long time for the senator to make his way back to washington. chris murphy responded to judge kavanaugh's piece in the wall street journal sang it is too late for this, you told us there exists a vast for the majority led by senate democrats organizing fake charges against you. that is delusional. you threatened us that what goes around goes around -- around comes around. that is unacceptable. a democrat in new jersey, go ahead. caller: what you do is great, greta. good morning. and good morning c-span. what you just said and what you just played about judge stephens -- stevens says it all. ishave a president that getting away with this stuff with these women. what do you think about anybody

else? there is a saying, birds of a flatter -- words of a feather flock together. what goes around comes around and there is an election coming around. let's not forget about that and we will see who is really mad and who is really lying and who is telling the truth. he would not take a lie detector test. he put on a show like he was hurt. i looked at his face and how he was belligerent and he is going to be a judge? i would hate to go in front of him for anything. let's let the election solve this because no matter what republicans do, they are toast now, forever. whatever way they decide, it will go down in history. ohio --ckie in eastlake eastlake, ohio, independent. caller: thank you for letting me express my opinion. therapist -- she told

her therapist in 2002 -- 2012 that it was brett kavanaugh that attacked her. that was before he was even thought of as a nominee for the supreme court. the fbi did not investigate or did to her therapist, nor they talk to several other people she told several years ago that mr. kavanaugh was her attacker. women who are sexually attacked sometimes remember certain things and forget certain things and i have had friends who have been there. my second thought is when the person is so belligerent and would talk to a united states senator during a hearing the way he talked to senator klobuchar, me thatnd of telling you have no respect for women

and no respect for the temperament that it takes to be a supreme court justice and i am afraid of this guy. he is just not sincere. i watched the whole hearing. i am an old lady, i am 80, so i watched the whole hearing when he was being questioned by all the senators before this all so evasiveand he was on so many questions and they had to do with his writings and his opinions, especially toward keeping the executive branch so scrutinyany kind of and, i am sorry, but i don't think he should be put on the supreme court. there are so many other good

-- i think donald trump picked him because he puts the executive power above all else. host: have you called your senators and let them know? caller: have i called my senators? that is one other thing let me mention. andenators -- mr. portman mr. brown, i have called them and i also try to call is to mcconnell, tried to call esther cornyn, i have tried to call several of the others and they do not take phone calls. factdon't ascribe to the that they work for the american people and all american people have an opinion. we should be able to talk to any senator who is leading it. especially mr. mcconnell. he will not take phone calls. none of his offices will take phone calls.

host: did you call his majority leader office or his personal office? caller: i called them all. i have a booklet c-span printed in 2012 with every number in it. you don't do that anymore and it is a shame. i did. i called everyone and it is a shame -- they don't want to hear from the public. mr. mcconnell is a power grab guy and he has all the power in his hands right now and that is what he is going to use. host: he has scheduled a vote for 10:30 a.m. eastern time. c-span 2. they will dabble in at 9:30 a.m.. this is the key vote, the procedural vote to let the nomination go forward for a final vote on saturday. this final vote could happen as early as saturday. tune in to c-span 2.

you can also go to c-span.org or download the free c-span radio app. some reaction on twitter from our viewers. eric manning tweeting if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, people should take to the streets and shutdown this country. rebecca stoner says kavanaugh ready, willing, and able to make the cart -- court more partisan again. another tweet from jake, nation divided, wish politicians would work on stuff to benefit us all and eric david says about time, they knew the fbi was not going to find anything. ford had no witnesses and they were grabbing at ridiculous straws during the hearing. just more political bs that should be investigated all its own. let's go to mark in ohio, republican. good morning. caller: yes, i am calling about kavanaugh. he should have been confirmed a

long time ago. it is a shame what the democrats have done to him through this procedure. they are talking about his temperament, he is belligerent to his testimony. if somebody was putting me through that, i would have been a whole lot worse. what they have done to him, his family, his kids. i watched the testimony of mrs. ford. she was all over the place and acting like she was reading something, scripted. it is ridiculous what they are doing to this guy. i hope they confirm him. these people they get on here and put this good man down don't know what the heck they are talking about. host: sophia in new york, independent. what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you, c-span, for taking my call. i feel it is just my opinion. a president's group, which is

the white- right now, .ouse is fox news people the three days when he had the training, the first day when he came from the back door with the red hat, my heart popped. i said, it is going to be messed up. the second day, he was interview in fox news. i say, this is it. -- they can'tsaid say fake news. --t we watched him talking his opening, his questioning, it feels like it was president -- answering the question. for president trump always -- it works for him. it is not going to work for

anybody. punchdeny, deny, and then . what happened to this judge is the white house did this to him, not democrats, not anybody. it is the fox news white house. if he lose or if he win -- if he liferm or not confirm, his , his reputation, 12 years as a judge, completely -- they destroy him. remember this. i am going to be 69 years old next month. i watch literally word by word. thank you for taking my call. host: ok, sophia, in new york. the washington post for the first time in 30 years since 1987 when they said the senate should vote no on robert work is saying no to judge kavanaugh in their editorial this morning.

they say he gratuitously indulged in rhetoric against the left. field with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election and revenge on behalf of the clintons. he provided neither evidence or a plausible expedition for this red meat partisanship, but poisoned any sense he could serve as an impartial judge. democrats or liberal activists would have no reasons to trust his good faith -- judgment and temperament would be in doubt. that is from the washington post. the wall street journal editorial board, kavanaugh and the senate's honor. they write the judge is a distinguished nominee and the charges are uncorroborated. the first crucial step is confirming brett kavanaugh. independent in alabama.

how do you think your senators should vote this morning? caller: absolutely yes. listening to democrat said in her heitkamp, when she said the most important thing you can tell a woman is i believe you, that is chilling and scary. who arecondemned all being accused and that is wrong. we have a system in this country. therule should never be system. we have a rule of law, you are innocent until proven guilty. even oj got proven innocent and everyone had to move on. without the system, we are a third world country, period. democrats and republicans are supposed to listen and hear both sides for the -- in the truth for fairness. they condemned kavanaugh --

everything he said, kavanaugh, in his hearing was on point. even the ones who call in that are liberals and emma kratz, their hatred for president trump is on full display and they make it known. they spew it out how much they hate trump. this is sad, greta. this is america. want to take down a good man? i would fight tooth and nail for the men in my life if a woman comes in and it uses without corroboration and watch -- wants to make --take them down. host: how motivated were you to vote in the midterm elections before the allegations came out? before the tension on judge kavanaugh's nomination and how do you feel now about the midterm elections? caller: i was motivated to vote republican. i would rather vote republican because i am not going to waste my vote as an independent because i want republicans to

stay in control. all you have to do is sit back and listen to the hatred spewing out for the other side. i know they are going to say, there we go again. they hate that trump won and hillary lost and that is sad because in a competition where there is a ballgame and politics, someone will lose, someone will win. you must move on. move on as well. let's hear from tina and massachusetts. independent, your turn. caller: this is tina. is that who you? host: good morning, you are on the air. caller: so glad you are hosting again. just now, that woman from alabama apparently has forgotten the hatred displayed toward president obama year after year after year. my actual comment has to do with esther kavanaugh's comments

during the hearing that what goes around comes around and that, to me, was the most pivotal comment even despite all the other angry comments. that one was really frightening, i thought. that is really my comment. up on capitol hill yesterday, there were some very tense moments between protesters and senators and reporters following them around. this is from the washington times. 302tol police arrested protesters. one protester aggressively questioned mr. mansion as he waited for an elevator about how he will vote. how long is it going to take you to listen to us? >> i am listening to you. collins spent hours in the room and emerged around 6:00 p.m. to tell reporters she

finished reading. senator jeff merkley is trying to force yet another delay. he asked a federal judge thursday to issue a ruling ordering the government to produce documents from judge kavanaugh's pas, hoping such an order would force the senate to postpone a final vote. he accused president trump of breaking the constitution by not turning over the information fast enough. constitutional right as a senator in a vote against the nomination. at that in the washington times this morning and take a look at the headline. hundreds arrested during anti-kavanaugh vote, actress amy schumer and others leading protesters around washington. they marched to the supreme court where we covered them and they went to the atrium on capitol hill where they were arrested, including amy schumer and others.

take a look at this picture in the new york times. reporters followed senator joe manchin, democrat of west from the lefth after he received the single copy of the fbi report on judge brett kavanaugh. you can see the reporters trailing the senator, all trying to get a comment after he looked at that. senators made their views known it during a tense and some have -- sometimes surreal day. pleading with republican senators to vote no. almost every undecided setter is receiving threats. at least one has been stocked at ate and many -- stalked home and at least -- many had police escorts. [video clip] >> why aren't you brave enough to talk to us? don't you wave your hand at me. i waved my hand at you. when i grow up?

>> how dare you talk to women that way. >> senator, do you believe women? host: yesterday on capitol hill and the salt lake tribune posting this editorial. hatch's attack on alleged women -- on women is despicable. the despicable attack by senate orrin hatch more precisely, republicans on the committee of one of the women accused supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexual assault is a textbook example of why more victims do not come forward. they are talking about the twitter attack on julie swetnick and the hatch office tweeting out somebody who refutes her claims. with this.al ends

we know hatch and others have tried to slime one of kavanaugh's accusers in a way that is widely and accurately described as slut shaming. hatch and his allies should be ashamed of themselves. let's hear from bob, republican. caller: the last few clips have just shown -- basically show how this functional america is right now. that is insane, the women and people yelling and screaming and the men yelling and screaming. two or three quick points, john paul stevens, as you well know, was the most liberal on the court, 2005, he was the most super -- liberal supreme court justice. he retired in 2010. that is number one. number two, the washington post editorial. the washington post along with the new york times are so biased and liberal biased. they have never endorsed a

presidential candidate since eisenhower or treatment. aey have never endorsed presidential -- a republican for .resident that really shows the evidence of their left lane. you think the editorials of these national papers matter to you, to anyone? caller: not really. i think a lot of people -- they go in with a bias. i don't think they matter that much, but they do make some impact. my third point, quickly, amy klobuchar. the keith ellison issue, i wish you guys would put something on the left side for us to discuss one day because keith ellison case is more relevant and amy klobuchar is basically supporting keith ellis. i don't understand how men and women could see that as anything honest. that is dishonest of her to

believe allison and not believe kavanaugh and attack kavanaugh. host: i want viewers to know what they are looking at. this is outside judge kavanaugh's house. it was unclear who was getting into those suvs. a camera has been staked out at his home and it looks like he is likely in one of those suvs, departing his house. he was in the first one, i am hearing. as he leads his home this morning, 7:40 a.m. eastern time here in about three hours or less, the u.s. senators will be voting on his nomination to the supreme court. we are asking all of you to let your senators know, how do you think they should vote? william in los angeles, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call.

suitablet is not a choice for our supreme court. as you know, he has some bad problems. also, john paul stevens said his performance should disqualify him from sitting on the supreme court. . want to add something more i think you have seen his mistakes. he wrote a letter to -- with a lot of phone is spelling mistakes -- a full list spelling mistakes -- with a lot of foolish spelling mistakes. i hope he hosted -- goes to school for learning writing. host: john in michigan, independent. hi, john. caller: hello there. my comment is i guess -- i don't understand where our country is going with all of this. we are not a united country and

we are proving that to the world. we need to put our trust back into our lord and savior jesus christ and that is my comment. host: bill in illinois, independent. what do you think this morning? good morning, c-span paris to thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a comment. i would like to know why cory booker is not being charged with releasing classified documents. i think chuck grassley should expel him from the committee for that alone. the other thing is i am an independent and i lean toward democrats all the way up until trump was elected and i voted for trump. i am ashamed of the democratic party and if they don't get their way and they don't win, go out to the streets and disrupt

everything and shout and scream? what? it is like spoiled little brats. they don't get their way, so let's go out and complain. i 100% am in favor of kavanaugh. if you look at his record and 6 fbi investigations previously and the democrats -- the way the democratic senators quiz mr. -- quizzed mr. kavanaugh, i was ashamed. dick durbin, the way he talked to kavanaugh like he was his pawn and he was supposed to bow down to him, give me a break. i will tell you, you ask people if it has changed the way they anticipate voting, i will never vote democrat again, period,

until they get rid of people .ike durban and booker and i am glad to see flake go, for heaven's sakes. he has been more a liberal than a conservative this whole time and the only reason he is not running is because he only had a 17% approval rating at the beginning of this year in his own district. i wish kavanaugh and his family all the well wishes and i feel sorry for his daughters and his wife and his parents that have to listen to this garbage they are throwing at him just because democrats are trying to stall his confirmation until the next vote. host: bill mentioned senator jeff flake. he is one of the undecided votes and people will be watching him this morning. reporters likely following him, protesters expected as well on capitol hill. how will he vote? as well as susan collins,

senator lisa murkowski, and the lone democrat who has not said how he will vote, senator joe manchin of west virginia. mike on twitter saying kavanaugh should not be confirmed. there are other qualified judges on the list. his behavior during the hearing shows he cannot be impartial. i understand he was under attack, but needed to handle it differently. charles scott, forced confirmation of a political appointee . refused to release 93% of the record. the gop has lowered standards and politicized our nation's highest court. fred, the truth doesn't matter when it comes to democrats and it would not matter who trump put up, they would be destroyed by them and everyone knows that is the truth. idon't care how they vote, don't have a stake in the outcome.

you, if younow from care how they vote, what do you think they should do. the washington post has this in their opinion pages. a missing voice. is a saudi journalist and author and a columnist for the washington post global opinion. his words should appear in this space above, but he has not been heard from since the entered a saudi consulate in estimable tuesday after -- istanbul tuesday afternoon. this blank space in the opinion pages of the washington post. voice. missing he has not been heard from since tuesday afternoon. also this morning, nobel peace prize was the headline in usa today, up for grabs. they noted those who were up for the most notable prize, kim of the and moon jae-in

north korea -- the north korean and south korean leaders. protesters,mocracy pope francis, the aclu, angela merkel, george soros, donald trump as well. the guardian reporting the nobel peace prize 2018 was won by two recognized for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon in war. patricia in bonita springs, florida. a republican. it is your turn. how do you want your senators to vote? caller: i definitely would like my senators to confirm judge kavanagh. i am a republican. i was born and raised day democrat. i actually used to do political -- political vying

for democrats. i am embarrassed for the friends of mine who are democrats that have to be a part or associated with this insanity. believe his name is pronounced kyl from arizona, the gentleman who replaced senator mccain. host: yeah. caller: he was amazing with his speech yesterday, i believe it was. he was concise. he explained why judge kavanaugh should be confirmed and it wasn't all this ranting and complete -- as far as i am concerned, lunacy because -- it is allns being political on the left and

i am so glad i walked away when i did and as an fyi regarding the sexual assault allegations, i, too, am a victim of a sexual assault many, many years ago. it.he time, i did report i know people who don't report it. unfortunately, the person was not found. what i am saying about that is this gentleman has been accused of something that is not even an inkling of corroboration. just -- it blows me away that people are hanging on this. my callglad you took and yes, i have called my senators. one of them is senator nelson,

who i know is going to be voting no because he will co-the line awful.ust -- it is one more thing i wanted to say and that has to do with when judge kavanaugh was starting off when it was announced and he was going to meet with the senators one-on-one, what i would like to know and i don't have this answer because i know quite a few refused to even meet with him -- who those senators were. it is something i will look up if i don't catch it on c-span because i am not sure. host: i want to show you and others the time magazine -- their latest cover and the digital version of this is the words of professor christine blasey ford that make up her image. interactive version --

digital version starts with her words and her words at the end form her image on the cover of the magazine. the new cover is how christine blasey ford's testimony changed america. in gainesville, georgia, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. disqualified for , whethering under oath you believe the allegations or not, you have to believe he drank more than he did, then was admitting and is characterization of certain terms, his drinking games and sex acts is also lying and the way he approached the senate just revealed his temperament.

whether you believe the accusations or not. -- after he lies under of and screams at people -- under oath and screams of people. i am sorry, i am nervous myself. the other thing is they talk about due process. he is not guaranteed a right to be on the supreme court. the constitution doesn't have -- say you have a right to rise to the highest levels and be elevated to the supreme court just because you think you should be able to. he is not entitled due process here. they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. if it is your life on the line. it's not hurt -- his life on the line. it is just a career. it just a job. he is not guaranteed any job. i want to thank you for reading

tweets today and being on the air. host: i also want to read this piece in the washington post. byis written this morning charles lovington lynn brooks -- lovington, lynn brooks, and -- attended yale bang with supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. in the past week, all three of us decided separately to respond to questions from the media regarding brett's honesty and last there up -- lack thereof. it was his sworn testimony an interview that prompted us to speak out. we each asserted brett lied to the senate while stating under pointe never drank to the to forgetting what he was doing. each of us had seen brett stumbling drunk to the point that he would be responsible -- that he would be able --

available to say what he did when he was drunk. us condemned brett for .is frequent drunkenness it is true brett technology sometimes drank too many beers, but he stated he never drank to the point of blacking out. each of us disrupted our own lives by coming forward. none of this is what we wanted, but we felt our civic duty to state the truth. that is our one and only message, but it is a significant one because we believe telling the truth, no matter how difficult, is a moral obligation for our nation's leaders. and no one should be able to lie their way onto the supreme court. lies are the solvent that dissolves bonds. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on the floor yesterday.

talking about what is at stake with supreme court nominee -- brett kavanaugh's nomination. [video clip] >> this process has been rolled by fear and anger and underhanded gamesmanship for too long. stand up to this kind of thing. we owe it to the american people to not be intimidated by these tactics. to ther -- we owe it american people to underscore that you are innocent until proven guilty. it is the senate on trial here, mr. president. what kind of image will be convey to the public? can we be scared by all these people rampaging through the halls accosting members at airports, coming to their homes? they are trying to intimidate the senate into defeating a good

man. can we allow this to happen? in this country? o, we will not pretend partisan histrionics take away the fairness every american deserves. we will not be hoodwinked by those who have tried hard to smear this good man. host: the majority leader on the floor yesterday ahead of today's procedural vote at 10:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2, c-span.org, or download the free c-span radio app. the senate will come in around 9:30 and proceed to the vote. to limit debate at 10:30. majorityave the simple

to move the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the final vote, which could come as early as saturday? there are four senators undecided at this point. jeff flake of arizona, susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska and senator joe manchin, the only democrat undecided from west virginia. how they vote this morning will be key to the nomination. let's go to marry in columbia, maryland -- mary in columbia, maryland. caller: what the leftist media does not discuss is the judge's accuser has no evidence or corroboration and she has written about creating false memories. she has cia connections, also. her family lost their home to a judge and his family. that is never mentioned either. did he get angry being put through all of this?

of course he did. i believe his comment what comes around goes around was related to divine justice. this harassment and bullying taking place now -- this intimidation is off the charts, ridiculous. host: factor check from this website, did judge martha kavanaugh a rule against the parents of her son's accuser? a right wing website concocted a cynical conspiracy. about a woman who accused kavanaugh of sexual assault. the claim is a 1996 foreclosure case kavanaugh ruled against blasey, thus providing motive for revenge. they say this is false. christine blasey ford is a psychology professor who accused judge kavanaugh -- faced backlash from supporters of the u.s. circuit court of appeals judge.

theory alleged blasey ford is making allegations motivated desire intergenerational for revenge. the mother of judge kavanaugh was a district court in maryland at 1996 and they call the claim false. you can check other fact checking websites on that as well. randy in north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first of all, i agree with the guy who called from georgia. he took a lot of my thunder. step one, these republicans call in on the independent line. i was a democrat, i was a democrat, now i am republican. so what? think outside the box. the reason this judge is getting so much attention because of

yale. yield university, think about it -- yale university. think about it. think outside the lines. we had a president from yale university and what did it do? it messed up the entire country. we have to be careful who we put on the supreme court and believe ,e, if kavanaugh is confirmed there is going to be a whole lot of trouble in this country. host: this morning, cnn is reporting senator joe manchin wants to take another look at the fbi report this morning before he catsts that pivotal vote at 10:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 2 or you can watch at c-span.org or listen with the radio at. let's go to jane, an independent. caller: hi. i want to say one thing. kavanaugh, as horrible as he

demonstrated in his testimony where he thought c-span wrote it and stuff, he threatened what goes around, comes around. the way i feel, he is a symptom of our society. we are exploiting our social and economic enterprise. these institutions are derailing this country. such aa book -- it is mirror of our time where partisanship destroyed the roman empire. we are really witnessing a similar set of today. that's all i have to say. everyone who hates kavanaugh his behavior, it is just part of a divisive nature of our society. and trust me, if you watch closely, this will be slowly disintegrating as time goes on.

i fear for this country. i really do. host: we will leave it there for now. we are going to return to this conversation in about 40 minutes. we will take a break. when we come back, we turn our attention to "washington post" national security editor's new book. and we will talk about first lady lumia trump's trip -- first lady melania trump's trip to africa. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: sunday night on "good and mad: the revolutionary power of women's anger." >> i'm a feminist journalist. part of my work, as long as i've

been doing it, has obviously been rooted in anger. you wouldn't be a journalist writing about inequity, racial inequality,onomic if you weren't mad about those inequities. so obviously there's been anger undergirding my work for a long time. i decided i was going to write this book on anger and thought about how it has played into my work, one of the things i could do what i look back with see the pains i had taken early in my career to a skewer that anger because i had absorbed the notion that if i was too angry, i wouldn't be heard clearly. be taken seriously. i would sound angry. i would sound radical. anodyne, of the most baby feminist writing i did that is not very good, the most mild pop feminism, when i think about the comments i got back then, a lot of them were rooted in, you

sound like a crazy, sex starved woman who is mad because men don't like you. i was writing pop commentary about paris hilton. the response automatically was you are too angry for me to take you seriously, even when i was covering up that anger with jokes and slyness in a general good cheer. announcer: watch "afterwords" on c-span2's booktv. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "lectures in history," wake forest university professor david lubin on 19th-century artist winslow homer. on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the presidency," a look at how the fashion choices of and and betty ford -- of pat nixon and betty ford reflected their

time. and on sunday atlantic p.m. eastern, the anniversary ceremony of the u.s. capitol the firste, where cornerstone was laid of the u.s. capitol building. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. "nnouncer: "washington journal continues. host: greg miller is the national security reporter for "the washington post" and the author of this book, "the apprentice." why the title? guest: i wish i could take credit for it. the book editor proposed it. we were talking about different titles come about when this was proposed it just worked on so many levels. name, obviously, of

the show that propels trump to great fame, and also when he came into office, he was an apprentice president. he had very little preparation for the job, very little background in government. had never seen any classified documents in his life. had a lot to learn, like an apprentice would. there was another aspect to the , of subservience he to someone else. that is the other aspect of this book, the seeming subservience to vladimir putin. why to see admire him so much? why does he emulate the russian president so much? host: why do you chronicle that? guest: i think this is a huge moment in our country's history. , the interference of the 2016 election was unprecedented, and the aftermath has been unprecedented. hard to breakked

a lot of important stories about this and help the public understand it. even then, it is calling out for more comprehensive treatment. something that could put it all together so that even those who are following the news closely could read it in one place and have a better understanding of what we are up against right now. host: here is "the washington post" this morning, "more russians indicted on charges of espionage." what are they up to? what are they trying to do? guest: we are in a new era of espionage right now. this is an aggressive posture by the kremlin on the cyber front. are looking at espionage or cyber related attacks on multiple fronts. these stories relate to an indictment of russian hackers who are targeting anti-doping agency's that had embarrassed russia with charges that its

athletes were systematically doping for the sochi a lib experience we've seen poisoning in the u.k., attempts by russia to sabotage the lab that was analyzing the poison used in that attack, and these are really brazen attacks. they are doing very little to cover their attacks. they areost as if trolling while conducting espionage operations. moreld just have one point. the motivations for these attacks is really personal to boost when you look at them closely. the allegations against russian athletes related to the sochi olympics, the olympics that hostedimself staged and in russia, were a huge embarrassment to him. this is an attempt at payback. so was the election attack. he despised hillary clinton. he blamed her for inciting protests in moscow against him. this was payback against hillary

, the damage that russia attended to cause her campaign in 2016. host: i want to delve deeper into that, but it is not just russia. yesterday at the hudson the vice president had this to say about what china is up to. china has launched an unprecedented effort to influence the 2018 elections in the lead up to the 2020 elections. to put it bluntly, president trump's leadership is working, and china once a different american president. doubt china is meddling in america's democracy. as president trump said just last week, we have found that china has been attended to interfere in our upcoming midterm elections. our intelligence community says

that china is targeting u.s. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions tween federal and local levels on policy. it is using wedge issues like trade tariffs to advance beijing's political influence. in june, beijing itself circulated a sensitive document entitled "tropicana -- "propaganda and censorship notice." , intated that china must their words, "strike accurately and carefully, splitting apart different domestic groups in the united states of america." to that end, beijing has mobilized covert actors, front groups, and propaganda outlets to shift americans' perceptions of chinese policy.

as a senior career member of our intelligence community told me just this week, what the russians are doing pales in comparison to what china is doing across this country. host: greg miller, is that what you're finding and your reporting? guest: that is a really interesting assertion from the vice president. they haven't backed it up with a whole lot of detail yet, but there's no doubt that china is a very active and aggressive country when it comes to espionage and targeting united states companies, united states institutions. but the contrast there from what he saying about china and what he's nothing about russia is really striking that's what he's not saying about russia is really striking -- what he's not saying about russia is really striking. the intelligence community is unanimous that russia did this and 2016, so it is really bizarre. host: why do you say that? what was russia doing, and how

did the united states react to it, that you think there is this stark contrast you are hearing from the vice president? guest: in traditional espionage, countries that engage in it, including the united states, you do a lot of intelligence collection. that means penetrating computer networks to extract secrets about your opponents, your international adversaries. what russia did in 2016 was something we had never seen before, at least on that scale. not only stealing information, stealing intelligence, stealing documents, thousands of them from the dnc and other institutions, but then turning them into weapons to use against the united states and its enemies in a releasing them across the internet via wikileaks in an effort to damage hillary clinton's her.dacy and embarrass

sewing misinformation on social media like facebook to prop up donald trump. any evidenceeen that china is doing anything approaching that scale. but i want to emphasize china is super aggressive. there's a story in today's paper about china installing a tiny microchip on motherboards used by american companies to acquire trade secrets and information. there's no doubt china is an active adversary when it comes to espionage. , you after the election write in the book that president hisa said at the time actions were not the sum total of our response against russia. there was a secret memorandum to carry out a covert operation involving the deployment of implants in critical russian networks that could function

pointsmbs, exploding key of reference -- of russian infrastructure. it will be up to donald trump to use it or not. where does this stand? guest: i think we haven't really seen any indication it has been dismantled, but of course, it doesn't look like it is something that has been used. to create a was capability that would exist in case of an escalating sort of moscowexchange with in which the united states needed or felt it needed to reach some serious damage to discourage or stop what moscow was doing. and was sort of laying preparing the battlefield for a big cyber operation. but even under obama, and he hopes he would never really have to use it. host: let's get to our viewers and their questions and comments.

of course, greg miller writes about the characters you've the russiansince try to interfere in the elections, so he can take your questions in your comments about that as well. let's go to greg in wisconsin, a republican. europe first. -- you are up first. caller: good morning. i look forward to reading greg miller's new book. i'm sure it has a nonpartisan approach to it, so thank you for that. two comments. talking about collusion with which, the hot microphone snopes reported as accurate with president obama saying he will be more flexible after the next election, is there any curiosity on your part on that, greg, to talk about how that may have influenced russia and what they are doing now? ,he second thing is c-span "time" cover, kavanaugh streaking buddies, and now this.

you guys are publicly funded. how about being a little more bipartisan? thank you. "uest: "the washington post obviously covered that hot might moment president obama -- hot mic moment for president obama. he was looking for a way to alter relations with russia on a different course. he ended up in a very different place. they ended up being deeply frustrated with their inability to reach any kind of rp with the rtemlin -- any kind of repo with the kremlin and with vladimir putin. president obama is not our president anymore. as far as we know, there was no russian campaign to elect him or reelect him. what happened in 2016 is a norm a story -- is an enormous story. it is not just "the washington post" covering it.

i think we will be studying this for years to come. host: and we are not the book they funded -- we are not publicly funded. tv providers provide c-span is a public service. you pay five cents or so on your cable bill, and that is how c-span is funded. we are not taxpayer-funded, and we attempt to provide both sides on whatever debate is happening, and then let you decide you're on opinion about that. greg miller, let's get to the why. why would vladimir putin want to seek revenge on hillary clinton? guest: it goes back to protests that you directed in moscow -- erupted in moscow when hillary clinton was secretary of state. hade were after putin returned to office after a sort of self-imposed stepping down,

and these were for their version of midterm elections. they were organic protests in the street that were deeply embarrassing to him. in his worldview, he is a former kgb officer who was stationed in east germany. this is his background. he comes from an institution that sees sort of bogeyman and conspiracy everywhere, and truly came to believe that hillary clinton, who had scolded or lectured russia on the fact that it's elections appeared to have lots of problems and appeared to be rigged, that she was somehow secretly sending signals to protesters to mobilize. this is consistent with his view of american meddling in russia for many, many years. so part of this was payback. but there were other motivations for putin in 2016.

i think perhaps the biggest one is just trying to pare down western democracy and the american model of democracy. putin really hates to be lectured why the united states on human rights issues, democratic reforms, and things like this in russia. tearing down the united states, making it look damaged, making it look dysfunctional only makes the russian government look better by comparison. hey, greg. you are an admirable reporter. if i could vote on the pulitzer prize, you would be right up there. my question for you is if you could describe in two or three words, like a hyphenated label for what i call mafia leech trump, because he is a mafia

leech and his family are a mafia leeches, what label would you use for trump? guest: i'm not going to use any hyphenated term, but i would say the trump organization is, the word i would use is entangled in lots of questionable sort of financial connections and relationships with people with criminal histories overseas, with people with criminal histories here in the united states. even in trump tower. there is concern about where that money had come from for many years. russia is just one area of deep interest. host: and how does this then tied to the mueller investigation? guest: this is a huge question for the mueller investigation. how far does he go in looking into the trunk organization --

the trump organization's finances, which donald trump has spent a generation trying to obscure? mueller can get at all of that. the question is whether he sees that as part of his mandate, as a legitimate area for him to investigate. we've seen what he did just looking through paul manafort's finances. found all kinds of crimes to indict. would he find similar misdeeds if you really -- if he really scrutinized trump? "now it appears beyond a generalized suspicion they have been acting on nothing more than the steele dossier, a document unverified, as steele himself has admitted in british court, made from hearsay bought and paid for by the hillary clinton campaign." you write about christopher steele and the dossier. what did you find? guest: i just think that is wrong.

i think they certainly look at the steele dossier, and the fbi tried to run down a lot of the leads in that document, and ultimately were unable to come up but it is just not consistent with our understanding of the origin of this investigation. that it is sort of an odd criticism to make for an investigation that has already delivered numerous indictments right up to officials inside the white house, when we are talking about former national security adviser michael flynn. his lies about his interactions with the russian ambassador right after the election. it is hard to argue that this is an illegitimate investigation at this point, when you look at the results so far. host: richard in florida, republican. you are on-air with greg miller of "the washington post." go ahead. caller: mr. miller, it is

somewhat amusing you refer to the financial ties of trump's building an empire, an international one, and seem to ller's the kentucky ca reference to him as something to do with the mafia, but you don't mention uranium. you don't mention the millions of dollars that went to the clinton foundation as quid pro quos when she was a sitting secretary of state. i don't see you mentioning that anywhere. you also don't mention the fact that president obama, who was the president at the time all of this was occurring with russia -- with so-called russian interference, he said it was all of thebecause states were separate. they weren't going together. it would be impossible to interfere. my question for you is how many votes were changed by the hundred thousand dollars russia put into facebook -- the $100,000 russia put it facebook and other media? guest: i think that is a great

question. on some level it is unanswerable because you can't get inside voters' minds, as much precision as we have in our polling these days. it is hard to disentangle all of these various elements and factors that went into the 2016 election and its outcome. that said, what we do know is that the russian disinformation operation has reached well over 100 million facebook users in the united states. this was an election that came down to fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. when you do the math, it is just increasingly hard to argue that this didn't have a significant impact on the outcome. it is not the only. it may not even be the most important factor in the outcome of this election. obviously hillary clinton had deep flaws and a -- flaws as a candidate. the decisions by jim comey surrounding the email investigation of hillary clinton were devastating to her campaign.

andrussia was exploiting amplifying all of these concerns about hillary clinton and throwing an enormous support behind donald trump that goes justbeyond what the caller alluded to, $100,000 ad buys on facebook. it is much more extensive than that. that "kremline trolls thought unrest by targeting the black flies -- the black lives matter ."vement guest: what of the most cynical aspects of the russia campaign was this effort on facebook and other social media platforms to argue that duty of

african-americans to stay home and not vote in protest of the selections for arguing that the choices were so bad on either end, hillary clinton versus donald trump, that you shouldn't even turn out to vote. it was a voter suppression effort organized by the kremlin using american social media companies, including facebook. hard to know how effective it was and what impact it had come of it that is what we were up against. host: christine in rhode island, a democrat. caller: good morning. yes, i'm a little nervous, who have patience with me. i'm glad to see this get done because american people are on thisng what's going service. i feel like democracy has been attacked, and trump is the leader of the circus. that's all i want to say. host: joe is in alabama, a

republican. your thoughts? question or comments? joe, i cannot hear you. i apologize. in arkansas, an independent. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning, ma'am. [indiscernible] you know, the shooting in alexandria, virginia against all the republicans playing baseball . these senators and all these people, i don't see any republicans doing anything. -- what do anywhere they want? host: i don't understand your point. caller: we don't talk to

anybody. we don't harass anybody. host: host: i'm going to move on to bernie in wyoming. caller: good morning. how are you doing, ma'am? i've got questions. i wondered for decades now where trump has come up with his money. it seems like he's done pretty good, and then all of a sudden loses it all in court title or something, and comes right back into it. anything, issia or really have my doubts about that , but i do have questions about that. my senior year in high school, i was required to take a half year in government. they was talking about communism, ok? the trouble is, it's not only face of the earth. this is what i see coming up in our government. thank you very much for

listening to me. host: let's take bernie's trump?s about why donald plywood vladimir putin like donald trump -- why would vladimir putin like donald trump? guest: what's not to like? from the very outset of his campaign, he was losing not only praising putin routinely, but taking positions on major issues that were really remarkably in close alignment with the russian position. his criticism and attacks on nato, his criticism of european allies, his questioning of the sanctions against russia, his constant talk about trying to improve relations with moscow, and also the sort of disruptive nature of his personality. -- his teardown

things down impulse. d think all of that appeale to russia. the russian campaign doesn't start out in 2014 or 2015 to elect donald trump as president. it starts out to really so discord in the united states -- to really sow discord in the united states leading up to the elections and to hurt hillary's chances. they see a new opportunity and a new way they can get behind this candidate and try to boost him. host: your story begins with the hacking of the democratic national committee. who or what entity discovered that this is happening, and who did they warn, and how does it unfold from their? guest: the first chapter deals with the hack. it is such a fascinating story, and i think i tried to tell this in a way that sort of captures

the drama of all of this, and also just makes you slap your head at all the missed opportunities because u.s. is getting intelligence and communications from close allies, including, importantly, the intelligence service of the netherlands. they had detected russian hacking organizations penetrating the dnc, flag this to the attention of american intelligence. then the fbi picks up this ball and have to let the dnc know your systems are under attack. this is something that plays out for months. amazingly, the fbi calls the dnc to try and tell them this, that russia is inside your system, and they get routed to the helpdesk of all places. the are dealing with somebody sort of on the i.t. staff who initially thinks it is just a hoax, doesn't even believe that this is really the fbi on the phone. this sort of thing carries on for months and months, and they just missed so many chances to

close down the holes in this network russia was exploiting. host: and it continues, this --k of fourth of whether this back and forth of whether the fbi is telling them the truth. guest: they have a meeting with these i.t. experts at a restaurant in northern virginia and finally sort of say, ok, these guys are real fbi agents. what are we up against here? but then it is what do we do internally at the dnc to clean this up? how can we scrub this without calling attention to the fact that all of our systems have been compromised and freaking out all of our employees? there were many, many blunders in this story. host: let's go forward in the book. you write about the moment other people talk about as well, with , "russia, if sai you are listening." what did he say, and what conclusion did you draw, if there is any definitive outcome,

of what he said those words? guest: i think one of the most interesting aspects for me of working on the book was starting off and going back over this timeline, building a really detailed chronology of all of these events. at "the post," i was covering a lot of this in real time, but the events were unfolding and we were learning about things out of sequence. it was hard to understand their context. one of the things we try to at the time he made that statement was that russia was listening. hillary clinton, the dnc's emails are a lot of that are out there -- intel's are out there -- emails are out there. we now know russia was listening.

we know that within hours, russian intelligence agencies launching spear phishing attacks against other hillary clinton computer networks to try to get inside his computer systems. it is an astonishing sequence of events that we had no idea about at the time, but we can piece together now because of how much we've learned. host: but do we know that then canada donald trump knew that russia would be listening, that there was a coordination -- then candidate donald trump knew that russia would be listening, that there was a coordination? guest: that gets back to our we ever going to find a smoking gun evidence of collusion, of premeditated coordination between the trump campaign and the kremlin. i think it is unlikely we will ever see any memorialization of that. interviewedbook i lots of fbi and justice department officials, let's of cia officials, and they believe it is still collusion.

it was just happening right in our faces, right in the open. trump is sending signals to russia with public statements and vice versa, and they are reacting to each other, whether there is a secret back channel encrypted communications behind the scenes are not. host: eric is in new york, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am an independent voter. i tend to be more conservative on most issues, but i would like to make a comment and then asked the question. there is another side to this. since the end of the cold war, the united states have been very actively involved in internal affairs in russia. we have seen to the development ofnot develop -- nongovernment organizations and other means. the united states has been very active in influencing political events within the russian federation itself.

ok? as a means of trying to undermine their sovereignty. we've also seen the expansion of nato to their borders, missile-defense right on their ukraine,the events in which on many accounts, was an active coup led by western countries, the support of the dictator in georgia for that conflict took place. so i was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the other side of this story, if you could. thank you. guest: it is a good question. these are vladimir putin's arguments. this is what he points to. are you kidding me? you guys are crawling all over our country, interfering in our affairs all of time, refusing to respect the sphere of influence in our region that we think we should be entitled to, lecturing us in ukraine. you have people in ukraine working with the government that seem to be against our interests.

all of that is true, and it is also true the united states absolutely engages in espionage against russia, against china, tries to steal their secrets just as aggressively as they try to steal ours. i think u.s. officials -- and i interviewed many for this book, including former u.s. ambassador --russia michael mccaul that while russia and the u.s. have an ugly history, thinking of iran in 1953 and let's of misadventures in central america, and recent decades they see u.s. involvement in places like russia as sort of out in the open democratization efforts working with existing groups in those countries to try to dance the interests of western democracy. that is not something that makes vladimir putin very happy. he does not like that at all.

you can argue about whether that is an appropriate thing for the united states to do, but i think most experts draw a distinction between that kind of activity and what we saw a russia do any 2016 election in the united states. host: let me get your reactions to this headline, "india agrees of it russianeal threat." i think that there are huge geopolitical axis -- .eopolitical consequences we saw this at the u.n. when the president with the letter lashing out at germany and other countries and touting his own a compliment -- his own accomplishments. there is deep concern among

foreign-policy experts that under the trump administration, the united states is retreating from the leadership role it had in the post-world war ii world. the sort of security arrangements that have held together piece from it -- held together peace for many decades now fraying, and the u.s. is retreating from that position of leadership, and some of because acquisitive that are not clear. host: you write about the internet research agency and putin's cook. who is he? guest: putin's cook is an amazing character in this book. he literally was a promising athlete in russia who ended up in prison, and then he gets out of prison. he was imprisoned for theft or some petty crimes. then he gets out of prison and the first thing he does is, as the soviet union collapses, is launching hotdog stand.

he sort of parlays this into some other investments, ends up buying a boat he turns into a restaurant in st. petersburg. putin visits this restaurant, becomes impressed with the gumption of this guy, and rewards him. he gives some contracts to feed russian military, enormous contracts. mesa may multibillionaire. but then he's asked to do a lot of favors. this is how the russian system works, and this is a vivid explanation the book of how it works. he's enlisted to create something called the internet research agency, which sounds like a fairly innocuous entity in st. petersburg, where hundreds of people arrive for work every day, and their job is to pump propaganda into american social media networks. host: what did you find out about the when they show up to work and what they were doing and how long they were at it? guest: it is really fascinating.

i have to get credit to our correspondent in moscow, who scored some amazing interviews with people who work at the internet research agency in st. petersburg. it is such a surreal world they describe. one of them literally used the term orwellian. they are evaluated on their english skills. they watch shows like "house of cards" so they can become more conversant in the american language and idioms so they can seamlessly slip into and create false identities and start sowing disinformation across twitter, across facebook, inciting anger and division. host: they were working on, i think you wrote, four computers and sending out how many different posts onto social media platforms? guest: hundreds and hundreds of thousands of posts. and not just four computers. host: each of them.

guest: right, just banks of computers, and this is what they do. host: you can read more of the details about the attempt by russia to interfere in our elections, how they went about it. as greg miller says, it starts out with the hack and continues through the story up until just months ago. guest: right. it carries right up through almost the present moment, with the indictments of paul manafort and conviction of paul manafort, the disastrous summit in helsinki. ist: greg miller, the book "the apprentice: trump, russia & the subversion of american democracy." when we come back, more on the key vote happening in less than two hours in the senate chamber, whether or not senators vote to move forward with the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. we want to your thoughts on it -- we want to know your thoughts on it coming up after the break.

♪ constitution day, c-span visited the national constitution center in philadelphia, where he asked folks what it means to be american. >> you know, when you feel like you are at home -- washat it meant was that i blessed to have been born in a country that is one of the countries with the most freedom , topeople, for all people pursue happiness in life and joy with your family, and a living. >> freedom to pursue your dreams and opportunities. friendship, getting along with everybody here in america.

just, i don't know, family and love. >> simply doing your responsibilities, pacific and family, and everything like that. as a daughter of service members , as a former servicemember myself, i felt it was my responsibility under the constitution to do my duty and serve the country. >> the freedom to pursue your .appiness it has been the land of opportunity for me. in the country where i come from, this wouldn't be possible. announcer: this year we are asking middle and high school students to produce a five to six minute documentary answering the question, what does it mean to be american? we are awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes, including a grand prize of $500.

the deadline is february 20. for more information, go to studentcam.org. "nnouncer: "washington journal continues. host: we are back with your phone calls this morning on this friday morning, a key day for judge brett kavanaugh. will the senate move forward with his nomination? a vote happening at 10:30 a.m. eastern time in the senate chamber. and then, if it wins a simple majority, it will go forward with a final vote as early as saturday. how you thinkw your senators should vote for your best should vote. -- should vote.

happening up on capitol hill, here is a video of protests outside senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's home, which is blocks away from capitol hill. "what do we do with a drunken justice?" the protesters are chanting. then on capitol hill with this view from the senate basement, at 8:15 this morning, no sign of joe manchin, who said he was going to come back this morning to finish reviewing the fbi report on judge kavanaugh. barricades have been erected around the capitol ahead of the kavanaugh votes. "i have been here 12 years and have never seen this for a vote." a white house spokesman told us, "we believe the votes are there for kavanaugh." privately, aides say otherwise.

the vote on c-span2, you can at 2:30 -- at 10:30. let's go to dorothy in michigan, a republican. good morning to you. what do you think? how should your senators vote? caller: good morning. i hope they confirm him. he really deserves it. host: why do you say that, dorothy? noter: because -- and it's -- i just know that he is the one that we need in the supreme court. host: ok. te in georgia.e caller: i think they don't need

to confirm him. orrin hatch, slinking away from women and telling them to grow up is indicative of the male patriarchy. alarming, butis it is also just his record in general. he's not telling the truth. of course, progressives are alarmed. if he can't tell the truth about his drinking, he's lying to senator collins about whether or not he's going to overturn or vote to overturn roe v. wade. that is settled law. host: so you think when he testified, he lied about drinking to the senators last week, or the extent of his drinking. is that where you think he lied under oath, or other areas? caller: i think it is not just that. it is other areas. his record is problematic. he lied about whether he knew about the hacking back when he

was under the bush administration into the plan for how they were going to vote or interview justices or nominees. he lies about something -- if he lies about something as minimal teenager, and a just chalk it up to youthful indiscretion, what else is he going to lie about? he's going to lie to senator collins' face that he's not going to vote on that? we know how he's going to vote. he's an ideologue. host: the caller brought up senator orrin hatch's confrontation with protesters on capitol hill. and reporters following around senators yesterday as they moved throughout the senate office buildings. here is that exchange with senator orrin hatch and protesters. >> why aren't you brave enough to talk to us and exchange with us? don't you wave your hand at me.

i wave my hand at you. >> why don't you grow up? >> grow up? how dare you talk to women that way! [indiscernible] >> ma'am, your getting arrested. >> senator, do you believe women? host: senator orrin hatch there on capitol hill. "barricadestweets, have been put up." they are expecting people together in protest and in support of judge kavanaugh today as the senators prepared to take this key vote. limited debate at 10:30 eastern time before a vote on how they will go forward. senator susan collins saying she will not announce her final vote until 3:00 pm eastern time. to convince those undecided

senators, according to "the new york times," brett kavanaugh with "theiece wall street journal." hastestimony last week commenced retired justice john paul stevens to say that he is not qualified to sit on the supreme court. the retired justice, 98 years old, talking to a small crowd in said that herday, had previously praised judge kavanaugh, but after listening his politicalt rhetoric last week and accusations made him unfit for the court. "usa today" has this headline about the impact of the fbi report that senators read yesterday. "swing voters approve fbi's

work. key senators say kavanaugh inquiry seems thorough." what they are referring to is from senator jeff flake, who said, "we see no additional core operating -- additional corroborating information," and susan collins, who said, "it appears to be a very thorough investigation." susan collins emerging from that , spent quite a bit of time reading the fbi investigation. we will go to robert in texas, an independent. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: i was concerned when i saw him testify. having been a victim myself of sexual assault, i could tell that the one accusing him was know, we are, you

talking about the highest court of the land. this man shows an emotional instability that i think would affect future judgments. thatt don't see a democrat is paying attention or a republican. let's get past the political issues as a man that would hold the highest position he could in his life other than president. what he says is not only inconsistent. it is kind of scary. i fear for a woman having to go up before him in any sexual assault case or anything involving a scandal at this. what he did in his former years as a young man, that's one thing. but the fact that it still shows in his demeanor now, that is another. court judgeupreme has said he doesn't think he belongs in that position, and i think he's made it obvious. we are in a bubble in the senate meeting.

these people seem to be distancing themselves from the population of the united states. i don't believe they are really looking at this as a future thing that can affect future decisions, including their own offices and positions. voters will look at this and say, you voted yes? let's see where you stand on the other issues. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a comment about the fbi. they have done the work graciously enough. the republicans have said to the democrats, go ahead. we will give them another week to investigate everything. this man has been tried in a court of public opinion before he can even state his case. everybody seems to believe her. honestly, i don't doubt something happened to her. i don't think it was brett kavanaugh. i think this was set up. they tried to do something like this similar to gorsuch. they did it to clarence thomas. i think he will be confirmed, thankfully.

but i think people are on a witchhunt here. i think dianne feinstein has to be called to pass on this. she should be called to task, and i think she should be impeached. host: jim, a democrat. vp pence: -- caller: hi. first of all, the issue should not be about confirmation. you are asking a bunch of 15-year-olds who may have been drunk to confirm that something might have happened. they probably have no recollection of what happened. the issue should be commended this man lie -- the issue should be, did this man lie? aren't enough people who should have been interviewed about his tricking habits. he didn't tell the truth. here's another issue. a lot of people say, well, he was emotional. remember, he wrote this. in the process of writing

something, you are thinking about what you are going to say. people can't excuse what he said. it was ridiculous. host: and you are noting that he began his opening statement by saying, "i wrote this statement. no one else has seen it except for a former law clerk and" himself. that is what you are saying? caller: yes. he said he wrote it, so he had to have been thinking about what he was going to say. you don't just write something. you think about what you're going to say. host: let's go to that moment, one part of his testimony that democrats and john paul stevens referring to that make him, in their words, unqualified for the supreme court. judge kavanaugh: this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with

apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. this is a circus. the consequences will extend long past my nomination. the consequences will be with us for decades. this grotesque and coordinated character assassination will assuage confident and good people -- will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. from the know political system in the early 2000's, what goes around comes around. host: that was brett kavanaugh

last week during his testimony. we are just about an hour and a half of senators voting whether or not to move forward his nomination to the supreme court. how do you want your senators to vote? first, some numbers on the and implement rate. the bureau of labor statistics shows that unemployment fell to 143rd --t in 50 years, 134,000 jobs added. clarissa is a democrat. you are on the air. caller: hi. i don't understand how this guy -- he's not eligible because he does not believe in the separation of powers. that is just a fact. say tohe congresswoman his face he believed the president should be able to declare laws unconstitutional,

that a president should be able to be prosecuted just because he's in office for breaking the law. means that judge kavanaugh believes that a president should be above congress and above the law. there? do we have what we have is a dictator. we don't have democracy. -- i mean,believe his beliefs don't support our system of government. he doesn't believe in the power of the judicial, and also it says onhe thinks if he the supreme court, every other thing the supreme court has ever done is no longer set law to him because he's on the supreme court. he doesn't believe in our system, so you should not be alone,e for that reason

beyond the fact that he says, "what goes around, comes around," and appears to be threatening the democratic senators. host:. ok, heard your point. let's hear from brenda in florida, an independent. caller: i wanted to say i recalled my senator and asked that he support the confirmation of kavanaugh. basically, the liberals are acting like spoiled babies, just like they did after trump got in. they just cannot handle the win that president trump had, and now they want to fight twos and nail and cry like babies to keep kavanaugh from being confirmed. , afteresterday republicans and democrats were able to view the fbi report, held a newslicans

conference led by the senate judiciary chair chuck grassley. here's what he had to say about this process. startedssley: this downhill very quickly on about july 10, when schumer said "we are going to do everything we can to stop this nomination." you can look back 87 days, and you can see that everything about whether he's qualified to serve has been brought up. to commit, and i think i've carried out, what i promised immediately, that we were going to have a fair and thorough process. we have had a fair and thorough we have had a fair and thorough process, and i think that is best demonstrated by the fact that the minute i read about who the person was, and the feinstein letter, dr. ford -- i read about her name in the paper.

we got on it right away to provide the forms she wanted. we provided the same forum for kavanaugh. since the downhill slope that schumer has put us on, it is really deeming with a demolition derby. they just about destroyed a good person to be on the supreme court. hopefully, we are 48 hours away from having a new person on the supreme court. host: how do you want your senators to vote? what do you think about judge brett kavanaugh and his nomination to the supreme court? -- caller: i think the democrats colluded to throw this

-- to use character assassination to throw him off. and i am documenting that by the "wall street journal" article written this morning by natalie house, andbecca paul city garman, who are documented that christine blasey ford told fbi investigators she felt pressured by dr. ford's allies to revisit its initial statement. was -- leland kaiser was also pressured by a friend of dr. ford who was a former fbi employee. also, i have been falsely accused. i am in health care. i was falsely accused of fraudulent billing. if the health care authorities in my state had just believed the patient who had the complaint, i would have maybe lost my license. fortunately they investigated

and i did not regularly bill her. mark stone on twitter says, he is one of the most qualified candidates to sit for a supreme court judge. they did not find anything to disqualify him, so vote for him. he also writes, has there ever been a time in his 13 years on the appeals court they complained about his demeanor? no, kavanaugh was acting as a man and not a judge. they could not attack his record. diane, what you think? caller: well, first of all, i do believe dr. blasi ford. age may be two years younger. a middle-aged woman, a professional woman, a professor to end herno motive entire life by coming forward.

before she even came forward in these other allegations against him, and there is plenty of evidence that he was a great big booze hound. he probably still is. ,e says he still loves his beer and horn dog when he was younger. before that, i was against them because for one he is very backward on women's reproductive rights. he also espouses a unitary executive theory, which grants of two abuses executive power. he could obstruct justice, which would possibly allow him to, in the mueller robe. i feel that one of the main reasons the president appointed in is because he believes

unlimited executive power to the president, which is something that trump is looking for right now, with all the trouble he is in in the mueller probe host:. there, a democrat in georgia. by the way, 302 protesters arrested yesterday by capitol police. they had erected barricades around the capitol. producer tweeting out that they have started together ahead of the kavanaugh vote in the senate office building atrium. we go to john in new york, independent. everyone this morning has been discussing numerous things about the sexual allegations, and also the veracity of whether judge kavanaugh has been telling the truth or not.

essentially, i agree with judge stevens, a man who served 34 years on the supreme court. countrytors in this should decide this vote this morning on whether they want the supreme court to remain , andtial and nonpartisan by judge kavanaugh's admission that he wrote his own statements. he showed his bias, as he did in 2006. in 2004, he was given the gold standard by the american bar association. they downgraded him two years later the cause of his shown bias. attacksous and partisan showed his bias towards a different party than his own. american?ng to remain it should come down to the question of impartiality, and feelings thatn

judges should have. by judge kavanaugh's own statements two years ago at "the harvard law review." that is a simple question. it should not be based on facts where the sexual allegation is proven or disproven, as judge kavanaugh's prominence then whether he has lied or not. it should come down to the simple, fundamental principles of the constitution. your statement echoed in the editorial page of "the washington post." for the first time in 30 years, since 1987, when the newspaper wrote an opposition of robert bork, they wrote why it has to be a no for judge kavanaugh. he gratuitously involved and have her partisan rhetoric against the left. he accused them of an orchestrated political hip. he provided neither evidence nor a plausible explanation for this red meat partisanship, but he poisoned any sense that he could serve as an impartial judge.

the mccracken liberal activists would have no reason to trust any cases involving politics. his judgment and temperament would be in doubt. president trump tweeting out this morning, the very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals to make senators look bad. don't fall for it. at the professionally made identical signs paid for by soros and others, claiming these were not signs made in the basement from love. "troublemakers" writes the president on twitter this morning. north carolina, democrat. caller: good morning. i look at kavanaugh is guilty of all charges that was placed upon him. a guilty man would act just like kavanaugh. he will get into an uproar and everything. but if you are innocent, the first thing you would do is say,

go for a full investigation. it would show and it would exonerate me from all charge. that is when you know you have got guilt. the anger he has against the cannot even he judge a dog show and be unbiased. all i know is you got a lot of old white people saying that kavanaugh is the cream of the crop. well, we got other judges out respectable and who show no bias, like kavanaugh. ableaugh would not even be to file any kind of paper for me. he has never even tried a case before. he jumped right straight to a judgeship. do not tell me that is not white man privilege. host: that was lewis's thoughts in north carolina. let's go to teresa, who is in montgomery, alabama.

go ahead, teresa. teresa, are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. you are on the air, teresa. how should your senators vote? caller: they should vote no, and the reason i say that is because this is political. it is too political. when a female or even a mail comes up and says someone has done something to them, it needs a thorough investigation. it needs to be more than three or five days. -- both parties should settle down, calm down, and let this play out. kavanaugh should not be put on the supreme court at this time. however, at a later time, when everything has settled down, the proper investigation has been completed -- because it has not been completed in a matter of a few days, regardless of who does the investigation. they did not interview all the people involved, because they know the truth will come out.

ont is whether the truth is dr. ford's side or kavanaugh's side. either side. this has not been a proper investigation. i just don't think that kevin should be put on the supreme court at this time. i am not saying that he should not be put on at a later time. he could be put on and a later time, but this situation, the investigation is to be complete. host: i understand. and to you and the color before about kavanaugh's experience. before you about kavanaugh's experience, "the wall street journal" notes he has more appellate experience has hadonin scalia, and more judicial reasoning adopted by the supreme court. nothing in his three decades of public life echo the behavior senators claim they saw in his high school days. on the merits, confirmation is an easy vote. yet the stakes are larger

because of the smears and character assassination. to reject judge kavanaugh would ratify these tactics, with damaging consequences. if accusations from decades ago could destroy interesting was career for political reasons, the same could happen to anyone, and will happen to many. democrats have done weight damage to the senate and it will take years to undo. but the first step is confirming that kavanaugh. let's hear from teresa in montgomery -- excuse me, carmen, in spring hill, florida. democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i feel all this nonsense going on between the republicans and the democrats is just a little game. they are not concentrating on the people of the united states. they are debating back and forth who is going to have the seat and who has the power, and how we are going to make this and how we are going to make that. they have no interest in the american people. about isare worried

their power, who is going to have the chair and who is not going to have the chair. i think it is really disgusting that they don't concentrate on the people that voted them into the office. we should have that power to vote them back out when they don't do the job that they promised the american people. again, i thank you for letting me speak out. i need in new jersey, a republican. -- anita is in new jersey, a republican. senator,ooker is our unfortunately. i want to point out that kavanaugh has been proven time and again, with all the multiple investigations, that there is no that legally he should be elected. he has every right to stand up for himself when at the 11th hour the democrats create a situation where he has to prove himself once again. and lastly, i think if he does

not get the nomination, we will see the biggest red wave ever. that is what democrats want. are seenndependents through their garbage. thank you. take a look at what is happening on capitol hill behind us in the senate office building. protesters starting together. one sign we just saw in opposition to judge kavanaugh. we expect people will be gathering in this atrium area of this building throughout the day . barricades have been erected around the capital to prevent -- capitol to prevent people getting close to the chamber where senators will be voting in about an hour and 15 minutes the senator is coming into session in 15 minutes, 9:30 a.m.

eastern. you can tune into our coverage on c-span 2. the vote is supposed to take place at 10:30. this is a procedural vote, not the final vote. if it passes, a final vote could come as early as tomorrow. from montana, a republican -- his daughter's wedding is scheduled for saturday. he is walking her down the aisle. but he has made arrangements to get back if his vote is needed for the final vote. reporters tweeting this morning that the vote could be held open for a long time if is needed. if that center is needed. senator susan collins indicating she will vote this morning at 10:30 on the procedural vote to move forward, and it 3:00 p.m. today announce how she will vote on the final vote to send brett

kavanaugh to the supreme court. how do you want your senators to vote? joyce in washington, illinois, an independent. caller: i would just like to say that the democrat party has always had the reputation of being compassionate, and i don't see how they have shown much compassion toward this man and destroying his life. way -- inuse of the what way? what are you -- demanding the fbar report? caller: -- the fbi report? caller: there's does not seem to be evidence, just accusations. to destroy someone's life and their whole career on innuendo, i just think that is not very compassionate. ok, and joyce, that is something senator jeff flake has said about the fbi report, saying there is no corroborating

evidence after looking at the fbi report. susan collins called it the row. they have put up an executive .ummary of the fbi report you can find it there -- who they spoke to, the fbi, and other details of the executive summary. there is one copy made, as you probably know. centers had to go into a classified, closed in area, in order to view this one copy. their time inside this room to view the copy was limited, and they alternated back and forth between republicans and democrats. you can find the executive summary, if you want to read it yourself, if you go to senate judiciary's website. ready in green bay, wisconsin, independent. downr: i was putting things people are saying over the phone, and one thing a gentleman said -- booker should

be taken off? host: senator cory booker? caller: because of his low intelligence. is -- he met with russia in the oval office, and he gave them intelligence. and no this gentleman is not going to review the papers. why? what is he holding? -- i dohe is just not not know why. what is he holding? court he gets into the and people do find out there is a big problem, he could be impeached. so bottom-line. fox on producer for capitol hill, tweeting out, senator manchin arrives to again

study the fbi reports, and he is still undecided. "i will probably be undecided until i walk in the door." when asked what he is weighing right now, mansion replies "everything." the executive summary the judicial committee put out about this fbi report -- you can find it on our website, c-span.org. listen to the reaction of senator kirsten gillibrand, democrat from new york. of theasked on the steps supreme court yesterday, opposing bright kavanaugh's nomination. this is what she had to say about her reaction to the fbi report. sen. gillibrand: i read the report today. it was not intended to get to the bottom of this. it was not intended to find the truth. cover, atended to be a cover for those who do not want to look at the truth.

you have seen the news report. you know from the news reports, from the lawyers, that many people had corroborating information are not interviewed as part of this investigation. this investigation was not thorough. it was not complete. it did not get to the bottom of who judge kavanaugh is. based on what so many people have said -- they have called out to give their truth, their facts, the relevant information. wasnow that judge kavanaugh not honest when he came to the senate judiciary committee. be a justice on the supreme court, because he was not honest. he does not have the character or the integrity to be a supreme court justice. that is on top of all the ways he has shown in his decisions and in his speeches that he is not qualified to be on this

court. not only does he not believe in women's reproductive rights, but he believes corporations have more important free-speech rights than you and me. host: the new york democrat kirsten gillibran on the steps gillibrand onten the steps of the supreme court. i would like to do when we get all done, because this is almost rock-bottom -- i would like to have the future, mending things, so we can do things in a collegial way that the united states senate ought to do, and particularly when it comes to the supreme court nominations. and you folks can have something to do with this. i would never use the word fake news. i want to show you where some of you have bias. i have had demonstrators in my office for two weeks now, both for kavanaugh and against kavanaugh.

and one time, the people that worked for kavanaugh wanted to be interviewed. they said, we are only interested in interviewing people against kavanaugh. that is a bias that none of you should be proud of. chuck grassley yesterday. you can go to our website. on capitolproducer hill notes this on twitter. manchin, democrat, west virginia, was one of three on neils to vote yes gorsuch's nomination for the supreme court. the other two were senators donnelly and heidi heitkamp, who are now voting no on judge kavanaugh. susan in maine, a democrat. susan, good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: have you reached out to senator susan collins? caller: i have voted for susan collins twice. i am hoping that she is not

coerced by trump or pants because of the contracts in the state of maine for her vote. i hope she is thinking about the future of the state of maine, the women in the state of maine. how mr. kavanaugh displayed his -- his demeanor with amy klobuchar, his documents that were never given to them to , when he was within the white house with george bush, i and nominated nominees -- i do not believe the investigation was carried out to

the full extent possible. unfortunately, only after a week is to be ms. ford believed. i really do. i hope susan collins votes no, because if she does not, i fear her career as a senator in the state of maine will be nonexistent going forward. host: susan collins saying she will vote yes this morning on this procedural vote. that is what newsmax was reporting. that she would allow this procedural vote to go forward, not the final vote. but then it 3:00 p.m. eastern time, she will be announcing how she will vote on the final vote for judge kavanaugh. "wild and wonderful" on twitter says it does not matter what the average person would do. judges are held to a higher standard. it is the appearance of impropriety, which is observed

and needs no further proof. libby says it amazes me that people forgot the tactics used by republicans when obama tried to nominate merrick garland. if we put limits on supreme court nominations, it is a shame our president is smoke -- stoking the emotional flames. look at kavanaugh's behavior and analyze his words only during the hearing. clarence thomas received the same treatment, and the high-tech lynching was by the democrats as well. seven are responded properly, jim says. denise, in somerville. what you say? caller: i want to say that i think christine was not lying. i think it is possible she was not lying. but i do wish she had more information for us. i have had a few incidents in my life myself. i guess i younger,

was naive, and very friendly to a lot of people. i think some men took it the wrong way. in these incidents, i could remember where i was, when it happened, and it 14 years old, the first incident, i was wearing. so it is very hard for me to make this decision of kavanaugh not to go in there. he does have a good record. we do two things when we are young. i am not saying it is an excuse for anything. i wish christine had more to tell us about this incident or witnesses, or somebody to call to thesay, i drove you party, or i was the one that drove you home. her case is very weak. like i said, i would like kavanaugh to come in and be elected for this justice seat. ok, denise, as we listen

to your phone calls and others this morning, we are also showing you the crowd gathering on capitol hill. this is the senate hart office building. one hour to go here for this the to move forward with nomination of judge brett kavanaugh. this is the atrium. this is one senate office building up on capitol hill. there are two others. see what happens as we get closer to this vote. atis a procedural vote 10:30. tune in to c-span two. the senate is moments away from gaveling him. they will move forward at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. here on c-span, we are waiting for the house to gavel him for a pro forma session. in for a pro forma session, slated to do that

around 9:30 eastern time. we will come back and continue this conversation until 10: a.m. -- 10:00 a.m. this morning, your thoughts on how senators should vote. on josephtweet martin, who writes that ben sask goes from leaning yes to yes in a press release, and also says, -- ing senator sasse completed my reading of the background investigation. washington embarrassed itself for the last month. joseph martin tweeting a quote from senator sasse's statement.

angus, good morning to you. angus, good morning in maryland. one last call. who ismove on to sadie, in silver springs, maryland, an independent. sadie, can you make it quick? probably the oldest viewer, watching since 1982. i.e. mailed on september 30 and said, i stand by judge kavanaugh. so should you. that was sadie in silver spring, maryland. we will show you our coverage of this pro forma session. we will come back and continue the conversation with all of you, so sit tight. we will be right back.

host: the senators back in washington. one hour before they will vote for joe brett kavanaugh and the supreme court. breaks are of nbc tweeting out, susan collins will announce how she plans to vote on the final confirmation during a 3:00 p.m. senate floor speech. go to c-span 2 for what she will say. and a tweet that senator manchin is not going to announce his vote until he goes to the floor, according to aides. that is the latest on those two undecideds. senator jeff flake and senator lisa murkowski are the other senators people are watching. how will they vote this morning? "usa today" notes this in a chart -- that there are 48 republicans who are -- who say

they will or are likely to confirm judge kavanaugh. and there are 48 democrats who will likely reject judge kavanaugh. the senate is split. if the senate deadlocks, you will see vice president mike pence come into the chamber and cast the deciding vote in favor of judge kavanaugh. this is how it is supposed to work after this procedural vote today at 10:30. if they get a simple majority, they would move forward. senate republicans cannot lose more than one vote from their party, meaning kavanaugh's fate rests in the hands of undecided voters. if they move forward, they could take less than the 30 hour maximum, if either party decides not to use all of its allotted time. after the time is up, the senate

would take a final vote on whether to confirm kavanaugh to the supreme court. the vote could happen as early as saturday afternoon, if mitch mcconnell ordered the senate to work over the weekend. that is what folks are planning for -- a vote as early -- a final vote as early as saturday. the senate has come in over on c-span 2. you can see senator chuck grassley on the floor right now. and in your other box is the folks gathering up on capitol hill ahead of this 10:30 vote. we are taking your phone calls. how do you want your senator to vote? st. petersburg, florida, democrat. good morning to you. for taking myyou call. i would hope my senators would vote no on kavanaugh, but i have i have hope, but i'm thinking it won't turn out that way. i was against kavanaugh before all of this with dr. ford and

with the testimony even by kavanaugh himself. it is a feeling that bigger picture involved here, and it has to do with the federalist society. you know they have been pushing the nominees in to trump. they want to see a conservative judicial court. and they are really powerful. and i don't like that. for dr. ford and kavanaugh, this testimony was ace tactical. testimony was painful. the bigger question is the federalist society and what they want to do about the courts.

people need to open their minds. and start looking. caller: ms. forde did take a lot ford did take a lot of tests. he did not want to take one. another thing when the president came out -- the woman did not know where she got raped and what happened -- you know, i look back at her testimony, and she did. she did say it when it happened and what happened. thing -- i cannot understand, with other people they could pick for the supreme court justice, why this man? nobody can tell you why they want him. i just don't understand it at all. host: ok, rachel.

let's go over to the senate chamber this morning. the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, is talking. sen. grassley: my colleague was pinocchios, and that is the most pinocchios you can get. they still had one big card to play, which they had kept away up their sleeves for a month. actually, for 45 days, i think. i july, the ranking member was seeing the letter from dr. christine blasey ford, alleging that judge kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school 36 , and instead of referring dr. ford to the fbi or sharing these allegations with her colleagues, either of which would have respected and preserved dr. ford's confidentiality -- and that is

what dr. ford requested -- the ranking member referred dr. ford to democratic activists, attorneys closely tied to the clintons. the ranking member shamefully sat on these allegations for nearly seven weeks. only to reveal them at the 11th hour, when it was revealed that judge kavanaugh was headed for confirmation, because he was so qualified. the ranking member had numerous opportunities to raise these allegations with judge kavanaugh personally. she could have discussed them with judge kavanaugh during their private meeting on august 20. senator chuck grassley over on c-span2 this morning, on the senate floor, talking about brett kavanaugh's nomination. thoughts onng your

c-span this morning about how the senators should vote. again, we are looking at a boat at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. democrat, charlie, what are your thoughts this morning? caller: it already appears that republicans -- not all, but at will some -- think that we get whatever we want. [indiscernible] cheats on everything, one mistress and another mistress.

maybe they muslim wanted or a gay woman will get in there and lie every day, and the republicans will howl and will .ay, you have lowered the bar host: justice stevens tweeting out, get this cap not made statements i thought i would never hear from a nominee seeking appointment to the highest court of the lamb.

-- the land. there will be a 10:30 cloture chamber this morning. there is a republican area inside the chamber for the press , about the chamber floor, in the galleries. the senators of course, and their staff, will be down on the floor. it will be interesting to see who else is in the chamber when this vote takes place. how he testified last week had disqualified him, he thought from the supreme court, because it calls into question his

political partisanship on judge kavanaugh's behalf. the few want to watch what the retired justice has to say, or to our website, c-span.org. you can find it there. it is just about an hour with the former justice, down there in florida. we will go to susan, in pennsylvania, a republican. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. i want to make a couple of points. first of all, i am in the demographic that i hear all the democrats speaking about. i am a suburban, white, college-educated woman, and i voted for trump, and i will do it again. i voted for him number one because the other candidate was just not acceptable to me. she shares none of my values. originally, i was not in favor of mr. kavanaugh. , wanted amy coney barrett because she is a conservative woman like me, and that is who i

wanted to represent me. mistreatment of i cannotanaugh -- believe how he has been mistreated by the democrats. i wholeheartedly support him. i am thrilled that i have one senator, mr. toomey, who is going to vote in favor of him. mr. bobther senator, casey, who is just there because of who his father was -- and his father was a great man and a great governor -- he is in his last days as senator anyway. and to that one caller talking about selling out to the devil and all of that, when i voted for president trump, i did not look at him as my spiritual leader. i was not looking for him to be, you know, my guide in life. however, when he started saying "i am going to put conservative judges on the court," right

there i knew he was my man. as far as speaking out against , justice ginsburg speaks out against trumped all the time. thank you very much. tweeting, justr ran into don mcgann in the senate. me, do you have the vote? him, shoulder shrug. me, is this an intimidation tactic or a good luck charm? shah interjects come a jokingly, "leave him alone." senator bob corker, who is retiring, as you know, and wanted to hear testimony from judge kavanaugh before he made his decision -- he has said he would vote yes. transferring account

was injustices that happened to women for decades onto one person who had nothing to do with them is an injustice. charles, independent, good morning. good morning. can you hear me? listen, what troubled me -- i am a united states air force sergeant. when i took the test, i was 17 years old. and that test is hard. i remember some of the tests, the day i am 62. how can a person go to a party and not know how they get there, ok? personber two, how can a not realize the next day how they got home?

gillibrand says the fbi did not do a good job. what is wrong with these senators? is from illinois. we have got all the crimes in chicago. we do not do nothing. obama appointed a federal judge in illinois. he ain't doing nothing. this girl, she don't fly. the fbi finds out she do fly. a lot of lying. the senator should not be wasting tax dollar money. they should investigate feinstein. you should lock somebody up. host: charles, i'm going to leave it there. bob costa says that senator corker told him that this cloture vote at 10:30 eastern --

if it fails, the vote to advance the process is over. if we do not get cloture, it is over. when asked about the fate of the nomination, he said, "i don't know what they do after that." the senate has gaveled in this morning. you can watch on c-span 2, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio app. you will have coverage of this vote happening at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. voteill hear the rollcall of each senator, and be able to watch. patsy, republican. caller: to the last gentleman who called in, i want to say , shethis lady, ms. ford worked her way up from college into a job as professor of a college. she knows what she is doing. she works for them. all she had to do was call the fbi. she claims she did not know what to do.

she is a professional. she teaches people about this. she knows all about hypnosis. she knows about the system. she is not a little girl from school like she claims to be. she is a professional psychologist. hand, look ater the people in the streets. they are going to get out and protest no matter what. adore,nt trump, who i nominated him. let's get the votes and get on with our lives. host: gathering on capitol hill ahead of the vote. inside the senate chamber, senator dianne feinstein, the ranking democrat of the judiciary committee, is speaking. feinstein: only nominate individuals to the supreme court who would be pro-life and pro-gun nominees, who would automatically overturn roe v. wade.

in my judgment, judge kavanaugh clearly meets the test. in a speech in 2017, judge kavanaugh focused on praising justice rehnquist and his wade, where hev. challenged the right to women's privacy as protected in the constitution. also last year, judge kavanaugh a texasn a dissent in case that a james doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose, because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. argument woulds we write supreme court precedent, and require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision, even in cases, as in this one, where she had gone before a court. this reasoning demonstrates that judge kavanaugh not only is

going to disregard precedent, but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging when makingmen face these most difficult decisions. when i asked him about whether wrongd casey were settled , and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. he would only say these cases are entitled to respect. is one in a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide who to marry, where to send your children to school, what kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life, as well as whether and when to have a family. the government cannot interfere with these decisions, according to these cases. another issue that gives me judge kavanaugh's extreme view on guns.

revealing his record and judicial opinions, it is clear his views go well beyond simply being pro-gun. said hevanaugh himself would be the first to acknowledge that most lower court judges have disagreed with his views on the second amendment. host: senator dianne feinstein there. you can listen to more of what she is saying on the senate floor if you go to c-span2. we have cameras on capitol hill in the senate hart a-frame building. senat harttrium -- atrium building. here is what they are saying to the crowd. >> we are going to be sitting in a [indiscernible]

host: it looks like these folks are going to be going to individual senators' offices ahead of the vote. they have got less than 40 minutes, 35 minutes, to convince their senators how they want them to vote, yes or no on judge brett kavanaugh. that boat taking place at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. we are asking all of you here for the next six minutes, as we have been all morning on "the washington journal," how you want your senators to vote. ord's uld anyone admission not corroborate her story? vote him in so this can end already. another tweet. he is getting confirmed no matter what i think. the time for thinking, saying, and doing was two years ago. i hope the people who did not vote get a clue that elections matter. i hope people who did not vote

get over their selfish selves and go vote next month and in what he 20. scotus is going to get stacked with a bunch of drunken, sexual assaulting, partisan hacks. unbalanced andly lied under oath, and confirming will make sure we never get another female vote for a decade. so many women victims have convinced themselves they somehow share the blame. it is not your fault. i have never donated to the campaigns of either of my senators, so they probably do not listen to anything i say. be votingsays he will get for justice kavanagh, having looked at the totality of brett kavanaugh's life and career. we are counting him as the yes vote all along. in florida, and independent. caller: good morning.

i was really moved to make this phone call because i just feel like this whole process has been delayed. what i had told one of the women that came on the phone to talk with me was that everybody is upset because ford and kavanaugh were not interviewed again. like any court hearing, those already.e have spoken and then the prosecutor goes out and validates what they are , or finds witnesses to substantiate or deny it. that is what happened eight times. the fbi has gone out and interviewed eight times. and then on another note, kavanaugh and his behavior in the hearing. the poor man was charged with .omething, and found guilty

he waited 10 days. they wanted to get his side. i do not discredit miss ford, dr. ford. i just ask that men not be charged with this type crimes before they have been reviewed and discussed, and looked at. you have to wonder, down in south carolina, the 74-year-old who shot the police officers -- is he worried that his son was already charged before he even went forward? you just have to look at the repercussions of some of the things, because of what is going on in washington, out here in our own communities. host: i am going to try to get in a couple more phone calls. patrick is in ohio, an independent. caller: how are you doing today?

my thing as an independent who sides more libertarian than anything is, in reviewing brett isanaugh, his record completely and totally constitutional based. all of his decisions have been based on constitutional law and precedent. a greatwould make him pick for the supreme court. people are talking about his temperament. you go and attack anyone for ,onths on end, accuse someone and then berate someone and be belligerent to someone in a as a father, as a husband, and as a man with great yes.cter, judge kavanaugh was outraged. and he was defensive.

anyone that is innocent would defend their self, and that is what judge kavanaugh did. host: i am going to get in carolina, who is in louisiana, a democrat. caroline, our last call. go ahead. that seems toing be overlooked -- i am ex navy. i had security clearances. i am also ex army. and when i think about somebody having six fbi checks, that is highly unusual. there is no reason why he should have had six checks. when people say his record is , it is being covered up, the fact that there is reasons why he had additional checks. he has had at least two

additional checks. that suggests there has been something in his record which was being hidden from the senators in those confidential records they set aside and were not allowed to review. host: caroline, i have to leave it there. we are going to say goodbye on c-span. over on c-span 2, the lead up to the vote, which is in 30 minutes, has begun. we heard from senator chuck grassley and raking monitor -- ranking member dianne feinstein. you can get the free c-span radio app or can watch on c-span.org. takes for all of your calls this morning. more reaction of course coming up tomorrow, on tomorrow's "washington journal." have a great weekend. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. the u.s. economy added 135,000 jobs in september, the fewest in a year. even so, the unemployment rate fell to 3.7%, the lowest level since 1969. the bureau of labor statistics announced those numbers this morning. the c-span bus was recently in honolulu, hawaii for

the 39th stop of our 50 capitals tour. this weekend we feature our visit to hawaii on c-span, booktv, and american history tv, exploring hawaii's history and culture, as well as public policy issues facing the state. onurday at 7:00 a.m. eastern "washington journal," the director of holly's office of planning will talk about homelessness and lack of affordable housing. noon,ktv on c-span2 at stewart: on his book "eddie would go" on the life of a legendary hawaiian surfer. then a visit to the university of hawaii for the extensive book collection of late senator daniel in a way -- senator inouye.

at 2:00 p.m. eastern, we visit the valley of the priests along the north shore of law who -- of oahu and the polynesian voyaging society in honolulu. at for :00 p.m. eastern, three short documentaries about hawaii , "soldier in hawaii," "the hawaiian islands," and "long "long jeanscope -- chronosope." watch hawaii weekend on c-span. announcer: in just under half an hour, 10:30 eastern this morning, the u.s. senate will hold a vote to limit debate on the brett kavanaugh supreme court nomination.

if they agree to limit debate, we expect lawmakers to hold a vote to confirm tomorrow. live coverage of the u.s. senate is on our companion network c-span2. retired supreme court justice john paul stevens yesterday said he does not believe brett kavanaugh should be confirmed to the supreme court. he previously supported the nomination come but said brett kavanaugh's testimony after allegations of sexual assault changed his mind. from boca raton, florida, this is about 50 minutes.