>> this sunday, supreme battle. brett kavanaugh's nomination in jeopardy over an accusation he sexually assaulted a girl when he was a teenager. republicans are divided. >> i would think if the incident occurred as she described it that would be disqualified. >> don't get rattled by all of this. we'll plow right through it and do our job. >> but president trump is standing by his man. >> he is a fine, fine person. >> and now there's an apparent agreement for kavanaugh's accuser, christine blasey ford to testify before the senate judiciary committee on thursday. my guests this morning, republican senator david purdue of georgia and democratic senator patty murray of

washington state. plus how serious would deputy attorney general rod rosenstein about secretly recording president trump any trying to remove him from office? and does this give the president more ammunition in his fight with robert mueller? >> there's a lingering stench and we're going to get rid of that, too. >> also my sitdown with secretary of state mike pompeo. >> the north koreans been honest about their nuclear program? >> finally, our brand-new nbc news/wall street journal poll on president trump and the battle for control of congress. joining me for insight and analysis are chris matthew, host of "hardball" on msnbc. helene cooper, pentag correspondent for the new york times. >> andeliana johnson, for politico. welcome to sunday. it's "the meet the press". >> from nbc news in washington chlt the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck

todd. >> good sunday morning. it was in 1991 when clarence thomas' path to confirmation was interrupted by anita hill with sexual harassment in the workplace. helping to usher in 1992's year of the woman at the ballot box. as "time" magazine illustrated, the specter of the thomas-hill hearing now hang over supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. now christine blasey ford accus accused him of sexually assaulting her at a party. >> she tentatively agreed that she would testify on thursday. they're still working out the details for what could be one of those national stop what you're events and watch. of note, as of last night, four people that ford had said were at the party with her including kavanaugh have said they have no recollection of being there. the kavanaugh nomination is issue one for conservative and e evangelicals and there is fear

that if kavanaugh goes down republican candidates could play a steeper price in november than they're already facing which brings us to our nbc news/wall street journal poll this morning. our poll found among registered voters they prefer democrats by a whopping 12 points, 52-40 and if you're a close follower of the nbc news/wall street journal poll you'll know that's the significant margin and last month the margin was eight points and by the way, a month before that it was six points. as for president trump, his numbers are remarkably steady. 52% of registered voters disapprove of his performance and 44% approve. it's exactly where he was last month, 52-44. as one of our pollsters put it, these numbers are, quote, beyond weak for republicans and americans are trying to send a signal that they're not satisfied with the way things are going in washington and all of which helps explain how they're watching the kavanaugh

story with one eye on his prospects and the other on their own in november. >> brett kavanaugh, fantastic man. he was born for the u.s. supreme court. he was born for it, and it's going to happen. >> reporter: with judge brett kavanaugh's confirmation hanging in the balance. >> do you have any response to christine ford? >> mr. trump abandoned his uncharacteristic restraint tweeting, i have no doubt that if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says, chargers would have been brought by her or her loving parents. republican susan collins, a crucial swing vote fired back. >> i was appalled by the president's tweet. >> california professor christine blasey ford alleges that kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a house party in the early 1980s telling "the washington post," he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried

to pull off her clothing. when she tried to scream he put his hand over her mouth. >> she clearly believes this was an attempted rape and were it not for the severe intoxication of brett kavanaugh she would have been raped. >> kavanaugh has denied the allegations saying i have never done anything like what the accuser describes to her or to anyone. >> and senate republicans are pressing forward with the nomination. >> don't get rattled by all of this. we're going to plow right through it and do our job. >> mcconnell does not yet have the votes. >> by the way, there are, like, seven of us that are undecided. it's not just me. privately, many republicans worry the party's push to put kavanaugh on the court could come at a steep, political cost. in the nbc news/wall street journal poll, opposition to kavanaugh is growing among suburban women, women over 50 and independents. 1992 became the year of the

woman. a wave of democratic women won office after anita hill's grilling on capitol hill. >> there's still a lot of holes in the testimony. >> now some republicans worry history is repeating itself. >> i think this woman, whoever she is is mixed up. >> on friday, the #whyididn'treport became the number one trending topic on twitter and already some republican candidates are stumbling. >> ruth bader ginsburg came out that she was groped by abraham lincoln. >> these are teenagers who drunk according to her own statement, they were drunk and nothing evidently happened in it all even by her own accusation. again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere. >> joining me now is republican senator david purdue of georgia. senator purdue, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning, chuck. let me start with a basic question here. what do you hope to learn from

thursday's hearing of judge kavanaugh and dr. ford? >> first of all, i think senator grassley has done a great job of trying to accommodate dr. ford in getting this new information before the committee. i hope that we will get to the truth, and i think that's what the person people deserve and that's what we're trying to do this week. i hope that both judge kavanaugh is dr. ford get an open hearing. i fully expect that this week. >> how are you going to decide who is telling the truth if it really is the testimony of dr. ford, the testimony of judge kavanaugh. we don't have anything else to work with here. how will you determine credibility in your mind. >> you do have other information. you have four other people that claim they have no recollection of the event, but what i've done in a situation like this and look at it in a holist being manner and look at the pattern

over time and the look at the people giving that information and their own personal credibility and that's what we will do hopefully as we get this information before us. >> is there anything dr. ford could say that would change your mind about supporting judge kavanaugh? >> look, these are serious allegations. i hope dr. ford can be put in a comfortable situation where she can provide the information. this is a democracy. we have a judicial system and we also have innocent until proven guilty and so my view is that we need to hear from both parties and make sure that we do it in a timely manner. we've already waited three months to get this information since the information was provided to senator feinstein and it's time to get this hearing and bring it before the american people. >> it's interesting you bring up innocent until proven guilty. this is the standard, this is about a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. this is about someone who has to decide the constitutionality of

laws that impact all of americans. do you think the burden of proof in some ways, should be higher or lower when you consider the job that judge kavanaugh is interviewing for? >> i think the burden here, chuck, is to find the truth, just like it is in any courtroom in our land and that's what we're about to do. we've had people -- this man has had six fbi investigations. this isn't the first time he's been fully vetted. >> not one-on-one specific charge. do you think at this point, though, you would want at least the comfort of the fbi having looked into this even if it's for a ten-day period at this point? >> they've done that. their job is not to determine who is telling the truth, but to make sure the issue is brought before the body looking at it and that's the judiciary committee at this point. this information was made public through senator feinstein. the way i look at it is the fbi has done it. their role in this case is not to determine who is telling the truth and it's to make sure that

the senate has the information. >> you don't think there is an additional investigation to at least establish that the party happened and establish some more facts, have an fbi agent interview, perhaps some of the other people that dr. ford says were at that house party? >> part of what the fbi is supposed to do is to make sure that they determine that this is an issue and to make sure that they bring it before the committee we've had precedence on this before and in this case they've done their duty and right now the only people who will determine who is telling the truth in this issue are the united states senators. >> were you in the private sector before you joined politics and you ran fortune 500 companies. and i have no doubt you faced similar issues perhaps in leadership. how did you handle those? how did you determine truth? sometimes it is an allegation and a person that you may think they're telling the truth, but they can no longer manage

their -- they can no longer fulfill their duties in their job because maybe they've lost credibility, fair or not. how would you handle a situation like that and how did you handle it in the private sector? >> i did have situations like this. as far as 30 years ago we started having training programs inside our companies to make sure that people's individual rights were protect and the so forth, but when we had situations of allegations like this we primarily made sure that the information, as best we can determine, was presented people making the decision. you look at the credibility of the people giving the information and the pattern of behavior and you take a holistic view of this to get to a heart-level, gut-level determination about who is telling the truth and that's what will happen in each one of the senator's cases as they listen to the information this coming week. >> i fully expect we'll get to a decision this week and move on, chuck. >> does public opinion matter to

you if more people oppose his nomination or more people don't believe him. should that factor into your decision making on this? >> there are two issues there. first of all, i don't put a lot of confidence in these polls. these are the same polls that had me losing by as much as 10% in my race three or four years ago and we won by more than eight points and had trump losing. so i'm not sure these polls clearly reflect the opinion of the american people. i believe right now the information that the american people are getting is somewhat limited because it's coming through this central media in washington and not all of this has come out yet. we will get all of the information in the senate this week, hopefully. we'll hear from both sides and we'll take that into consideration and we'll make our adjudication. >> are things being rushed a little bit because of the november election deadline? i ask that because i know you have said we want to move on, with this and we are in day 75 of the nomination and i want to put up a chart of the current

members of the supreme court and three of them went on longer, alito, elena kagan. >> if you will cite that statistic, you ought to cite the fact that ginsburg was confirmed in 42 days and got 96 votes. >> that was up on my chashtrt a well and we have three members in the court that took longer and we're not in an unusual situation. >> there's no timetable. we are in a situation where similar allegations were made. if we don't have all of the information this week i have total confidence that senator grassley will take his time and make sure we get all of the information we need. there is no rush to judgment. i think any objective person, chuck, looking at the way senator grassley has handled this, they will walk away thinking that he has done everything he can to make sure that this information comes before the senate and that this

person is treated with all of the respect she is due. >> senator purdue, i will leave it there for now. senator, republican from georgia, thank you for coming on and sharing your views. >> thanks, chuck. >> joining me now with another perspective is patty murray from washington state. senator murray, welcome to "meet the press". >> great to be here, chuck. >> i remember covering your race and it was the reason you stated for running was your reaction to the anita hill hearings and i remember a lot of people didn't give you much of a chance and you've now been a united states senator since 1992. >> correct. >> you said this about the republicans 27 years later that the judiciary committee is leading us down the exact same place and an even worse one. how do you think worse? >> i think one of the things that i remember from the anita hill hearings was the way she was treated by united states senator, that she was presumed that she was lying, that it was a fantasy, that she was making it up. that's how the questions came

from the united states senators and she was never given a full opportunity to be believed from the start. i sense that again, as i hear a number of the comments, the majority leader saying we're going to plow right through it as if it was a petty thing. we have to deal with this hiccup. that kind of conversation is exactly what leads to many people in this country, women and men saying they don't get it. particularly now in the me too movement. they have to speak out and it doesn't have to be a hidden thing in the past and they have to not tell anybody. the message that it's a hiccup or we're going to plow through this is exactly what they don't want to hear today. >> it's interesting that you word it that way because i'm curious of your reaction of this tv ad that's being run by demand justice which is a group on the left that is opposing judge kavanaugh. i want to play for you this ad because it presumes him guilty

and i want to play it for you and see what you think of this. take a look. >> when 15-year-old christine tried to scream her attacker covered her mouth so no one could hear her. will susan collins listen to her now? i play it now because what you just described was presuming her not to be telling the truth. this is presuming him to already be guilty. it seems as if we're in a bad situation no matter your point of view. >> here's how i see it. for a very long time, in the history of this country when women spoke out about allegations of sexual assault or abuse, they were presumed to be making it up or culturally not talking or told to be quiet. so i think it is very important in this time and this day that we recognize when women speak out that we should presume that they are innocent. look, if someone says my car got stolen, you don't presume they're lying. >> right. >> if someone says i was

sexually abused people today sometimes presume that they're making it up, that they're whatever. it should be a presumption of innocence and then have a fair process to go through to determine the truth. >> do you think a hearing where it's really his word, her word. we're not going to have anything else and there's not going to be an fbi investigation. that's a tough -- same question i asked of senator purdue. you're a human being, and how do you determine who is telling the truth and it's going to be your own gut. >> the senate republicans have now set this up and that is what we're going have. do you believe her or do you believe him? that is exactly why we have been pressing for an fbi investigation that should only take a few day, so there are other facts out there and there are other witnesses. in fact, i have said many times that the anita hill hearing was a disaster and they did have an fbi investigation and they did have other witnesses and other

ways to judge this. the senate republicans have predetermined the outcome that this is a he said she says by taking that away. >> this was interesting, but anita hill wrote the following on wednesday and she had a suggestion for the judiciary committee. she wrote, the public expects better from the government from 1991 that they still lack the protocol for vetting the sexual harassment and the confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the thomas hearing much less the more recent me too movement. it is what she's suggesting. there is no protocol, right, on the judiciary committee. is there a protocol of -- you guys deal with a lot of advice and consent when it comes to nominees. when there is an allegation like this, is there any protocol in the senate like this? >> clearly not, and this is what i've been saying since the beginning of this a week ago now is that the senate congress failed the test in 1991 with

anita hill that they can deal with this kind of allegation and they have to be able to deal with this kind of allegation if we're going to be putting people on the highest court of the land and here we are today. how the senate handles this and the senate rep reps handle this will be a test of this time, of 2018 in the me too movement. can we do better and i fear we are failing that if we don't do it correctly. >> if there is no fbi investigation i want to show you something that sheldon whitehouse said to me and a warning he had for republicans. take a listen. >> sooner or later, mark my word, there will be an investigation into this. it may be in the subsequent congress, but you can't get away with having something like this take place. >> and i followed up with him and he said yes, if there is a democratic senate that maybe this needs to be taken up again if this doesn't feel fully investigated and he's on the court, do you support something like that? >> i understand there could be

allegations filed in maryland still on this if he was on the court. so it's important that we get this right, and i am -- >> does this affect his current judgeship? >> his current judgeship? >> i don't know. i don't know the facts and i don't know the end of this and certainly that is something that is possible, but i don't know the facts yet and we all would like it. that's why we all want an fbi investigation. that's why we want this done right, but here's what i do know, if the senate plows through this, if it's a hiccup, if they don't do it right, there will be a tremendous backlash again. i was in the airport yesterday and a woman came up to me, an older woman and she said i was told 40 years ago when this happened to me don't say anything by my parents. what a horrible message to young girls today. what a horrible message to young men today that they can get away with this. let's get this right. >> would we be in this situation? this sort of point where it feels like we are so divided if the filibuster were still

around. >> certainly, what the filibuster did with a supreme court nominee forward, that there had to be more of a consensus, that we would have -- >> it would. and it would mean that we would have people on the highest court of this land that needed to have more -- >> democrats get the majority back and will you advocate for change. >> that's a really good question and one that philosophically i agree with, but i will tell you what, what if we did? what if the democrats put the filibuster back in and turned around and they got the majority and took it away. we have to ask that question and that to me is extremely troubling. >> welcome to the fractured democracy. the other washington as you guys always like to remind us in that way. >> when we come back, this week's supreme court testimony, the republicans and what it all could mean for their ♪

ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ♪ i needed to find my own passion. and my fiance meredith, helped drive me towards making my own beer. with what's available online, we were able to learn how to make the beer, craft a business plan, and do all the other things we needed to do to help people find us. it's a lot of hard work but being a part of the community here using our beer as a platform to give back, it makes it all worthwhile. kevin, meet yourkeviner. platform to give back, kevin

kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. and an ice plant.rs with 70-megawatts, 35 mules, but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later we continue to build as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream. we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy

welcome back. panel time. chris matthew, host of "hardball," on msnbc and author of "bobby kennedy," eliana johnson for politico and jonah goldberg, editor at national review. >> that's right. >> let me begin. there it is. there it is because we're doing it right now, everybody. let me, i think, caitlin flanagan at the atlantic and david at the national review set up the conversation pretty well for us. let me read you from the atlantic. the least we can do is put this confirmation on hold and if not true, kavanaugh should be approved without suspicion. my own inclination is no. here's david french. if there isn't any cooperation or external evidence outside of christine ford's three

decades-old recollections, that's not enough for derailing the jurist no matter how fiercely they're believed. what's going to be the standard of believability? where are we? >> i think it's tremendously difficult. you have partisans on left including a democratic senator saying we must believe the testimony of the woman and it is anti-woman to challenge the accusations and partisans on the right throwing out the names of their potential assailants without much proof, but what i think the difficult position justice kavanaugh or judge kavanaugh, excuse me, providian slip, is being put in is that in the current climate it is tremendously difficult for him to defend himself without being accused of being anti-woman, and he, i think, does need to be able to offer a defense. >> how are we going to resolve whether who is believed here? >> i'm not sure that we are.

i do think the preponderance of the evidence that we have which is almost entirely circumstantial, witness testimony and the like is in judge kavanaugh's favor. the four people alleged to be there all say they not only did not know about the attack, which was understandable because it was done in secret. they don't know about the party. one person who is a friend of ford's doesn't even say she knows kavanaugh. >> she did say she believes ford, but yes, you're right. >> one thing that's difficult on the right and left to get their heads around is even if what dr. ford is saying is true, at least as far as she sees it, the long-term precedent that we may be setting, that says you can issue a not under oath allegation with no other corroboration for it and destroy a man's or a candidate, a nominee's character and reputation to destroy a nomination, that is a problem for both parties and for this country and everyone on the left

is saying that the blocking of the mayor justifies anything that the democrats do. you'll have republicans for a generation saying the destruction of brett kavanaugh justifies what they do and everything will get worse. >> chris? >> let's start with the basics. dr. ford has the right to petition congress. it's in the constitution. you have a right -- she had a right to bring her complaint and bring her information. number two, didn't she also have a responsibility? if she has this recollection and she told her husband if they were getting married and she went to counseling and that was the earlier establishment of her recollection among other people. if it happened and i believe it did happen from her recollection shouldn't she have brought it forward? imagine if she'd had this experience and this themry and never told anybody about it and this guy became supreme court justice, was that a responsibility

responsibility responsibiliresponsible s citizen. kavanaugh at that party is a total denial and it's a good lawyer position and i've never done anything like that or near that person. these guys rammed me into a room and corralled me was the term, threw me on the bed. when i tried to cry for help, covered my mouth. this does sound like assault. this isn't romancing or a drunken romancing, it's just assault, and if she hadn't brought that to the public, i think that would have been a failure of her citizenship. >> the very nature of this sort of thing always ends up being he said or she said. that's why it's so hard, but it also is -- it also is so incredibly difficult for a woman to come forward and say that i have been sexually assaulted for

the very reasons that we see what dr. ford are go -- is going through right now, that i sort of do agree with senator murray that you -- you owe these women, i think, the presumption of innocence or at least to assume that they're telling the truth, they're not making this up which means that it is the senate's obligation to take this seriously and to do a lot better job than they did with anita hill hearing. i went back and i think a lot of us this past week went back and looked at the anita hill hearing and i was reminded again of why i was so angry which is why i think that -- when president trump came out and said why didn't they call the police? why didn't she report this to her loving parents and why didn't they report this. it is so appalling. >> i completely disagree with that, i'm sorry, in terms of the crucial point. >> women who come forward and

make the accusations, they deserve to be heard and taken seriously and senator murray says we never doubt anybody when anyone says my car was stolen and that was a good line. we give the presumption when i say chuck todd stole my car. you have to prove that and if we're going say that as women as a class will always be believed no matter what, and democrats have to deal with chris el sson we are throwing out a thousand years of a law that says we are throwing out the accused. >> if mitch mcconnell thought the republicans would be holding the senate would he push through kavanaugh and say give me someone more confirmable? >> i agree with you that both parties are acting politically. democrats are clearly pushing delay tactics, it's obvious and republicans want to confirm him

before the election. >> they fear november. >> absolutely. it's patently obvious and they're using this woman who has come forward and is going through an excruciating emotional trial for political ends and i agree with jonah, and i do find it somewhat insulting to women that they have to be presumed to be telling the truth and acting in good faith and that their accusations and they're presumed not to be able to back up their accusations with the evidence. >> they're backing up an accusation for something that took place 40 years ago. that's impossible and the idea that you're going to go and i can't remember parties they went to 40 years ago. none of us can, but she is so -- makes much more sense because she's the one who was sexually assaulted. >> there's a big line between what jonah said is you don't accept this absolute fact, but there's something in the republican conversation last week that was different than that. there's sort of an i love lucy

in thinking of women and the way they're portrayed by it. plow through it, no, it's a person. i like the way nikki haley, when someone called her confused she said i don't get confused. i think the fact that women are confused or mistaken is really a problem for the republicans. >> the idea that women can't back up their claims or that their claims can't stand some sun light is insulting. >> and this is why thursday is going to be an impossible moment for this country and our politics. i just fully believe that, unfortunately, left or right. >> when we come back, my sitdown with secretary of state mike pompeo, we discuss north korea, pompeo, we discuss north korea, iran and syria, ♪ south l.a. is very medically underserved. when the old hospital closed people in the community lived

with untreated health problems for years. so, with the county's help we built a new hospital from the ground up and having citi as an early investor worked as a signal to others to invest. with citi's help we built a wonderful maternity ward and we were able to purchase an mri machine. we've made it possible for the people who live here to lead healthier lives and that's invaluable. ♪

what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer

our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. welcome back. president trump travels to new york today to host world leaders at the united nations general assembly. i sat down at the state department with mark pompeo for his first appearance on "meet the press" since becoming secretary of state. mr. secretary, welcome back to "meet the press". >> great to be here. great to host you here. >> very nice to be here. let me start with the fisa warrant and what the president was asking to get declassified. you seemed to say in an interview on thursday night that a few ally his complained about the potential declassification of these fisa documents that have to do potentially with carter page. what more can you say? i assume it's the five eyes, is

it the uk and that group of nations that are trying to keep us from making this stuff public? >> chuck, i can't add much more to that other than to say this, in my previous role as cia director and now as secretary of state we are committed to making sure that we classify information properly. we try to get information out that shouldn't be classified. it's a historic problem in the united states government and second, we will always make sure that we protect our sources and methods and information that comes in and partners that share with us and weúunderstand how important that is and president trump and our team will always make sure that we do that right. >> has that order been fully rescinded or put on hold? has he pulled back on it officially? i'll leave it to the white house. that's not my neck of the woods these days, but i want the american people to know that we will always protect information and we'll do everything we can to be as transparent as america

demand, as well. >> if you could give yourself advice when you are head of the intelligence committee. what have you learned both being a cia and here at state that you would tell yourself, boy, now i -- that's something i didn't understand and i could have been a better house intel committee chair on accountability because of x. what advice would you give yourself going backwards? >> one of the things you get to see when you actually run the organization is the enormous depth and breadth of the capacity of american -- whether it's in our intelligence committee and our diplomatic forces. i think you underappreciate that when you're a member of congress. you get to see glimpses and you don't get to see the sum of the greatness. >> do you think if the members saw what you saw they would be less con fir torial? >> do i. >> do you think there are members of congress see more of this stuff so they wouldn't be so conspiratorial and maybe calm the public down a little bit.

>> i've tried to do that in my previous role and this one. i try to be as open sharing information as i possibly can be, proactive in communicating so that there is a better understanding. look, sometimes being conspiratorial is appropriate, too. sometimes asking hard questions is their job and their oversight role. >> sure. >> i don't begrudge that in any way. >> but the tone could change? >> i think the tone would be one which is achieving america's foreign policy objectives. >> this of course, all has to do with russia, and i say this and i was preparing for this interview and questions i had about north korea, was there a russia angle. questions i had about iran, there is a russian angle. the russians don't seem to be help o helpful on any front here and is that a fair assessment? >> it is a fair assessment and most unfortunate. i worked with them closely on counter terrorism issues and there's a handful of other places where we have overlapping interests although certainly not

values and it's a country very different from ours in that respect and they have not proven helpful in the ukraine and syria. you've shown it. we, this week, put sanctions on china as a result of the law that passed. again, trying to push back against russia's activity around the world and they tried to develop a relationship any change that, but we've not been successful to date. >> you're being bad cop. it may be realistic when it comes to russia. is that not working? >> i don't think it's the situation at all and i think that's the question. >> just wrong. >> think we're all trying to be cops that are protecting america, and i think we've achieved that, chuck. i do believe america is fundamentally safer today than it was when president trump took office for a host of reasons. >> if assad uses chemical weapon, will you hold russia accountable for this? >> we will go to the source of

the bad behave wroior? >> who is the source assad or russians? >> we pray that it doesn't, but we'll do our intelligence and forensics and we will do our hard work and hold those responsible for violating the principle that chemical weapons are different than others. >> so russia knows it could be held accountable here if they're not careful? >> we sanctioned russia for a chemical, biological weapons use and what they did on skripal. the president is deadly serious to make sure that chemical weapons don't become the norm in the way nations act around the world. >> are we afraid -- would you rule -- have we ruled out using a military response if there was something like that? >> we're not going to rule out a single thing, chuck. >> let me move to iran here. you said it isn't about regime change. rouhani wants to meet with president trump next week. it will happen. >> the president's been clear

about that, he is happy to talk to anyone. if there is constructive dialogue, let's get after it. >> is there one right now with the iranians? >> it doesn't seem likely. their behavior would int indicate any change that iran presents to the world. >> how do you make sure that the united states doesn't look like it's taking sides in sunni versus shia here? you guys will get tough on iran this week and the president will chair the meeting and it does look like the united states is on every sunni side of an issue. how do you sort of make sure that the united states isn't sending that message? >> i don't think the members of isis would share your view. we've been incredibly hard on terror from wherever it comes whether it's the shia, whether it's the sunnis or anyone else engaged in terror around the world. our objective is to protect american interests and we will protect them no matter who it is perpetrated and whether they come from a religion, no religion and the should i as or

the sunnis. >> are the russians helpful on iran? >> they've not been to date. >> do you think they can be? >> i always live in hope, chuck. it is my mission, and it is my task to convince the russians, too, that you're firing rockets from yemen into major gulf states and arming lebanese hezbollah, and all of these activities. these aren't in russia's best interest either and just come to america and poke us in the eye is not a foreign policy objective. that's being a nuisance and what i hope they do is we take what matters to each of our two peoples. >> you may end up meeting the with counterpart and there is an invite there. gym kong kim jong-un wants to have another summit with president trump. >> we have to make it work. we have to set up the logistics

and set the right conditions where president trump is prepared to meet with chairman kim at the right time and we hope that will happen in the not too distant future. >> are the north koreans being honest about the nuclear program compared to what we know about the nuclear program? have they been honest with the world? >> here's what we know about north korea, we came in and there was the risk of war and we've taken the threat down by bringing the temperature down by beginning the set of discussions and they've stopped missile firings and nuclear testings and that's all to the good and we've gotten back the remains of some of the soldiers. that's to the good. we have our eyes wide open and there is a long way to go to get chairman kim to live up to the commitment he made to president trump and the demands of the world and the u.n. security council resolutions to get him to fully denuclearize and our team is fully engaged and there's lots of work being done and it isn't all visible to the public and we are fully engaged in the process and we understand the objective and economic sanctions will remain in place until we get there.

>> it sounds like you're saying that y es, he hasn't been fully honest yet. >> you shouldn't take anything away from when i've said and we have the patience and determination of the president's mission statement to us at the statement to make that happen. >> secretary, i'll leave it there. >> thank you, chuck. >> appreciate it. >> you bet. when we come back, a primary reason the democrats are feeling so confident about november and, yes, i just, like it's no longer enough to be fast. so it's no surprise that the company who built the nation's largest gig-speed network, is already moving-beyond. beyond wifi that just connects. to wifi that thinks about what your customers want. beyond the reliability you expect. to knowing that if the power goes out, business goes on. ♪ ♪ beyond chasing down network problems. to a network that shows you when and where there's an issue. comcast business. beyond fast.

>> welcome back. "data down load" time. over the past year you've been hearing about the democratic enthusiasm about the elections which are six week away. this year's primary turnout shows it's more than just bluster. in the house primaries, in the 49 states that have held them, there have been over 36 million ballots cast overall. that is up 54% overall from 2014 primary numbers.

and it's up 24% for republicans and a remarkable 89% for democrats. so if history is any guide, that big edge for democrats in the primary vote tallies could actually have real significance come november. consider 1998 and 2006. democrats had the turnout advantage by 1.2 million votes cast in '98 and 3.18 million in '06. both of those resulted in democratic gains in the house and '98 the democrats picked up fivesets and it was remarkable to gain in the midterm. 2006 it yielded a democratic wave as they gained 30 seats in the house and took advantage in the senate. similar for rep reps in 2010 and 2014 and it was the gop who had a massive edge in 2010 which turned into a huge wave for the gop and they picked up a whopping 63 seats in the house that year. that momentum carried through in 2014, as well, where they had a

smaller primary vote lead, but still gained 13 more house seats. so for the record, we're skipping the 2002 primary season and that was in the wake of 9/11. it didn't follow any standard patterns for midterm elections and what do all of these numbers say for 2018? the raw primary vote shows there is bigger than what they've had before and democrats have cast 20.6 million votes while the republicans have cast 16.3 million giving the democrats a 4 million plus vote advantage and it's that number that means something. that's in line with numbers from '06 and that's the last time the democrats flipped the house and flipped the senate. when we come back, endgame and the president versus the press. coming up, "endgame" brought to you by boeing, continuing our to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, who would have thought, who would have guessed? an energy company helping cars emit less.

making cars lighter, it's a good place to start, advanced oils for those hard-working parts. fuels that go further so drivers pump less. improving efficiency is what we do best. energy lives here. improving efficiency is what we do best. most kids today will have jobs that don't exist yet. the engine management systems coordinate with autonomous vehicles. financial data, so now we can predict the future. our new flexible propeller design. by collaborating with public schools on a program called p-tech, ibm is helping students build the skills they'll need for tomorrow.

revolutionizing. aerospace industry. it's an entirely sustainable approach. any questions? when you rethink education, everyone can put smart to work. ♪ traders -- they're always looking for advantages. the smart ones look to fidelity to find them. we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪

endgame brought to you by boeing. continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. back now with "endgame," and joining us with the panel is marvin kalk, and a former moderator of the program and author of a new book "enemy of the people," trump's war on the press and the new mccarthyism and american democracy. >> always an honor. >> pleasure. good to be here. >> let me read a quick excerpt from the book because you basically connect the trump and mccarthyier as. how stunningly, and they turn a blind eye and deaf ear to donald trump's unsubstantiated acquisitions and the parallels are powerful and disturbing and we saw the fight of the justice department versus the president rile up again this week. >> yes, and i think at the heart of it was the role of the press

and the role centrally of edward r. murrow at cbs because murrow was the leader of the pack. he was the best, most well-known journalist of his time and what mccarthy was doing was undermining the democracy and he decided he would take on his man and he was unafraid in the way he did it because there was a lot of pressure on him, corporate pressure and different kinds of pressure and they decided based on his experience in germany in the '30s that a democracy can be undone, the democracy is a fragile thing. it's based on ideas. it's based on people and if people lose faith in the ideas, the democratic structure itself can be undercut, and murrow was concerned that mccarthy was doing just that, and my gut feeling at this time is that president trump is essentially doing the same thing. >> jonah, fair argument? >> yeah. i'm not going to get into an

argument about edward r. murrow, i have different opinions about that, but i've made this to the extent that he plays this populist red shirt stuff where he insinuates things he can't back up where he plays passionately to his base and being tethered to facts. i think many times the press helps donald trump -- helps mccarthy. that's right. the press often makes it easier for donald trump to make the arguments stick and in terms of irresponsibly engaging and i don't think you can exonerate trump. >> it's only up to a certain point where the press helped mccarthy and is now helping trump. there is a point at which the heart and soul of the press in a free society comes into play and i think there are many illustrations right now of the press taking a role and fighting back. for 60 years as a reporter i was quite happy to cover the news and go home and not intrude my

opinion into it at all, but i've changed my mind now, and i think that because trump is essentially taking steps that undermine my democracy. in my view, when he demeans the press and cuts into the press and humiliates the press he is doing that to the essence of our democracy and it has to be changed. >> eliana, this is a case of if you are standing up for the democracy, is that bias? >> i think i have a bit more faith in sort of the durability of american democracy and the constitutional system, and i think we're seeing that in the midterms where the objective facts of the economy, job growth, wage growth are being overshadowed by the president and it's not benefiting his party which is slated to lose a tremendous number of seats. trump seems to be the single issue in the midterms and it's not good and if you look at what really the issues are from -- from paul manafort and michael

cohen to omarosa and the issues book, those are the issues that are going to the polls and ready to pull the lever on and it's going to hurt the republican party. >> running low on time. >> helene? >> i remember when i first got a job -- i'm not going to say how long ago with "the wall street journal," and i was told -- we were told at the time that as a reporter when you're presenting your stories you should have a point of view. you should not have bias, but your stories should actually say something. you've reported it out and now it's your turn to -- to speak to the reader and lay out the facts the way you choose, and i think that that is probably the best way to define what we should be doing right now. i think you can go too far on the one hand this, on the other hand that, but i think today, journalists should still have a point of view. >> i have to land this plane. >> marvin, you know this better than most that i'm running out of time. the book "enemy of the people" literally getting flash wardcar.

i'm in trouble. have a great week. remember if it's sunday

breaking overnight. a second aaccuser has come forward making claims against supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. bill cosby faces what could be a prison sentence that lasts until the end of his days. to a busy weekend of upsets. much more on the nfl tiger woods comes roaring back with his first tournament victory in five years. and a raccoon that thought it was more like spiderman, scaling a tall building. "early today" starts right now.