xfinity xfi gives you the speed, coverage and control you need. manage your wifi network from anywhere when you download the xfi app today. this sunday, confirmation fallout. brett kavanaugh wins a seat on the court in the closest vote since 1881. >> the ais are 50, nays are 48. >> i stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory, for our nation, our people. >> this, after angry testimony. >> this whole two week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit. >> angry debate. >> this is the most unethical sham since i've been in politics. >> anger at the fbi investigation. >> if that's an investigation, a

bleep investigation. >> angry protesters and a senate speech that sealed the deal. >> i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. >> what effect will this nasty battle have on the court, the senate and the november elections? joining me this morning, republican senator, lamar alexander of tennessee and from delaware. the me too founder, and actor and activist, melissa m, whose tweet started it. kasie hunt and the american enterprise stut and nbc news presidential historian, michael beechloss. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in

television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. in the end a closely divided country elected a closely divided senate which took a closely divided vote that has left the country, you guessed it, closely divided. brett kavanaugh was confirmed by the senate, 50-48 yesterday after the closest vote since stanley matthews, you remember him, confirmed in 1891. it pitted republicans against democrats, men against women, accused against the accuser and trump loyalists against trump detractors. though the fight is over, the bitterment is likely to endure and so are the questions we're left with. will kavanaugh's confirmation create a bigger than expected blue wave from democrats or republicans generating a republican come back. will the supreme court be permanently damaged by the way

brett kavanaugh made it across the finish line and his behavior last week and will he find himself the target of future investigations if democrats win back control of congress. it was for president trump. the supreme court, brett kavanaugh, christine blasey ford, ultimately confidence in the integrity of our political process. >> on this vote, the ayes are 50, nays are 48. >> the closest supreme court confirmation vote in 137 years ends a bitter fight over kavanaugh's nomination. >> they have encouraged mob rule. >> that's an investigation is a bull -- investigation. >> why don't we document water and see if he floats. >> he's speaking about left wing conspiracies. >> ultimately it was decided by

self proclaiming accecentrists. >> i will vote to con foirm judge kavanaugh. >> i do not believe it will be at this time. >> do you think there is a place for him? >> i'm just a good old west virginians. >> likely to deepen. at a rally in kansas last night, president trump declared victory. >> radical democrats launched a disgraceful campaign too disrupt delay demolish and destroy. brett kavanaugh is a man of great character and intellect. he's like a perfect person. for mr. trump, the kavanaugh vote has presented an opening to launch a new battle in the culture war weeks before mid-terms. >> it's a very scary time for young men in america.

>> and ridiculed dr. ford. >> how did you get home? i don't remember. >> are you 100% certain ford named the wrong person? >> i'm 100%. no doubt. >> we thought it was bad back in 1991. it's even worse today, the political climate and how women are treated. >> even amid the me too climate, you think it's worse now than back then? >> i can only go by what we've seen the past month. >> the next will be decided at the ballot box. some democrats are already promising investigations of kavanaugh if they are in control. >> if he is on the supreme court and the senate hasn't investigated the house will have to. >> republican and senate states mr. trump won are running ads to sustain this base energy the kavanaugh might produced. >> >> the liberal smear, they are doing it again, what we hate most about washington. >> meanwhile in the house where many toss-up races are in

suburban districts a number of democratic candidates are talking about gender and some making the issue of sexual assault part of their campaigns. >> i was lucky i was able to fight my way out of it. but i'm also six feet tall. i was walking with my keys between my fingers. >> joining me now is republican senator lamar alexander of tennessee. welcome back to "meet the press." >> good to see you. >> let me start by playing something dr. ford said at her testimony about her basic initial fear about coming forward and get you to react to it. >> i was calculating daily the risk benefit for me of coming forward and wondering whether i would just be jumping in front of a train headed to where it was headed anyway. >> that feeling she was essentially now being mowed down by a freight train. >> i can't put myself in her shoes. i can imagine anyone who

believes they were a victim of sexual assault first has that to live with and second, the difficulty of coming before a public audience, particularly one that large must be terrifying, as she said, i believe that. >> did you believe her? >> i thought she was credible. >> what does that mean to you? >> what that meant was if listening to her was all i had to do, i would have said, she's -- she seems to believe what she believes. that's not all i had to do. for example, this week, i went down for a week to read the fbi reports. i read six fbi reports between 1993 and 2018. 150 people interviewed about judge kavanaugh, in every case the interviewee was asked do you know of any instance of alcohol abuse, the answer in every case was no. there was no evidence by any of these people of behavior that had anything to do with sexual

impropriety, so you have to consider that. and you also have to consider the fact that the only person who remembers the alleged incident that dr. ford describes is dr. ford. the other four said, under penalty of perjury, that it either didn't happen or they didn't remember it. so you have to be fair about it, in a very difficult case. you have to consider that as well as her testimony. >> what do you think ended up happening. why do you think she remembered it this way? >> i don't know the answer. >> she said 100% she was 100% it was brett kavanaugh. >> i'm sure every sexual assault case usually is he said she said, except in this case it was he said she said they said. they were the witnesses she said were there all said it either didn't happen or they didn't remember it, one of whom is one of her best friends. >> i want to play for you something one of your colleague,

senator murkowski ended up voting no. here's what she said about this situation. >> i believe he is a good man, it just may be that in my view, he's not the right man for the court at this time. i also think that we're at a place where we need to be thinking again about the credibility and integrity of our institutions. >> this is the larger concern a lot of us are wondering about now and she also in her floor speech talked about the issue of public confidence the concern she has justice kavanaugh does not have public confidence. >> it would be hard to have public confidence if you go through an inquisition like he did, arranged by the democrats. if you go down and read six fbi investigations of him over 25 years, and see not just the bad things that were not said about him but the remarkably good

things that were said about him, you would be very glad he would be on the supreme court and it would be fundamentally unfair to allow people to make accusations against someone and by simply doing that, destroy their reputation and their opportunity to serve in public life. >> in the aftermath of this when judge kavanaugh was defending himself. he himself apparently admits he went over the line in some of the things he said. it was interesting to hear retired justice john paul stevens react to that. i want to play that sound for you and get you to react here he is. >> he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform full responsibilities. i think there's merit in that criticism. >> it's clear to me judge kavanaugh was concerned enough about this he wrote the op-ed.

is that enough? or does he need to do more? >> i think that's enough. someone said to me, my answer to that is, if you had a group of people deliberately trying to destroy your reputation with accusations you know aren't true and every rumor about you is the most awful kind of accusation, you're not going to sit there calmly and take that. you will defend yourself against people deliberately trying to damage and destroy you. that's what he did. i think the fact he did that is the reason he's on the court. i think if he had sat there and taken it the people would have been very suspicious. go back to those fbi investigations. >> you say he was in a box, that if he didn't deny outrageous -- >> all the people interviewed over 25 years said his demeanor was excellent. the american bar association said his demeanor is excellent. if he's under assault, he fights back. >> talk to me about the united states senate.

you did something seven years ago, you said, i will resign from my leadership post because you said, you can't be in leadership and work across the aisle, on one hand obvious and on one hand a bit disconcerting, when you admitted that reality. have things gotten better in the last 10 years or things gotten worse in the united states senate? >> they're worse. look at the senate like a split screen television. on one screen you would have seen kavanaugh trump tweets et cetera. on the other, half democrats, half senators passing landmark opioid legislation that affects millions of people. you would have seen record funding for biomedical research, science, technology, super computing the biggest increase in military in 15 years. you'd have seen a bill for flying making airplanes safer all in the past three weeks. the senate is doing a pretty good job in its problem solving capacity. >> but the one place it has a

problem is judicial nominations. let me ask you this. democrats, chuck schumer and kick durbin said if democrats get control of the senate they would consider restoring the filibuster. you were somebody who didn't want to see it go away in the first place. if it comes back, will you support keeping it for judicial nominations. >> wait a minute. we have never had a requirement -- the practice has always been that judicial nominations were approved by 51 votes. there's never been a supreme court justice who had to get 60 votes with the exception of abe fortus. even santa clara reince thomas was 52-48. chuck schumer was the one under george bush insisted george bush's nominees get 60 votes. >> obviously, it's one of these sides -- >> there never has been -- >> you want to see it restored, the 60 vote threshold to end debate which would force more consensus nominees. >> no, not for nominations.

we never had that. on federal judges in the history of the united states senate, no federal judge has been denied their seat by a 60 vote requirement, they've all been majority votes. i know because mitch mcconnell wanted to do it once and i stopped him by getting enough republicans to do it. >> what is the consequence of a judiciary made up of judges confirmed 51-49. >> if you consider the united states of america is a success, that's the right way to do it. ever since we had the united states senate with thomas never son judges have been approved with 51 votes. clarence thomas was 52-48. you could have required 60 votes but no one ever did. >> thank you for coming out and appreciate your views. good to see you. joining me from wilmington, from the other side perspective,

good to see you. >> thank you. good to see you. >> justice kavanaugh is on the supreme court. it's an election year, the subcommittee process was fleeing. he lied under oath. credible allegations of sexual misconduct. why did democrats lose all of those arguments? >> frankly, i felt like this process was unfair from the very outset. the way we were prevented from seeing literally millions of pages of judge kavanaugh's record from his service in the bush administration to the way the process went forward in the confirmation hearing, to some of how it unfolded last week. i'm focused looking forward how it is we can heal the senate after this bitter and divisive and partisan week or how we work to restore some of the legitimacy of the supreme court now that we have a seated justice confirmed by justice 50 votes without allegations against him having really been cleared. >> it seems as if you were

almost working as a go between to the undecided members, particularly obviously with jeff flake. were you trying to convince him to vote no? >> look, going into this, i knew jeff is a conservative. he wants a conservative supreme court. i knew that would likely be the outcome. i think there are good reasons to have doubts about now justice kavanaugh's candor to the committee and fitness to serve given his very partisan screen in the last hearing in front of the judiciary committee last friday. i wasn't trying to persuade senator flake or others not to vote their conscience and not to reflect their states and values in electing a conservative judge, i was trying to help him focus what legitimate questions there were about this particular conservative judge. >> let me get your response to senator collins floor speech in her yes vote. >> i have been alarmed and

disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless judge kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. nothing could be further from the truth. >> do you agree with her or do you think a different message was sent? >> look, i respect senator collins, she's a great colleague. we see this a little differently. i think the fbi investigation senator flake and i worked hard together to make sure happened this past week did not go far enough. in only interviewing, according to press reports, 10 witnesses who came forward, and not interviewing dozens of corroborating witnesses who tried to get in touch with the fbi who dr. ford offered to the fbi, i don't think this investigation went far enough and i don't think the members of the committee and senate who had to make a final decision yesterday, had all the facts in front of them. in that regard i don't think we did enough.

chuck, i do think one of the big things that came out of this hearing was that thousands of survivors of assault who had kept to themselves for years or decades very painful experiences, did come forward, and there are things we can and should do on a bipartisan basis to respect and hear and act on, the oceans of pain that exist in our country from long buried tragic experiences of assault to try and change our culture and try and change our country. >> do you believe that the initial presumption in a situation like this is to believe the victim at all times? >> i think it's important that we change our country's culture to one where we believe victims of sexual assault who come forward. that wasn't the case for most of my life. most victims of sexual assault didn't come forward because they thought they would be shamed or ridiculed, and ultimately disbelieved. i think one of the biggest tragedies of this past week was

to watch the president of the united states publicly mocking and ridiculing dr. ford. his initial response which was to say that her testimony was credible and compelling was where he should have stopped. but to instead turn it into a campaign rally or event where he was mocking her i think really brought this entire conversation down and really was a low mark in his presidency. >> but you went a little further than others have said, many backing now justice kavanaugh said he ought to be treated as if he's innocent until proven guilty. you disagreed. you said, no, the burden is on him to disprove the allegations against him. there are a lot of people that hear that going, whoa, wait a minute. >> right. >> i'm guilty until proven innocent? >> let me speak to that, chuck, if i can. this is a confirmation hearing. no one is entitled to a seat on the supreme court. it's not a criminal trial, it's more like a job hearing, more like a job interview. the president has a whole series of credentialed and qualified

conservative judges from among whom he could choose to put someone forward to the senate of the united states for confirmation. if there are credible allegations against this particular nominee, and if this particular nominee, in his confirmation process conducts himself in a way there are real questions about candor, partisanship, fitness, i think it's appropriate for the committee, the senate to say, perhaps a different nominee is the right one. if you're considering someone to be president of a university, ceo of sa compaa university and a sunday show, it would make sense to take steps back to investigate them and see if you can resolve them. that's why i was happy senator flake took a tough step last week and asked for an fbi investigation. >> let me get your comment about earlier this week when he believed things changed in this

whole kavanaugh debate. take a listen. >> i think this process changed dramatically when mr. avenatti entered the picture. i think a lot of people, including my democratic colleagues felt like then at that point we had gotten into the foothills of preposterous. >> he was referring to lawyer michael avenatti, who is thinking about running for president, who ended up representing somebody whose allegations have not been seen as credible as the other two allegations. do you agree with his political assessment there, that the avenatti's entrance into this sideshow sort of diluted everything? >> i certainly like senator kennedy's turn of phrase, the foothills of the preposterous is going to end up being a memorable phrase. i do think he is correct there was widespread response, certainly on the republican side these were not credible allegations. i tried to focus my questioning

of judge kavanaugh on things directly related first to his judicial philosophy, his extreme views on presidential power and liberty and ways i think he will overturn justice kennedy's most recent decisions and focus on fitness and candor. i think what was important about the last two weeks was trying to find a bipartisan focus on facts. the larger question, how do we move forward? how do we heal the divisions in the senate. >> i take it if you're talking that way, the house democrats talking about reinvestigating kavanaugh if they get control of the house, possibly looking at impeachment. what do you think of those pledges coming from some house democrats? >> i think that's premature. we are frankly just less than a month away from an election, folks who feel very strongly one way or the other about the issues in front of us, should get out and vote and participate. there's only ever been one

justice that's been impeached. i think talking about it at this point isn't necessarily healing us and moving us forward. the senate's role in our politics is not to just reflect the country but help heal and lead the country and that's the course we should be on. >> senator coons, democrat from delaware, thanks for coming on. >> thank you. when we come back, is there any way to heal these wounds from this confirmation fight and how mi ♪ ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ♪

who transition out of the u.s. formilitary every year...ers ...one of the toughest parts is the search for a job that takes advantage of the skills you've gained while serving. you can now search with the phrase 'jobs for veterans' directly on google... ...and then enter your military occupational specialty code. google brings together job openings from across the web that match the skills you gained in your military role. just click to apply and use your experience to guide your future. 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.

♪ can i get some help. this is america's energy era. watch his head. ♪ i'm so happy. ♪ whatever they went through, they went through together. welcome guys. life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. welcome back. panelists here, nbc news, presidential historian and author of "presidents of war." and from the enterprise stut and kasie hunt host of caseykaise d. and much relieved from the miami

hurricanes. one good thing object our friends left and right, they do agree on one thing, a broken senate. here are republicans talk about this process. a sad charade. embarrassment to the senate. horrible process, lisa murkowski. almost rock bottom. hit bottom and started to big. process has been bad. failure of this body. a sham process. chuck schumer, one of the most sordid processes. there's some unity in the united states senate. >> a unity in that it's all a mess. i've been covering congress 10 year and struggling to remember a point that feels lower than this one. i think there are very real questions among the people most committed and senator coons you just talked to i would put in that category and republicans in that category as well. people have real doubts about what the role of the senate is going to be going forward.

there's a lot of people you can blame for that. your line of questioning about judicial nominees is one of them. it started with democrats in harry reid when he took away the filibuster for circuit court judges and got lower when mitch mcconnell did it for the supreme court nominations. i wish i could say it won't get lower. >> if you look back to ruth ginsberg received over 90 votes and another unanimous and it's like we moved the bar how we confirm consent. and we have to figure out how we're going to redefine it and live within those parameters. lastly, i was for a swing vote, for somebody to replace anthony kennedy, who would be like anthony kennedy. there is some potential candidates for that. i don't know that advice and consent would allow you as a

senator to try to enforce that kind of thing. it's complicated. >> danny, i think the days of a swing justice are gone, right? it will be which ever party has the senate and presidency will probably put their side on. >> at the outset, that's absolutely true. we saw with john paul stevens, there's a lot of growth in office among justices. >> i think the federalist society is trying to bring an end to that. >> we've just been talking about the fact chief justice roberts is one people view a lot as a potential swing vote. these are people of great intelligence, great integrity, great legal depth. the notion they are incapable for political reasons of looking at evidence, looking at the constitution and drawing proper conclusions is wrong. this process, apart from anything else, has demeaned the court, not by putting justice kavanaugh on it but by

discussing the court as if it is a play thing of national politics. >> michael, bring that historical perspective to that. it's not the first time we had this with these fights with the court. i do think now there is this perception, oh, those robes are red and blue, they're not black anymore. >> it has gotten really ugly. i was looking back at clarence thomas, 1991, not an exact parallel and allegations against him were actually milder than those against now justice kavanaugh. that was a time that there was huge animosity toward clarence thomas and there was a discussion actually at the time, that perhaps the court is getting political and this is -- sometimes history really does rhyme. the thing i really missed yesterday was 1991, the kay that clarence thomas was confirmed, george h.w. bush, president of the united states said, this has been ugly, this is really a time for healing, i'm going to try. clarence thomas came out on the front step of his house and said the same thing. there shouldn't be anger, i

thinks there should be an age of healing. >> let me put up something amy walter wrote, my friend at the cook political report. this battle isn't unique to the trump era. simply the latest in a never ending war by both sides to justice their partisan behavior. voters aren't making distinctions on policy or procedure or hypocrisy either, they rally behind their team and rally for war in the future. essentially the body politic left and right has actually embraced the trump style of politics. >> i think that's absolutely true. you saw that when you saw lisa murkowski go to the floor after she voted no and there was nobody hardly in the chamber watching her and nobody to applaud her. she was the one who took the stand and said we need to be viewing this differently. there aren't many republicans who are doing that anymore. even those giving lip service to

civility, ben sasse, jeff flake, first of all, what will they actually do? will they run against the president? seconds of all, will there be any voters constituency behind that. i'm not convinced. people have embraced this president from top to bottom. i think the deeply personal nature of the opposition to this, i just -- i truly wonder if the republicans party realizes how this is going to play out over the longer term, with the way that women have felt about this. there were people i talked to day in and day out who really felt as though this was the highest levels of our institution doing exactly what they have been fighting against, they came forward and told their stories and the institution said to them, you don't matter. >> listen, dysfunction had begun before donald trump got to the white house and the congress. it's reached new levels. the appeal to people's lower instincts by both bases have caused things like violence in the streets, demonstrations on

both sides that go beyond the pale. there's a recent book that came out about america from 1830 to 1860, "a field of blood," how that led to a civil war in america. i'm not sure we're not leading to a cold civil war and i'm not too sure during the trump era things won't get worse. we as a nation need to figure this out. >> i'm here to promote his book. a book just showed up yesterday at my house. i ordered that book because i want to read it. >> i agree. i understand there was a lot of unhappiness about the vote. the notion that one person or one spokesman speaks for all women or all women were appalled by this. i can tell you i was appalled by this because the notion somebody can bring down somebody's career on their word alone is the kind of license in our society i think is hugely dangerous. for mothers who have young son, can look at them going to school and anybody can bring them down. what kind of precedent are we setting? what kind of agency are we

denying women? what kind of action are we taking against people who are survivors of sexual assault and who have been hurt by this because someone who wasn't really credible stood up and didn't have the corroborating evidence from the people she suggested she had it from. >> i think the perception from some of these women that -- chris coons made the point about the job interview. many women as they grow up they're sent a message, you bet dear it cleaner and better than that guy. if you're the one who screws up you will pay the price. there was the sense that judge kavanaugh in his life never had to face that kind of consequence. >> i will pause it here and we will get another discussion on the "me too" movement on the other side of the break. the woman who founded the "me comcast business built the nation's largest gig-speed network. then went beyond. beyond chasing down network problems. to knowing when and where there's an issue. beyond network complexity.

to a zero-touch, one-box world. optimizing performance and budget. beyond having questions. to getting answers. "activecore, how's my network?" "all sites are green." all of which helps you do more than your customers thought possible. comcast business. beyond fast. not long ago, ronda started here. and then, more jobs began to appear. these techs in a lab. this builder in a hardhat... ...the welders and electricians who do all of that. the diner staffed up 'cause they all needed lunch. teachers... doctors... jobs grew a bunch. what started with one job spread all around. because each job in energy creates many more in this town. energy lives here.

so, they say that ai is the building block of the future. super. but today you're building wind turbines. morning sir. chief, the blade isn't passing quality gate. that's why you work with watson. i detect frictional loss on the midspan. it can detect the tiniest defects from just a few images to help production stay on time and on budget. i optimized the fiberglass finish to reduce frictional loss and maximize airflow. i was also part of the maximizing. for ai that can do more with your data, choose watson. hello. the best ai for the job.

welcome back. it was the tweet heard around the world. one year ago the "new york times" ran its front page story about movie producer harvey weinstein's sexual assaults. one of the people reading about it was the actor alyssa milano.

if you've been sexually assaulted, write back me too to this sweet. she had kick started the quote #"me too" movement. and started by the actress. milano was easily seen on tv sitting behind kavanaugh. joining me now from southern california is alyssa milano and from new york, tarana burke. welcome to both of you. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having us. >> tarana, let me start with you and play the quote from ford where she talked about coming out and simply stepping in front of a train already headed to its destination. what are the repercussions of that? >> i mean, the repercussions are -- will remain to be seen. i think her stepping out was something that we needed to have happen in this movement.

it's been largely focused on hollywood and on individual bad actors. i think her coming forward really set the stage for survivors to have a different role in this movement than we've seen over the last year. >> alyssa milano, the journalist, sally quinn, wrote in her memoir last year about an attempted rape by now deceased senator, john tower, when she was a college student in the '60s. when he was nominated to be the defense secretary in 1989, she was asked about it and she declined to talk about it with the fbi. a reporter at ne new yorker asked her about it. let me play and let me show you what susan wrote. i called sally quinn, ne night before christine blasey ford's testimony to ask her what she thought about her own experience all niece later. she said, i could have been anita hill she pointed out but i didn't want to. i didn't want to ruin my life. nothing has changed since anita hill. not a damn thing.

is she right. i think a lot has changed and a lot hasn't changed. yesterday, we may have lost a political battle but i do think we are winning the cultural battle. often, i don't fight for the win, i'm fighting so that generations don't have to deal with the abuses of power we've had to deal with. in a respect, i think she is right, but i do think there is a lot going on. i think this cultural shift that we're feeling, this collective pain that we're feeling from survivors coming forward is going to be able to be translated into a collective power. to say that we're not going to be silence any longer. >> tarana burke, susan collins said she was really angry at the leaker about this story, it forced dr. ford into the public square and maybe she wasn't ready or maybe it wasn't handle right. do you think the united states senate, in particular, senator feinstein, didn't handle this correctly from the outset and

made dr. ford more vulnerable than necessary? >> i wouldn't say she didn't handle it right. she followed the leadership of the survivor. people shouldn't have to be forced out of -- to tell their story. if she asked for privacy, i understand why senator feinstein decided to respect that privacy. i think this is really indicative how we don't understand in this country the life cycle of a survivor, and what it takes to actually mount up the courage to come forward, particularly in a situation like this. i think it was handle fine. i wish that after it was revealed and after it was leaked it was handle better. >> alyssa milano, i want to get you to respond to what emily wrote in "the atlantic this week. the problem with #believesurvivors. even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully and recognize

the potential lifetime consequences. and if the end is the search for truth, it is justice for religion. >> that's not what it means. >> what does that mean? >> i'm sorry. when we say believe survivors, it's not believe them without investigation, believe them without interrogation, we have set a precedent in this country of not believing -- thinking women in particular are lying when they come forward with these allegation, when people come forward with these allegation. the mantra about believe survivors, can we start with the premise people do not often lie about the pain and trauma of the pain of sexual violence. if we start with that premise and believe it's true, then you can have an investigation and interrogation of the facts and that kind of thing. this is not to say believe people blanket and don't investigate and don't do anything else besides believe them. >> i also think -- i also think that right now, we are defining what due process looks like in this type of situation because

we've never really defined it before because women haven't come forward. we do need to have due process, what does it mean to have a fair investigation in these processes so we can move forward, so we can change the cultural and societal systemic institutionization of sexual abuse and assault. >> alyssa let me get you to react to something brett stephens wrote. i would rather be accused of murder than sexual assault. one can think of excuses for killing a man, none for assaulting a woman. but if that's true, falsely accusing a person of sexual assault is nearly as despicable as sexual assault itself because it inflicts harms that can last a lifetime. >> these numbers are so low, as far as false accusations and women coming forward, they're from 2-8%. that's not taking into account

70-80% of sexual assault is actually not reported at all. so what we're looking at is very very small numbers. also, there's no gray area with murder, like, you don't like maybe -- you know, commit murder or maybe not. there is very distinct lines drawn. we're trying to do is define what those lines are so we can move forward in a way that is not hurtful and not more in support of people that abuse their power than those that are being abused. >> all right. i will leave it there for now. tarana burke and alyssa milano, thank you both for coming on. alyssa milano, i know you had to get up extra early on the west coast, so thank you. >> you're worth it. >> you're worth it. why ron! soh really? going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them highest in investor satisfaction

with full service brokerage firms...again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management.

(seriously, that's what we call tit. officially.all a huge drag. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ 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. ♪ welcome back. data download time. democrats hope to take back the house this november. if they do,hey have to overcome the advantage republicans have created for themselves through the process of gerrymandering, redrawing

district lines to have advantage. a couple ways to do it. they can pack voters in a smaller number of districts or by fracturing them into many districts to weaken their collective power in any one district. how does this play itself out? take the 2016 congressional elections. of the votes cast by major party candidates. republicans held less than a one point edge. 50.4% to 49.5. but republicans walked away 241 seats. that is a large seat advantage despite a less than one point edge in the house popular vote. here's how this dynamic unfolded in the state of pennsylvania in 2016. republicans had 54% of overall congressional popular vote and ended up with 13 of 18 seats. and democrats captured the

majority of seats but due to gerrymandering -- republicans captured -- but too many. statewide, 51-49 over republican yet because of gerrymandering, republicans were still able to capture the same number of seats, 13, to be exact, in the state. earlier this year, this map was thrown out by the state supreme court. with a new map, there are seven seats ranked as competitive including four actually leaning towards democrats right now. those four flip, the pennsylvania delegation becomes more evenly split something the popular house vote will likely support on election night. when democrats are in power, of course, they do the exact same thing. look at the state of maryland and how they did that. after the republicans 2010 tsunami election, they held the reins of many state capitals

around the country and how they got to draw the line and how we should keep an eye on statehouse governorships in november and will redraw the lines three years from now in 2021. back with the end game and the kavanaugh effect on the mid-terms. coming up, "end game," brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to protect, explore and inspire.

every road in the world is now an information superhighway. and the car has become an accessory to the smartphone. ride hailing, car sharing carpooling... mobility services are proliferating. and there's a new generation who don't seem to want to own cars in the first place. it all means massive disruption to the car industry, cities, businesses and investors. ♪ 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

"end game," brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. >> back now with "end game," the real obsession in washington, what kind of effect does kavanaugh have and where we might see it. four races to show you examples before kavanaugh and after. first, missouri, before the kavanaugh allegations and hearings, the race was tied. after, the race is tied. let's look at montana. before, tester with about a two point lead there. most recent poll since, tester with a four point lead. no real change there. let me go to darker red states. tennessee, fill bredesen had a lead before the hearings and now marsha blackburn, republican with five, a big swing there.

north dakota, before kavanaugh hearings began, after, now double digits, 12 point race. is this how your party sees it, whatever you think of it, this has fired up the base? >> here's how we see it. we see it as having secure dissent of majority in november 2018 for all the reasons you have stated. pretty much done, democrats won't win the senate? >> they will win a couple seats and five or more competitive seats, i don't see it happening. in the house, 23 seats republicans hold hillary clinton won, i think that will help democrats. i'd say a toss-up, i think the majority is likely to be democrat now, leaning democrat, in spite of the things you stated regarding pennsylvania, which is very fascinating. >> kasie, is that the view on the hill, basically this is

helping republicans in the senate and only making it's easier for democrats in the house? >> that's the emerging conventional wisdom in a place like tennessee, i've spoken to both senators from tennessee about this briefly, there's a sense it helped marsha blackburn there. one thing for democrats to take away from this as well, mitch mcconnell called the protesters a mob and he said the mob was able to do what i couldn't do by myself, which is get republicans energized and invested. what was a clear win for democrats on enthusiasm is now definitely something of a toss-up. in the house, you could be looking at instead of 23, 24, 25 seat majority for democrats, you could be looking at much higher numbers that could have pretty significant implications. >> danny, we were talking about something else earlier in the break, i want to bring in here, how the president has transformed not just his party but this entire town. everybody now conducts politics in his image, fight fight fight,

deny deny deny, take it to your opponent, whatever it takes. >> yeah. i don't think this is a word but the vulgarization of something that was pretty vulgar to start with in american politics. it's really unbelievable. donald trump has not been isolated by his style or his manner or his antipathy towards so much of the political landscape, rather, he has just -- he's taken them along with him. to the irony, just to come back to the mid-terms for a second, the irony is i think people even almost two years into donald trump's presidency, don't understand what helps donald trump. this kavanaugh stuff, the reaction to it -- >> helps him. >> -- helps him. >> he was the big winner here. michael, i want to transition to your book. you said, how do we transition to your book. the president has to do two things, appoint supreme court justices and go to war.

your book, as a front page story you get a scoop in the "new york times," that's pretty darned good, sounds like you did interesting historical digging. this is about a nuclear response, general westmoreland, as if to add to his legacy, apparently wanted to bring nukes to the vietnam war. >> and lbj who obviously made so many terrible mistakes in vietnam, he tells wes moreland, i don't want nuclear weapons in south vietnam, this could be the ends of the war, get them out of here and the documents came out the last couple of years. >> if the president brought you in to brief him on his book and said i want you to read it and what could he learn from it, what do you hope he could learn from it? >> number one, the saga of what it's like to be a war president,

the marriages of these presidents, emotional breakdowns, where they live. more important, what i would like to say to him, remember, know president should start a war for political reasons. in president trump's case, he would send out tweets in 2011, warning americans, watch out, president obama is going to start a war to win the next election. not a great idea for a president to connect those two things. >> "presidents of war," michael, congrats. before we go, i want to remind everyone today we're kicking off the second annual "meet the press" film fest. tickets are sold out in washington but you can see most films online. or you can check out nbc news on demand if you cut the cord here, it's on your cable box if you haven't cut the cord, apple tv, fire tv or roku. that's it for today. see you next week this week,

leadership advice. from a young ceo who's never been a follower to a silicon valley fixture, former yahoo chairman of the board, maynard west. plus, the key to curiosity and the study of horseshoes with economist gary smith. our reporters jake ward from al jazeera and barron's john schwartz. this week, on "press:here." >> good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. when you think of a silicon valley start-up ceo, you usually think of someone like the fictional richard hendrics, the ceo of pied