>> sean: rush limbaugh. i hope they will listen. quick programming note, starting tomorrow, we'll be live from washington, d.c., for all of this news. that's tomorrow night and o'clock eastern. let not your heart be troubled. we are always fair and balanced. laura, big news night, no temperature chats. >> laura: great to see you, sean. see you in washington tomorrow. good evening, i am laura ingraham, this is the "the ingraham angle" live from new york city. with the president just across the street from us, to require major political battles. the 11th hour smears of brett kavanaugh brett kavanaugh continue unabated is another uncorroborated message lobbed his way. my message to the g.o.p. in moments along with the reaction from dan bongino, wendy long, and many more. will he stay or will he go? rod rosenstein's fate in limbo tonight after conflicting reports swirling around the resignation or straight up removal. congressman mark meadows has

some choice words. he'll be with us exclusively tonight. but first, democratic emotional extortion and the lessons to be learned. that's the focus of tonight's "angle" ." we saw this coming about two weeks ago when supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh -- remember when he first appeared before the senate judiciary committee? rather than mount any serious argument, democrats and their activist allies resorted to theatrics and paid, preplanned protests. >> i welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination -- >> mr. chairman -- >> drudge brett kavanaugh. >> we cannot possibly move forward, mr. chairman -- >> you are out of order. >> mr. chairman, -- >> and make sensations -- >> laura: barnum and bailey would have been proud. unable to stop kavanaugh, based

on his judicial record, which is stellar, democrats resorted to this late in the game smear drop that they tried with my old boss, clarence thomas, 17 years ago. you all know by now that dianne feinstein sat on dr. christine ford's allegations for six weeks, never bringing it to the attention of the judiciary committee, until of course it was conveniently leaked. this alleged assault has not been confirmed by any of the four other people that she claims were at the party in question. she was 15 and kavanaugh was 17. and then yesterday, a week after the four delegation came to light, another decades-old claim served surface, this time in "the new yorker." college classmate of kavanaugh, deborah ramirez, claims that while a freshman ideal, he exposed himself to her at a boozy dorm party.

even though she was drinking so much, so much so that she was slurring her words and foggy, ramirez says he saw kavanaugh pulling up his pants after someone exposed themselves to her. it could have been him. note that "the new yorker" writer ronan fair ronan farrow e mayer couched the allegation saying "senate democrats investigate new allegation of sexual misconduct from brett kavanaugh's college years." so whatever the democrats are investigating, it lacks a witness, the "the new yorker" as that no one witnessed this alleged incident. in fact, ramirez's roommate, who claims that they shared everything, heard nothing of it. the only person that the dynamic journalistic duo of barrow and mayer could find to substantiate the claims really didn't. >> the corroborating witness that you says has all the

details including kavanaugh's name, where did that witness come from and where did they get the information about this from, if that person doesn't know ramirez? >> he remembers that -- he was in the same dorm, same little building on yale's old campus. he remembers it clearly. i asked him, we were going to be very careful -- he heard it from someone who was there. >> laura: he heard it from someone and a small little dorm on the old campus. great reporting. enter stage left the old gray lady, "the new york times" reports that they spent a week trying to verify the ramirez story, interviewing several dozen people, but -- drumroll please -- "could find no one with firsthand knowledge. that is why they didn't run with it. mr. mraz contacted former yale classmates and she asked if they were called if the incident never happened and told some of

them that she herself could not be certain that mr. kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself. but within a span of six days and after consulting with classmates and democrats, ramirez magically recovered her hidden memories. here's ronan farrow. >> why did you come forward? >> she came forward because senate democrats began looking at this claim. >> >> laura: aha! now i know why the whole crew was so desperately wanting to put off those kavanaugh-ford hearings, which was originally scheduled for today. they needed their piles in the media to have additional time to jump on what they were investigating, the democrats, and find someone, anyone, who knew kavanaugh and could level a salacious, outrageous charge against them. who is deborah ramirez? we don't know all that much

about her. she's a registered democrat who "the new yorker" says works on behalf of "social justice and social change." of course, right on cue, feinstein is now demanding that thursday's hearing be postponed to the third week of... never. kavanaugh is himself defiant, standing his ground as he told martha maccallum tonight. >> the truth is, i've never sexually assaulted anyone. in high school or otherwise. i am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps dr. ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in someplace but what i know is that i have never sexually assaulted anyone. i want a fair process where i can defend my integrity, and i know i am telling the truth. i know my lifelong record. i'm not going to let false accusations drive me out of this

process. i have faith in god and i have faith in the fairness of the american people. >> laura: the american people may be fair but the democrats on the committee are circling. >> doesn't kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in america? >> i put his denial in the context of everything that i know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases. his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow judiciary committee members, the democrats. >> laura: she gave it all the way there. it's not about whether these women have been wrong. many of them probably have. it's not about respecting the presumption of innocence, either. this is about denying donald trump a fifth vote on the supreme court. but the democrats, i'm telling you, they should take a breath, and they should recognize the new standard they are sitting here for all nominees going

forward. are we really suggesting that all aspects of future democratic nominees, their high school and college behavior, that should be subjected to scrutiny and investigation? well, that should be loads of fun. the republicans should have held the vote last week as planned. ken starr said that a week ago on this program. they should not have indulged the circus. had they done so, the right way, justice and kavanaugh would already be settling into his new chambers at the supreme court. and a warning: if he is not confirmed, republican voters may turn on their party as a result. and that's "the angle." joining us now with reaction, harmeet dhillon, attorney and rnc committee woman from california. richard good scenes, former advisor to bill and hillary clinton. and with me in studio, wendy long, former law clerk for justice clarence thomas and a former law partner of judge brett kavanaugh.

wendy, i want to start with you. i spend so much time, i think i said 17 years, our former boss, clarence thomas' confirmation battle was 27 years ago. >> it's actually been 31 years since the democrats started this whole circus as our former boss accurately characterized it. they played dirty and they play to win, and they lie, and they go trolling through these witnesses and thrust them into the spotlight when they have a necessarily asked to be put in the spotlight, inviting them in some cases to perjure themselve themselves. this train wreck is happening. again, i was so excited to see the president today strongly defending brett kavanaugh and to see mr. kavanaugh speaking for himself with his wife. the american people can see what this is about. one reason they elected donald trump was because they knew he was going to appoint strong constitutional justices to the supreme court. that is with the people want, that is what this president is

keeping his promise about, and this game of playing dirty is going to go on and on. we just can't gave into it. what is amazing to me, laura, is that people on the republican side say, oh, she deserves to be heard, she deserves to be heard. i don't think she deserves to be heard. what she deserves and what we all deserve is for any allegation to be investigated but should be investigated by the fbi in private in time. senator feinstein shouldn't be sitting on this this long. >> laura: we had days of hearings, richard goodstein, i want to play another clip from the kavanaugh interview tonight with his wife, with martha maccallum. let's watch. >> one roommate he said that he could see this kind of thing happening, that you drink a lot in high school, drink a lot in college, and although he hadn't seen or heard the incidents himself, that it added up to him, that it made sense that you treated women that way. >> i've always treated women

with dignity and respect. he does not corroborate the incident at all. >> he was a roommate. why do you think he would say that? >> i will not speculate about motives. >> laura: richard? >> i have a lot of friends, like everybody on your panel tonight, laura, who are friends of brett kavanaugh when he worked with him, who swear by him, who absolutely say he is the salt of the earth, and bill cosby had people saying exactly the same thing. so to charlie rose. so did les moonves eyes. assorted roger ailes. look, for whatever reason, democrats are believing her -- i'm talking about talking about chrisitine blasey ford. i would put ramirez aside. i was interested that is where you spend your time. republicans are believing brett kavanaugh. there is a way to resolve this, which is get the fbi end. i agree with wendy. should the public and brett kavanaugh's reputation for decades be besmirched because, for whatever reason, this came

out later rather than sooner? i would say, what is the rush? is it because of the midterms and the fear that the senate might flip? the fact is, senator mcconnell could get this through, he could get someone else in the lame duck braid >> laura: i just want to understand this new standard. going forward, this is going to be wild, harmeet. we were all in college, we were all in high school, harmeet and wendy are much cooler than i was. but we all do stupid stuff. i don't know what happened, i didn't know kavanaugh, i knew him for a long time. it's not the bread i know and it's a long time ago, 30 plus years. is this where we are going, guys? are we going into people's -- how many times you get drunk at a party? did you go to a keg party, what did you do? at what point do those allegations, uncorroborated, by any contemporaneous witness to the wind does not get to smear someone who has had an unbelievably exemplary life as an adult in the workforce,

promoting women, advancing the cause of women? when does this stop? i find this to be madness, utter madness, as a standard. forget who brett is or who trump is, as a standard, high school, college, we should go back to sixth grade or fourth grade? harmeet. >> i agree with you, laura. this is outrageous. as it wendy pointed out, the democrats have been doing this for three decades. the shamelessness, tenney kennedy, standing up there and judging other people about their behavior and their standards, they have no qualms about doing this but just like with harry reid and getting rid of td in the senate, they will come to regret this because eventually the standard will be applied to them and that's an impossible standard. to the point about the fbi investigating it, richard, that's not how that works. the fact of the matter is that memory stays and everyone who was a lawyer knows that eyewitness memory is the most unreliable and particularly when

you involve alcohol and the passage of time, there is no forensic evidence. there is nothing to the fbi will be able to do to find out the truth here. all they have is a smear -- >> laura: he said-she said, guys. i want to restate what "the new york times" said in the 16th paragraph of their piece today. that the accuser in this most recent case, herself, was calling around her friends. after six days, she was able to remember this. oh, she was being prodded, clearly by the democrats and activists. i don't blame her for this. 16 paragraphs you learn that she called people but they couldn't get anyone to corroborate her, and then one of them at least third, she couldn't even be sure if it was brett. the reason "the new york times" didn't go with this is because it was a ridiculous story. ronan farrow, who i think i've done some great work, won a pulitzer, not for this type of

reporting. i cannot believe that "the new yorker" went with us. wendy, i want to play for you something that chris coons and blumenthal said about the burden of proof, another new standard for the democrats. let's watch. >> there is a burden on the part of the white house to do the investigation. what are they hiding? speak it with judge kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the supreme court and who i think bears the burden of disproving his allegations. >> you can't prove a negative. as the oldest thing in the world. you cannot possibly prove a negative. >> laura: do you think they really care about what happened to these women or is it about -- >> of course not. it's about them, their political races, it's about keeping the supreme court in the hands of activists and not letting president trump have this great nominee. it's not about the women. the women are being used. >> laura: he's a bush nominee, let's not forget. he was put on the court of appeals is a bush nominee. panel, thank you so much. we got a good exclusive reaction from the white house. the director of strategic

communications, mercedes schlapp. thank you for being here. how is the white house feeling after that interview with martha maccallum and the protesters descending, they all have the same printed t-shirts on, "be a hero" come outside of susan collins office. i don't know why they were allowed to hang out in the capital, they should have been thrown out. how does white house feel tonight? >> we are so proud of brett kavanaugh and ashley. they went out there tonight, they spoke from the heart, and they sent a very powerful message. brett said he's going to fight. he's going to stand strong. he's not going to be intimidated by those democrats who are placing false claims on him. he is strong in defending his character and his integrity, and i think that was such an important message for the american people to hear tonight. the pain that they are going through, the vile threats in our family, and the mere fact that the democrats are playing politics with this family, with this man's life, someone who has

dedicated his life to public service, laura, and i have to tell you, when you listen to these democrats, and when they say, the verdict is income of brett kavanaugh is guilty, they believe her, then why the heck are we having a hearing if they are believing her and not even giving brett kavanaugh the fair process that he deserves, especially after six weeks that they had these lengthy hearings, that they've asked him to over 1,000 questions, and yet the democrats continue to try to destroy brett kavanaugh's reputation. >> laura: mercedes, what is the message to jeff flake tonight? way all my sources, it's not so much susan collins who is wavering here. i think she has been solidified in her view in fairness, given the activists that have been involved here and what happened over the last week of my delaying mr. try to get -- wait for this report to come out. what's the message for him tonight given what we have seen?

>> i think the method for all the republican senators is that judge kavanaugh stands ready to testify. he's ready to clear his name. he was ready to do that last week. >> laura: mercedes, with all due respect, i have so much respect for you. i don't think it is possible for brett kavanaugh to go up there, and this atmosphere, and be expected -- we know he says he categorically denies this. he had said this repeatedly, and letters ended statements tonight. i think it's a mistake to keep giving into these tactics. the tactics of the left are come alike -- this is like political terrorism, intimidation, emotional blackmail, extortion, we've all seen it in different forms in our lives. this is hideous what they have done. you need a little more right dominic righteous indignation, not coming out of you but coming out of some of the other senators on capitol hill. this is beyond the pale. >> use of the majority leader

mitch mcconnell come out strong, talking about the smear democrats. there will be a vote. we will move in that direction. we all agree it's time for a vote. this is all the democrats are trying to do to buy time. they want to figure out, what other story they can try to fabricate braid >> laura: they will come up with something else. >> exactly. enough is enough. >> it's not the right venue for this. the proof of it is, the senators don't even want to ask questions. >> laura: simone sanders -- speaking of what the pundits were saying, she was on cnn today about with the majority leader said about the smears. let's watch. speak of the senate majority ler calling this a smear campaign is a small dog whistle to the base of the republican party, may be trauma space, talking about -- suggesting he doesn't believe these women. >> laura: mercedes, "is just another dog whistle." if you call something a smear, i

don't know what that's about but that is where the pond and classes going. final thoughts. >> there is no question. i think what judge kavanaugh is asking for is a fair process. he has spent time talking to the senators, basically making his case as to why he is the most qualified judge to be in the supreme court. nt deserves his time, he deserves that vote -- >> laura: he already had his time. mercedes, i think they should never -- it's too late now but the process was fair and they reopened the process. ken starr said they never should have done that. i'm going to keep citing can't start because he said there is a ago on radio and tv with me -- he was so right. grassley and flake and all those guys -- grassley is trying to do his best. jeff flake, you now see with going on here. jeff flake has got to do the right thing and all the other senators. we appreciate all of our panelists time. wendy and harmeet, richard and mercedes.

thank you so much. of course, the counter that has arisen and make wake of the kavanaugh accusations needs a court jester. enter michael avenatti. we debate this next.

♪ >> laura: as of the circus surrounding the kavanaugh confirmation fight could not get any uglier, or more absurd, stormy daniels' lawyer, michael avenatti, is now injecting himself into the situation. shocker. lurid allegations against kavanaugh and furthermore, we are joined by fox news national chief correspondent, ed henry, with more. >> laura, great to see you. republican mitch mcconnell called all of these allegations a shameful smear campaign and charged chuck schumer and senate democrats are throwing all this mud he could manufacture, even

democrats drawing the line at not being seen as taking dirt for michael avenatti. the attorney for stormy daniels is now claiming in the next 48 hours, he would be unveiling a new accuser or accusers with even more salacious allegations to level against judge brett kavanaugh. yet "politico" is reporting income of the series of top democrats are steering clear of avenatti. senator brian schatz saying, "i have no comment about michael avenatti." elizabeth warren caution, until they get more information, "there's not much they can do with these charges from often avenatti. the first accuser, dr. chrisitine blasey ford, wrote an emotional letter where he told republican chairman charles grassley said she felt a guinea three witnesses as they have no recollection of the alleged incident in high school. the county where that happened said they respected victims of sexual assault do not always want to initiate a part of my

criminal probe but added that montgomery county police department has not received a request by any alleged victim or victim's attorney to initiate a police report or criminal investigation regarding supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. "the new yorker" has published a new allegation by deborah ramirez, claiming kavanaugh exposed to her, even though "the new york times" revealed that they interviewed several dozen people in the past week alone and could not corroborate the story. avenatti said he will have these new allegations and he's coming after kavanaugh. watch. >> under no circumstances should brett kavanaugh be confirmed with a lifetime appointment to the u.s. supreme court before mark judge testifies under oath and before my client, dr. ford, and any other accuser, has heard a before that committee under oath at an absolute minimum. >> laura: summer lapping up the chance to get avenatti into the story.

at one point, and the 9:00 p.m. eastern hour, both msnbc and cnn were running interviews with avenatti about kavanaugh. at the exact same moment. one was life and one was on tape. >> laura: the man is everywhere. thank you so much. with reaction, dan bongino, nra tv host, and chris hahn, radio host, former aide to senator chuck schumer. i want to go first to chris. chris, when avenatti comes on the scene, to me, it's a huge negative for the democrats. it becomes just another iteration of the trump resistance, it's all about him, he talked about running for president in 2020. the clown show continues. your reaction tonight? >> i don't take these accusations seriously until i actually see somebody stand up and say that this actually happened. now i will say this about avenatti. he was correct that the president was aware of the payouts to stormy daniels and the other model whose name i'm forgetting. that was proven right. he said that weeks before it was

proven. but i don't just want to take accusations out of nowhere and say come on loud stop the presses. he's right, i think mark judge must testify before this committee, he's a witness, everyone -- >> laura: he's already signed a statement by the penalty of perjury that he has no recollection of these events happening. no one who she claims was in a house party that judge kavanaugh said he was not out has any corroborating information about that party. so he has to testify. no, he doesn't. he could have been brought before the committee during the three and a half days that judge cavanagh was out there by the democrats, like avenatti, are playing a big timing game here. dan bongino, -- hold on, i will get to dan and i come back to you. i promise. dan, 48 hours, he promises the big bombshell, and he said if his client, warning, my client has previously done work with the state department, the u.s.

mint, doj. had multiple security clearances in the past. g.o.p. and others should be very careful in trying to suggest she is not credible. the big drama building. at the end? >> avenatti is a carnival barker. he's a clown. we don't know what he's talking about. it's convenient that he's waiting until wednesday night, the night before the hearing that are supposed to take place on thursday where dr. ford is supposed to show up, which i don't think she will, by the way, and give her side of the story in front of the senate committee. laura, if you are serious come on like avenatti, who is a clown, he's an embarrassment to clowns. clowns don't want to be associated with avenatti. he was serious with getting to the bottom of the charges, he would put the information out there now, so credible people could do a credible investigation like senator grassley was trying to do with dr. ford before her team put together all these obstacles

to getting dr. ford to show up. are they serious about this? chris suggesting that judge should show off as a witness -- what is he a witness to? you just said he testified under penalty of perjury. he has no idea what dr. ford is talking about. >> laura: all the others didn't come too. chris, i cut you off before. go ahead. >> it is one thing to testify on another piece of paper, it is another thing to be cross-examined by people who wat to be to make it to the truth. maybe he is telling the truth. it will be great if he came in and sat at. look, here's the thing. the reason why there hasn't been a boat yet and why they want for your vote this week, the republicans themselves do not have the votes to confirm brett kavanaugh right now and they won't have it on thursday and they probably won't have whatever. i do believe he is going to be withdrawn at some point. collins said today she wants to see ramirez testify before the committee before she votes. i believe there are are the republicans who are similarly concerned. this is a very tough time. >> laura: i think it's because

collins knows it's not true. collins knows that when someone says, she said she was slurring her words, she said she was drinking, she tried to get others to cooperate, they wouldn't. one guy in a dorm said he heard something. chris, i really respect you as a person and a thinker. i can't imagine that you would want someone you care about or love -- put politics aside -- to be treated this way in a "new yorker" article with zero corroboration but a hell of a lot of politics. that is not the way we can do business in the united states. it's not right. it's not just rates to go there needs to be journalistic integrity. i think with "the new york times" did was correct. but i do think that there are -- there is time here and there is no rush. i think we should get to the bottom of this. for him as well, frankly, because i think judge kavanaugh, if any of this is not true, i think they're -- >> laura: okay.

do you think this should be the new standard? what you did in high school and what you did in college, no charges filed, someone at the 11th hour can come forward with an accusation and that should be at for a promotion, a big job, supreme court -- whatever. any big job. by just the court? high school and college now rolls the day. that is what america has to focus on right now. dan, real quick. >> laura -- >> chris, this is a husband, this guy is entitled to defend himself. what's happening right now, to quote clarence thomas, is a national disgrace. it's an embarrassment. this man deserves better. i can't believe what's happening. have a heart. the supreme court -- >> laura: why didn't "the new york times" go with the story? >> if it's truly attempted rape rape -- and not as horrible -- >> laura: we are out of time.

fantastic panel as always. both of you are explosive. will he stay or will he go? not talking about kavanaugh, talking about rod rosenstein. up in the air tonight. thursday, big meeting with the president. meadows up next.

♪ >> laura: the other big story sharing the headlines with kavanaugh dissipative deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. earlier today, depending on where you get your news, he was going to be fired or he had already verbally resigned. fox news was able to confirm late this afternoon that rosenstein had fully expected to be fired when he went to the white house today. though, that does not seem to be the case as of now. here's the president's reaction. >> we'll be meeting at the white house and we'll be determining what is going on. we want to have transparency, we want to have open eyes. i look forward to meeting with rod at that time. >> laura: wherever the sons come over my next guest says the

department of justice under jeff sessions and rosenstein haa transparency problem as i did even under eric holder and loretta lynch and that is saying something. here to explain what all of that means, is congressman mark meadows, chair of the house freedom caucus, here exclusively with us tonight. congressman, i have been dying to talk to you. this was a wild day. i thought it was a little overhyped. they had the camera on the car. i was like him as he crawling to the white house? it is only six blocks. it took an hour for him to get over there. it become a big drama. ended up nothing. where do you think this ends up on thursday? where should it end up? is it a trap to fire rosenstein now or where is your head at here? >> laura, i don't know that it's a trap. really, what it comes down to is that rod needs to be transparent with the american people. there was no plan to fire him this morning. i know there was all kinds of different scenarios that were out there but quite frankly, it

was more a resignation question then a firing question today. yet obviously, all of that changed. here is what is it didn't chan. we continue to have different narratives come out of the doj. if indeed rod rosenstein said these things, which many believe that he did, many believe that he said it in a nonjoking manner, then he needs to explain that, not only to the president of the united states, both the american people. we are pushing very hard to make sure that he comes in under oath to congress and let the american people judge for themselves. i can't tell you that if he does not, there are a number of us that are standing by really with impeachment documents, that said, we cannot have this kind of activity continue at doj. >> laura: i don't get the joke. saying it jokingly? i think someone who has that level of poor judgment, to joke about the 25th amendment or wearing a wire on the president, number one, it's not funny, two,

not something you talk about. either he has a really bizarre sense of humor or he said it was serious. i don't buy that it was a huge set up for trump. >> total nightmare for deputy attorney general. he melted and wet his pants up the first second the senate asked him to answer some questions about the russia investigation. the whole thing was -- i'm sorry. i think is one of the worst appointments ever. jay sekulow, i want to get your response on the other side. this is what he said. >> if, in fact, rod rosenstein does end up resigning come i think it's really important that there would be a step back taken here. a review. i think it's a review that has to be thorough and complete, and a review that has to include an investigation of what has transpired with all of these statements and all of these allegations, going back to the peter strzok and lisa page and bruce ohr and basically a timeout on on us and corey. >> laura: wrote about that? a timeout on the mueller probe?

is that realistic? >> i don't know that it's realistic but i do believe that there should be a timeout and accountability. let me give you one prime example, laura. we've got a double standard. he got a couple of people that work in the trump campaign that are really being prosecuted for lying to the fbi. and yet we know that false testimony was given to bruce ohr by either fusion gps or christopher steele. we know that indeed they mentioned a person by the name of clayton mitchell and his whole narrative, the nra, actually being involved in a russia collusion, they actually shared that with a doj official, and yet there are no prosecution that's being done there. it was false testimony, given to a doj person. we've got to make sure there is one standard for everybody, and i can tell you that rod rosenstein is not implementing that, and it's time that we hold him accountable. >> laura: congressman, real quick, why is it that the president decided to go back on

his decision to declassify those documents and kick it over to the ig? i still don't understand that. i understand rosenstein was the one who brought the message to him. the president a seated to his wishes. why? >> i think the president is trying to be cautious to make sure that sources and methods are not out there. i can tell you, i talked to the ig today, the bruce ohr 302s, there is no reason -- >> laura: does have to be released. >> two people that were there, they don't have security clearances, bruce ohr wasn't officially on the russia investigation, so why not declassify them? >> laura: but the sunshine and prayed congressman, thank you so much. here with reacted, senior fellow at the hoover institution. victor david hanson. your reaction to what we just heard from congressman meadows, rosenstein here for the moment, some conservatives, even my colleague sean hannity, said firing him would be a pretty big mistake on the part of the president. but we have a dysfunctional justice department, with all due

respect to attorney general sessions. it's dysfunctional at the highest level. >> there's a political and legal problem. politically, you don't want to distract from the democrats on national tv, trying to destroy two centuries of american jurisprudence with kavanaugh. that would be a distraction right now. it's booming -- there is a boomerang on them right now. legally, rod rosenstein was at the center of firing james comey with the letter, and mueller is investigating the firing of comey, and directly investigating himself. he signed a fisa warrant, that will come up under somebody's investigation. he was the adjudicator of information that was released by the doj to to the house intelligence committee and other committees. he was involved in uranium one and he saw no collusion, yet he's basically entrusting mueller to look for collusion where it wasn't. he was in the hillary email scandal and yet he said that

there was no violation of confidentiality or classified information, yet he helped get an indictment against general carter for leaking. he's got a lot of the conflict of interest and i think the donald trump should just say, you are doing a great job, there's thousands of things you can do at the justice department but you are not going to get yourself into a situation where you have these conflict of interests, so you want to be on the mueller, you want to be doing anything with a fisa course, you want to be transmitting documents or adjudicating what is redacted or not, and we are not going to have you looking at anything to do with uranium one or email, and if you want to resign and go write a book, michael wolff and omarosa left, go ahead, but we like you, just do something else but you won't be involved here anymore. that would be a lot brighter than firing him. >> laura: do we have an ambassadorship to albania open? i think there are a few positions still open in the administration. thank you so much. what does ann coulter think of the kavanaugh battle and

rosenstein? the outspoken commentators here in new york. she will be here to tell a set l about it. stay here. medicare cards are changing. with new, more secure numbers. but con artists, they never change. they'll always try to steal your medical identity. so, what can you do? guard your card, just like a credit card. don't give your medicare number over the phone or email. and remember, medicare never calls unless you've asked them to. to find more ways to guard your card, go to medicare.gov/fraud.

don't let your guard down. ♪

♪ >> nothing ever physical, you never met her, never kissed her, never touched her, nothing that you remember? >> correct. i never had any sexual or physical activity with dr. ford. he never sexually assaulted anyone, and high school or otherwise. i am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps dr. ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone in someplace. but what i know is i have never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any time. >> laura: as we told you, thursday is shaping up to be a very important in washington, as the fate of rod rosenstein and brett kavanaugh could both hang in the balance. but are there stories connected?

seriously. "vanity fair" suggested today that trump is using one controversy to bury the other. writing "the strategy was to tr, trump wanted to nuke rosenstein to save kavanaugh's bacon." the article goes on to report that trump's allies are urging him to cut ties with kavanaugh ahead of the midterms. was that really fair ball with his base? joining us now, conservative columnist and author of "resistance is futile," ann coulter. it's great to see you. i mean -- >> i have an idea for how you can distract her much happening with kavanaugh. start building the wall! >> laura: [laughs] gofundme campaign. brick by brick. brick by brick. this is -- brett, i know you know him, i've known him for so long. the democrats play for keeps. republicans try to play this

genteel game of, oh, we respect, everybody has her right to be heard. oh, really? it took a while for keeps keith ellison's accuser to be heard. juanita broaddrick has never been heard. they don't care about that. >> that brings up two things. one is, i don't think --dash democrats, you're going to haveo live under those, too. oh, no, they won't. the duke lacrosse players accused or a frat fraternity house at uva or bill clinton, oh, sorry, that is when you blame the women. women just lie all the time. but also, the evidence, they caved dumb i keep saying it is promotion. feminists want to label men rapists based on nothing that has to do with logic.

they did this with the violence against women act. they label you rapist. >> laura: we know this is political. republicans -- >> what i am saying is, to throw out the rules of evidence just because you are saying this is a promotion, is a nonsense argument. you are labeling this man a rapist. this isn't going to stop. they will keep coming up with charges. they should have voted today. as we will make you never have moved the hearing. they should have voted last thursday, should not of budgeting and he of this, it was obviously orchestrated. we learned tonight, just tonight come a few moments ago, -- we'll get it on the other side, collins, lisa murkowski, others, may be drawn through -- >> the other women, jeff flake, ben sasse. >> laura: they will wait until thursday to make their decision. collins wants ramirez to be

heard. we will hold you over. more on this, more with ann coulter, including michelle obama's new get out the vote drive. don't go away. (woman) learned to play an instrument.

learned a second language. applied to college. applied for a loan. started a business. started a blog. shared a picture. shared a moment. turn your wish list into a checklist. learn more. do more. share more. at home, with internet essentials.

>> laura: back with me now, ann coulter. ann, if kavanaugh goes down, what happens to the republicans in the u.s. and its? >> at the huge blue wave, there is no wall. >> laura: the democrats would mike brey take the senate, take the house. >> huge blue wave. why fight for them if they want to fight for us? i say to collins, lisa murkowsk murkowski, and flake and ben sasse, pretend this is a jeb bush nominee. a lot of this has to do with them hating donald trump >> laura: he is a george w. bush guy. >> i know. it is her hatred of trump.

>> laura: george w. bush should give a speech as showed anthony kennedy and frankly they teach it on my chief -- just i. i think john roberts should come out and say this is an attack on the judiciary. no one is going to be want to be nominated to a federal court in the future. who would? who wants to be nominated? >> who wants to run as a republican? this is why you and i voted for mccain, this is why liberals, never to numbers, voted for trump, for the judicial nominees, the republicans can hold this off. >> laura: reaction to democrats pulling up all the stops to boost their turn out how to midterms. michelle obama happy to step into the void. >> i'm sick of all the chaos and the nastiness of the politics. it's exhausting and frankly, it's depressing. so i understand wanting to shut it all out.

and just go on and just try to live your life. >> i think the screaming protesters and the lying, slanderous charges against kavanaugh really is michelle obama, they go low, will we go high -- >> laura: they attacked ted cruz at a restaurant. they drove him out of a restaurant. that just broke. raymond mentioned it to me on twitter. >> democrats drive them away but then republicans bring them back to the democrats. [laughter] >> laura: michelle obama said at the republicans who are nasty. okay. they actually spy on americans but we stand up for our principles. "or, thank you so much for staying with us. we'll be right back.

>> laura: by the way, good news, g.o.p. favorability, the highest in seven years. 45-44. that is good news. this whole thing to turn around on the democrats invite them in the posterior if they are not

too careful, driving people out of restaurants, all the nastiest, but they do. while there senate off offices, last-minute uncorroborated allegations. republican party, you are better than this. i hope you prove the critics wrong on thursday. keep it right there. there. shannon bream by the "fox news @ night" team. huge news. she's all over the supreme court hearing on thursday and all those new developments. shannon, we'll be watching it. >> shannon: how is it just monday? >> laura: i don't operate it never ends. >> shannon: buckle up. we begin with a fox news alert. from the white house on down republicans are going on offense does a poor judge brett kavanaugh supreme court nomination. president trump standing by his man. this in a top accusing democrats of a smear campaign and kavanaugh declares, i'm not going anywhere. we'll have judge kavanaugh's exclusive interview and get voices from left and right. a seismic shake-up at the doj now a cliffhanger. president trump declining to say whether he plans to fire his deputy attorney general rod