president trump was sworn in on january 20th. by january 31st, just a week and a half later he was announcing his first nomination for a justice on the u.s. supreme court. didn't even make it two weeks into being president. that neil gorsuch nomination came so quickly after trump was inaugurated because that supreme court choice was essentially gifted to the new president as a spoil of the 2016 election, as a bonus prize that he won along with the presidency. after justice scalia unexpectedly died in february 2016, the republican leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell announces that same day, the day

scalia died, he said this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. that was in february of 2016. for the entire duration of 2016, the republican led senate refused to even think about president obama's nominee. they didn't hold meetings with merrick garland, they didn't hearings, let alone a vote. republicans holding the seat vacate for over a year so president trump could nominate a justice instead of president obama nominating one. that's the remarkable and unprecedented way that donald trump got his first nomination for the united states supreme court. well, now we have started the battle royale over president trump's second nominee for the court. just like the first one, the gorsuch nomination came with that unprecedented twist because republicans held open that seat so the democratic president couldn't advance a nominee, now

with the second nomination, there's ans a historical unprecedented twist, too. >> why did the president stick with kavanaugh? because he's worried. that mr. mueller will go to the court and ask that the president be subpoenaed and ask to do other things necessary to move the investigation forward and president trump knows that kavanaugh will be a barrier to preventing that investigation from going there. >> senator chuck shum sert senate democratic leader. he said today actually he said even before president trump picked his nominee last night, chuck schumer was already on the record saying no nomination -- no nominee should be considered until after the november elections. that was the standard the republicans set for the last supreme court vacancy. they should follow it for this one too no matter who trump nominates. now trump has announced the name of his nominee, brett kavanaugh,

chuck schumer today and many other democratic senators, now they are raising concerns about whether cav anyhow specifically might have been picked in part because of his stated views on whether a president ought to ever be indicted or even criminally investigated. were those stated views on the record from judge cav anyhow seen by the white house as a potential get out of jail free card for the president in case the mueller investigation ends up putting the fate of the president in the hands of the supreme court. so the democrats had lots of objections to their being any consideration of any nominee consideration of any nominee before we got kavanaugh named. now that he has been named as the nominee, they have some very specific objections to him on a number of issues, but including those that relate to the mueller investigation and his stated view of how a president should

or shouldn't be investigated or treated as part of a criminal matter. so we'll have lots more on the kavanaugh selection coming up in this hour and the grounds on which this will be fought, as well as the surprisingly rich hust of fighting that has happened about brett kavanaugh in the past. one of the things that widely understood yet is brett kavanaugh's previous confirmation hearings from the last time he was nominated to a judgeship and had to be confirmed to the senate, those hearings were so controversial and so heated that the controversy actually continued from those hearings, even after he was named to the court on which he now serves. the controversy around his last appointment as a judge provides a weird backdrop to all the belt way tongue wagging. when you look at his record, he looks like anything but an obvious choice. at least they were hoping for someone who could be easily confirmed. so we'll look at some of that tonight. to the extent that democrats are focusing now on how cav anyhow's selection might relate to the

mueller investigation and the russia scandal, an you should note today things got weird in the mueller investigation and the russia scandal. last week in preparation for his first felony trial, president trump's campaign chair requested for the first time a long delay in his trial. manafort's first felony trial is due to start in a couple of weeks. last week his lawyers put in a request to delay that trial until, hmm, how about november? they wanted a big long delay. we don't know why they all of a sudden put in that request for a long delay before the first trial starts. we do know right before they put in that request, manafort's lawyers also requested documents prosecutors had assembled as part of building their case against manafort, including for the first time a ton of information that the prosecutors and the special counsel's office

has obtained from rick gates, specifically from the electronic devices used by rick gates. the deputy campaign chair for a while. he was the co-defendant. he has split off and he's pled guilty and he's cooperating with prosecutors. last week all the information that prosecutors got from the rick gates electronic devices was handed over to manafort's attorneys. shortly after receiving all of that information last week, manafort filed this request with the judge that manafort's trial should be delayed for a long time, for months. don't bring them up until november. now, i'm not a lawyer. but i think strategically, it is probably not wise to go to the judge in your case and say, oh, my god, we just saw what they've got on him. please can we put this off for a really long time. that is not the argument they made to the judge in manafort's case. instead last week paul manafort's lawyers made this request for a delay in his trial

but they explained to the judge that the reason they needed the delay, the real problem they had was that paul manafort was unable to adequately prepare for his trial later this month because the jail cell he's being held in awaiting trial is too far away. it is too hard for his lawyers to get to and that is impeding his ability to work with his lawyers to prep for trial. from their filing last week. quote. "the northern neck regional jail is located approximately 100 miles away from mr. manafort's attorneys offices. it generally takes over two hours each way by car for counsel to visit with him. this unforeseen development has severely impacted the ability of the defense to effectively prepare for the upcoming trial before this court." the detention has made meetings for his attorneys far more time consuming compared to when he remained on house arrest and subject to gps monitoring in

alexandria, virginia. they conclude, because mr. manafort is no longer in ax andryia virginia where it was so easy to get to him and instead he is in this remote jail facility "the empty manafort cannot effectively prepare for trial beginning on july 25th." now, you will detect a little obnoxious snark in my tone when i address this. you are not wrong. i am being obnoxious and snarky about whether or not that was the real argument. whether or not the remoteness of paw manafort's jail cell was the real reason that he needed to delay his trial until november. the reason i am being a little snarky about that, a little suspicious of whether or not that's the real reason, is because of what happened next after they applied for that delay on that basis. today, this morning, surprise, the judge in the paul manafort case said sure. called his bluff. the federal judge hearing manafort's case in virginia, weighing this request to delay

manafort's trial because manafort is at this far away jail cell, the judge said effectively today, oh, that's the issue? your jail cell is too far away? no problem. i can solve that. i'll move to you a closer jail cell. the judge in manafort's case today issued an order relocating paul manafort from that two hours away facility in warsaw, virginia, to instead hold him at a federal lockup in alexandria, virginia, which is exactly the place where his lawyer said it was super easy to meet with him. so that was this morning. manafort gets his wish. he's moving to a closer jail cell that will alleviate manafort's complaint about why he needs to delay his trial. you get your wish. that was this morning. this afternoon, paul manafort that, no, thank you, i don't actually want that. paul manafort's lawyers filed a new motion this afternoon saying, actually, thanks but he doesn't really want to be moved to a jail cell closer to alexandria, despite what he said

before. quote, paul j. manafort jr. by and through counsel files this response to the july 10 order relating to his place of detention. in his motion to continue the trial, which means delay the trial, one issue mr. manafort raised was the effect of his detention on the pace of trial preparation. the court endeavored to address some of those concerns in its july 10th order by having mr. manafort relocated to the alexandria detention center. "after further reflection, issues of dance and inconvenience must yield to concerns about his safety and more importantly, the challenges he will face in adjusting to a new place of confinement. with these considerations in mind, mr. manafort respectfully asks the dourt remain in his current place of detention. wherever he respectfully request that he be moved and permit him to remain at the northern neck regional jail."

alexandria detention facility where the judge said that manafort could move to, that's a place that held like zacarias mousse. >> the 9/11 conspirator. everyone he thinks he could be held safely there, paul manafort thinks he could be held safely there. the president's campaign chair is asking the judge, please don't move him to this facility. he would prefer to stay where he is. never mind the previous complaint. his trial is due to start in a couple weeks. you should know that nothing else in the trial is going his way either. the same judge today also dismissed paul manafort's efforts to deny prosecutors access to evidence they seized from manafort's storage loughner virginia. prosecutors will have access to that evidence that they seized from that storage locker. he made a motion to suppress that evidence in his case in washington, d.c. now the judges in both jurisdictions have turned him

down which means prosecutors will be able to use what they took from his storage locker, what they seized from his search warrant. so that is the president's campaign chairman. he is the one american who has been criminally charged thus far in the russia scandal who hasn't pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. he appears to be getting to the very end of his rope now in terps terms of the case against him. and as that sort of strange turn in the paul manafort case was unspooling, that big never mind moment, things also unspoold even more weirdly for trump's national security adviser, mike flynn who we saw in person after he was ordered to show up in person at federal court in washington, d.c. over the last week or so, there had been confusion and some evident annoyance from the judge in flynn's case about whether or not prosecutors are basically done with him, whether they're ready to let him go ahead and be sentenced to wrap up his case. you'll remember he pled guilty

in december. i agreed to cooperate with the government. that means he has to cooperate as long as the government wants him to. it means his case can't come to a close, he cabinet get his final sentence until prosecutors say they're done with him and they give the judge then the opportunity to weigh the extent of his cooperation so the judge can decide how much punishment flynn ought to get. as of last week, it sounded like maybe that time was upon with us with mike flynn and that is a big deal. that's potentially important for the mike flynn case, the mueller investigation and for the russia scandal overall. if michael flynn was about to be sentenced, if they're done with flynn wouldn't be testifying at anybody's trial, that the government was done gathering information from him as a cooperating witness. so there was a little confusion in the court filings last week as to whether or not mike flynn was at that point. whether he was ready to be

sentenced which would be a landmark moment for this overall scandal. today judge summoned flynn to court personally along with the lawyers to settle that confusion. it turns out we got clarity based on the hearing. the answer is no. mike flynn is not done. he is not ready to be sentenced after all. robert mueller's prosecutors in the special counsel's office aren't done with him yet. in a back and forth with the judge in today's hearing, flynn's defense lawyer told the court bluntly, the government came to us and indicated they were not yet prepared to proceed to sentencing. the judge said that's fine. i don't have any problem with that whatsoever. none whatsoever. flynn's lawyer said, general flynn is eager to proceed to sentencing when that is possible but under the cooperation agreement, it is really up to the government to make that recommendation. the defense lawyer says, "general flynn does very much want to bring this chapter of his life to a conclusion." the judge says, "as does

everyone facing sentencing." and the defense lawyer says of course, your honor, of course. and the judge says right. so there was confusion about this. a lot of discussion about this when it dime flynn's case. the possibility flynn's case was wrapping up. what that might mean for the mueller investigation overall and whether it was wrapping up but it turns out we got clarity today. they're not clearing him to go ahead for sentencing. they are not done with him yet. then today on capitol hill, we got this from senator dianne feinstein. the top democrat on the judiciary committee. special counsel mueller's investigation has resulted in 23 indictments is, five guilty pleas and one prison sentence in only one year. confirming brian benczkowsky puts that investigation in jeopardy, "benchkowski refuses to recuse himself from the russia investigation. he also pushed for comey's

firing with attorney general jeff sessions is while serving on the in trump transition team. those are clear conflicts of interest. what this is about is a controversial trump administration appointment to a senior post at the justice department. we've talked about this nomination a few times on the show. it is now happening. this is trump administration's nominee to run the criminal division at the justice department. a super important job. super high profile job. robert mueller is famous for having been previous director of the fbi. before he was director of the fbi, he had this job. he led the criminal division at the justice department. the current director of the justice department, christopher wray, he was running the criminal division at the justice department. it's a very senior, very important, very hands-on job. you oversee all criminal prosecutions for the u.s. department of justice. you oversee hundreds of prosecutors. and those nuts and bolts responsibilities of this very

big job, those are part of why the trump administration's nominee for this job has been an odd choice all along. >> here's the question we ask. you are seeking the position of assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division with 600 prosecutors that you will direct. please tell the committee how many cases you have prosecuted as a lawyer, first civil cases. none. the answers? none. oh, well how about criminal cases? how many criminal cases have you prosecuted in your lifetime as a lawyer? none. how many motions have you filed before a federal court? none. wait a minute. you are being chosen to head up the criminal division of the

department of justice and you have no experience? you have never prosecuted a case? never? never once been in a federal courtroom? not one time? that's a fact. >> it is an odd thing for the trump administration to have chosen someone to lead hundreds of prosecutors in the criminal division of the justice department when that person has never in their life filed a motion in federal court. let alone tried a case. but this particular nominee in addition to that almost bizarre lack of relevant experience is also controversial for another specific reason. his name is brian benczkowsky. he's a former staffer to senator jeff sessions before sessions became attorney general. he was also part of the trump transition. when the trump transition was over, because trump was getting sworn in, he put in a request that he be considered for a job at the justice department.

he put in that request and then he left and he went back to private practice. specifically he went to work for a russian bank called alfa bank which at the time was trying to clean up its reputation after it appeared prominently in the christopher steele dossier about ties between the trump campaign and russia. and after computers were found you to have mysterious communications with trump organization's computers over a period of several months during the 2016 presidential campaign. those electronic communications between the servers and the trump organization during the campaign, those are as yet still unexplained. he was fired by alfa bank after he work in the trump transition to come in and help alfa to come in and clean up its image. to put a u.s. law firm stamp of approval on internal investigations that alfa bank commissioned to purportedly clear them of any wrongdoing in any association with the trump

campaign. but the time line here is kind of astonishing. so this guy is working on the trump transition. he then tells the trump administration he wants a justice department job. he leaves government service and goes to work on that whitewash effort for the russian bank, he exonerating it from its alleged role in helping the trump campaign collude with russia in a couple of reports that were not exactly exonerate bug they said they were. and then immediately after he helped russian alfa bank with their whitewash job, there was no collusion here, we weren't part of any funny business between the russian government and the trump campaign, immediately after he works directly and personally on that whitewash effort, he does in fact get a job offer from the trump administration. and it is not like they offered him a u.s. attorney job somewhere. they offered him a really, really big job. they offered him to run the criminal division at the justice department.

if he is actually confirmed, that will put him if a line of succession to oversee the mueller investigation if rod rosenstein ever gets fired or quits. today all republicans in the senate and conservative democratic senator joe manchin voted to clear the way for benchkowski to be confirmed to that job tomorrow. all democrats except joe manchin voted no, all republicans voted yes. that vote we expect will be tomorrow. and in the midst of all that tonight, the president has arrived in brussels for the start of a nato summit tomorrow. you might remember last year. at the nato summit, su might remember this tape of him shorveing this guy. can you rerack that again? pushes the guy out of his way. the president shoving his guy out of the way so he can walk in front of him. that's the leader of month a gag

grow. showing his character in a very visceral way. that is the nato summit last year. this year the expectation of our president, to be a wrecking ball among our allies is much more acute. up to and including the possibility that's being openly debated. that starting tomorrow, maybe president trump will announce the u.s. is pulling out of nato. or maybe he will announce something else that will otherwise try to blow that alliance apart. that would be the apex of the foreign policy dreams of vladimir putin and the kremlin. if anything like that happens. the u.s. senate tonight appeared to be spooked enough by that prospect that size, they voted 97-2 on a symbolic resolution on support of nato and our continuing role in it. between what is expected to be our president's stink bombing nato tomorrow and going to his one-on-one meeting with vladimir putin on monday, there is one other thing he will do while he's over there. president trump will be going to

the uk which not incidentally is in full blown political crisis right now. the conservative party and prime minister theresa may head a british government that very well may fall in the next few days in what continues to be a rolling ongoing and now spiking governance crisis in that country over brexit. the brexit vote in 2016 was, june 2016, it was as much of a shock result in britain as trump winning the presidential election in the u.s. was a few months later that same year. one of those shock outcomes blew up the united states as the leader of the free world in the west. one of those outcomes blew up europe. now it turns out we now know this much further down the line both those surprise elections in 2016 may have been secretly boosted by illicit russian money.

the main bankroller of the brexit campaign took as many as 11 previously secret meetings with russian government officials during the brexit campaign amid increasing questions about whether the source of the funds he used to finance the brexit effort might have been russia, president trump will roll into britain later this week after whatever he's going to do to nato at the nato summit tomorrow. all along the way no doubt racking up things to talk to putin about. this is not a time of -- i've heard people say this is a time of realignment in the world. it feels more like a time of rerailme rerailment. something things do fall part. trains go off the tracks. now is a good old-fashioned american battle over who gets to

sit on the supreme court. and for all the other unprecedented stuff we're going through, fighting who gets to sit on the supreme court is something we know how to fight over in this country. even if it has never before had these same stakes. fruits and veggies are essential to your health, but it's tough to get enough of their nutrients. new one a day with nature's medley is the only complete multivitamin with antioxidants from one total serving of fruits and veggies try new one a day with nature's medley.

well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call. your hair is so soft!e company. did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

we all want to know you know, the new, new thing. with xfinity's retail stores, you can now see the latest. want to test drive the latest devices? be our guest. want to save on mobile? just ask. want to demo the latest innovations and technology? do it here. come see how we're making things simple, easy, and awesome. plus come in today and ask about xfinity mobile, a new kind of network designed to save you money. visit your local xfinity store today.

>> this is the article from the minnesota law review from nine years ago that everybody in the country is memorizing today because of what it says about what the president might be up to when it comes to the supreme court. a 2009 minnesota law review article written by president trump's new nominee for the supreme court brett cav anyhow. "we should not burden a sitting president with civil lawsuits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. the president's job is difficult enough as it is. quote, the indictment and trial of a sitting president would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. but a decade before that, in

1988, brett kavanaugh wrote the congress should establish that the president can be indicted only after he leaves office voluntarily or is impeached by the house and convicted and removed by the senate. congress should give back to the president the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is out to get him. give the president the full power to act if he thinks someone is out to get him. we'll be looking at these words a lot as this giant fight unfolds ahead of us in this country. right around the time mr. cask anyhow's nomination was announced last time, we learned that -- excuse me, it was reported that trump's supreme court team have reportedly looked at brett kavanaugh's words on this subject while they were considering his nomination. they looked at his words on whether a president should be subject to investigation or indictment and how he should react to an independent counsel out to get him. they apparently decided, yeah, let's go with that one.

now democrats are looking at that same body of judge kavanaugh's work and they are coming to a different conclusion. democratic senator jeff merkley of oregon today, " donald trump is terrified of robert mueller. it's no wonder is he chose cav anyhow as his supreme court pick. he's someone who has argued that sitting presidents should be immune everyone prosecution and not be indicted and the president of the united states has the sole power to appoint and fire special prosecutors at will. joining is now, senator jeff merkley from the great state of oregon. >> nice to be with you. >> a lot of people are learning this part of judge cav anyhow's record. there's a lot to his record. i expect we'll eventually see millions of documents, e-mails, communications, not to mention his rulings in this confirmation process. why are you highlighting this particular part as a concern? >> we already have a president

who believes in a broad expanse of what his office is capable of. and now we have a president who is seriously under investigation for possible collaboration with a foreign power. it is ironic that he will be meeting with putin by himself very soon. at this very moment, he is nominating the candidate among his list for the supreme court who has the most expansive view of what the president is able to do. he has this vision that is more suited for a kingdom and a king than for a democratic republic and a president. and there's another clause in that article where he says that no judge, jury or prosecutor should be able to do what the constitution assigns to congress. so he is not just asserting some theory about what congress should pass in law. he's saying very clearly that only impeachment is the power to hold a president accountable. >> do you believe that this was

part of the white house's calculations? the president's calculations in choosing judge kavanaugh? and do you think that should be a subject of inquiry in the confirmation process? >> i think it was a factor. his team was pouring through the final four candidates trying to find out which ones had pros and cons in various directions. mitch mcconnell was not arguing for kavanaugh. he was arguing that would be a more difficult confirmation. yet the president chose him anyway. and what stands out for him? compared to the others? it's this fact that he doesn't believe that a president should be indicted that a president should be investigated and that a president should have the power to both hire and fire special prosecutors with or without accountability. that is misbehavior. so i think this looms as a significant reason that the president went this direction. >> senator, what can you tell us about the plan to contest this

nomination? obviously, the republicans have 51/49 advantage in the senate. what do you expect in terms of strategy within your caucus? and potential outreach across the aisle if there are moderate republicans who might consider taking a second look at this nomination? what should we look at going forward both in washington and around the country. >> >> we'll hear a lot of conversation about his views on health care. people are very concerned that the president has already decided not to defend the health care bill of rights, the provision that says if you have a pre-existing condition, you can get insurance at the same price as everyone else. and this no knee seems to share a similar view of challenging that. and certainly, of course, roe versus wade. there's a series of health care issues there. but then i think we'll see that when the republicans look at all

the documents from the administration on elena kagan, what goes around comes around. it is appropriate for the senate to have all the documents related to kavanaugh's service in the executive branch. that should be an extensive record that i think should be looked at carefully. and the senate wouldn't be doing its job if it failed to look at his writings that he conducted and his positions that he took in the time that he was serving in the administration. >> senator jeff america live oregon, thanks for being with us tonight, sir. >> great to be with you. thank you. >> we have much more ahead including to that point that senator merkley was making about the documents and materials and communications that senators will be demanding to see from brett kavanaugh's long life in public service. one of the things that follows him around as he heads toward a new confirmation fight are serious allegations that in his last confirmation fight, when he was last named to a federal court, he may have lied during his confirmation hearings on a very controversial matter. it created serious problems for him even after he was named to

the bench. that story follows brett kavanaugh into this confirmation process in a way we've never seen before with any other supreme court nominee, at least in modern history. we've got that story ahead. stay with us. we do whatever it takes to fight cancer. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com

when it comes to strong bones, are you on the right path? we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture, so with our doctors we chose prolia® to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems,

as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia. looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

by the time it made the news, it was pretty much already too late unless they were going to impeach him. yes, it had been a very, very controversial judicial nomination.

it took years for him to get through. but did he get through and then more than a year later, is when the news broke. more than a year after he had already been confirmed by the senate for a lifetime appointment as a judge, this news broke that he might have lied as part of getting himself there. quote, one of president bush's most controversial judicial appointees may have been less than forthright with congress at a crucial confirmation hearing last year. tils democratic senator dick durbin was one of the senators on the committee that ultimately oversaw this judge's confirmation more than a decade ago. he told npr, when the news came out that he felt perilously close to being lied to by that judge. now more than a decade later, the story of that judge and the senators who felt lied to by him in his confirmation hearings, that story is back in the news. the judge is brett kavanaugh, who is now president trump's pick for a lifetime appointment

on the u.s. supreme court. senators believe the last time he went through confirmation hearings in the senate, he appears to have lied to them about whether or not he had had personal involvement in a particularly controversial issue from the george w. bush white house. senators believed that to the point where one senator referred the matter to the u.s. attorney general, cc'ing it to the u.s. attorney for washington, d.c. essentially accusing the judge of criminal false testimony. and now he's up for a supreme kurt confirmation. how does what happened back then in round two affect what happens now in round two? hold that thought.

it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same. but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

happy anniversary dinner, darlin'. can this much love be cleaned by a little bit of dawn ultra? oh yeah one bottle has the grease cleaning power of three bottles of this other liquid. a drop of dawn and grease is gone. to put on our website? i mean i would have but i'm a commercial vehicle so i don't have hands... or a camera...or a website. should we franchise? is the market ready for that? can we franchise? how do you do that? meg! oh meg! we should do that thing where you put the business cards in the fishbowl and somebody wins something. -meg: hi. i'm here for... i'm here for the evans' wedding. -we've got the cake in the back, so, yeah. -meg: thank you. -progressive knows small business makes big demands. -you're not gonna make it, you're not gonna make it! ask her if we can do her next wedding too! -so we'll design the insurance solution that fits your business. -on second thought, don't...ask that.

i do. check out the new united explorer card. saving on this! saving on this! saving in here. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com some might call mr. cav anyhow the zelig of young republican lawyers as he's managed to find himself at the center of so many high profile controversial issues in his sort career.

from the notorious star r report to the florida recount to this president's secrecy and privilege claims, to post 9/11 legislative battles, including the victim's compensation fund, to controversial judicial nominations, if there's been a partisan political fight that needed a good lawyer in the last decade, brent kavanaugh was probably there. and if he was there, there's no question what side he was on. brett kavanaugh's nomination to the d.c. circuit is not just a drop of salt in the partisan wounds. it's the whole shaker. >> april 2004. senate democrats just baffled at the time that the white house had sent over president bush's staff secretary for a position on what is arguably the most important court in the country after the supreme court. it took the white house two years to get that nomination through because of fierce resistance to the nominee because of his background. it took so long they had to have a very rare second confirmation hearing on him in 2006 after he

was initially nominated in 2003. something happened at that second confirmation hearing that ended up being a really big deal. watch brett cav anyhow's answer here. it's democratic senator dick durbin questioning him about the administration's detention and interrogation policies. so this is the george w. bush era. this is guantanamo, torture. he was asked what he knew about a key architect of those policies. kavanaugh said he had no idea and he was not involved. >> senator, i was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants or -- and so i do not have any involvement with that. >> i do not have any involvement with that. it turns out that was not true. it turned out he had been personally involved in white house discussions about that issue, according to a report

published about a year after cav noou got confirmed to the d.c. circuit court. when the report came out, senator durbin wrote brett kavanaugh a letter. dear judge kavanaugh. by testifying under oath, it appears that you misled me, the senate judiciary committee and the nation. months later when he became chairman of the judiciary committee, senator patrick leahy actually wrote again and basically referred to those alleged misstatements by judge kavanaugh during his confirmation, referred them to the justice department for possible prosecution. he wrote, false testimony by any witness is troubling and undermines the senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties on behalf of the american people. my concern is heightened because the subject matter of the possibly false testimony was highly controversial and played a critical role in many senators' consideration of mr. cav anyhow's consideration for a lifetime appointment to the bench. mr. kavanaugh's responses to

written follow-up questions from senator durbin reinforced the impression that mrs. cav anyhow had no awareness or involvement in the policy of detainees until it became public. senator durbin told roll call this month that his office had no record of a response from kavanaugh to that letter that they sent him 11 years ago. obviously the justice department never prosecuted him. but dick durbin is still on the judiciary committee. democratic senator pat leahy is also still on the committee. are they going to resurface this is now? does this end up being a bigger deal now that kavanaugh is back in front of the committee he reportedly lied to? when he was before them last time, 12 years ago. joining us now, sherrilyn ifill, president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense and education fund. it is nice to see you. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> i wanted to ask about how you foresee the fight over judge kavanaugh's nomination? how you foresee it unfolding and

whether we should look to the previous battles over his confirmation fur a lower court as a sort of predictor in terms of how things are going to unfold here. >> well, i think, rachel, it is not a predictor because i think this will be so much bigger, so much more of a brawl. the stakes are so much higher, certainly for civil rights groups, for women and many others. the stakes are as high as they can possibly be. but think about this. this is a president who is under a cloud of investigation. you've talked about this, as have other guests on your show. many of the issues that are going to emanate from the mueller investigation may make their way to the supreme court. this is a president who's flirted with the idea of pardoning himself. so this whole process is already under a cloud. and the president nominates someone who as chuck schumer said has kind of been involved in all of the past sticky sticky controversies of politics. he was an thor of the starr report investigating president clinton.

you just described his role as an adviser to president bush and all of the issues that involve detainee mistreatment and misconduct. all of that now has to be pulled out along with ten years of decisions on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he stands before the mike last night, and the first words, given all of this, out of his mouth is something patently outrageous for a nominee to say. he opens his mouth and says that -- no other president has consulted more people more widely from more backgrounds than this president in trying to determine and get input on who the supreme court nominee would be. why would he say that? it was such a trumpian statement. it was something clearly that the president wanted him to say, and he said it. at precisely the time when he needs to demonstrate independence given the statements that he's made about whether presidents can be prosecuted and indicted and so forth. so this is off to a rocky start. regardless of what they want you

to believe, this is going to be a very difficult battle. the republicans have a razor-thin margin to deal with. what happened to judge garland looms over this process as the republicans try to take brett kavanaugh to meet with senators. we have to remember that these senators would not even meet with merrick garland, who is the chief judge of the d.c. circuit court of appeals. and we have this voluminous record. we have some of it. a lot of it we don't have. the e-mails that we want to receive. and we have to painstakingly look at the record of this nominee. particularly because the stakes are so high in terms of civil rights and women's rights and the course of democracy in this country but also because of the president, who is under a cloud of investigations. this is about the integrity of our democracy, the rule of law, the integrity of the court itself. so this is going to be difficult. it's going to be hard-fought. it's going to be long. anybody who's telling you this is going to rush through, that may be what mitch mcconnell wants, but that cannot happen.

if this is going to be a process that is true to the advise and consent requirements of the constitution. >> sherrilyn ifill, president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense and education fund. thank you for being with us tonight. i would like you to come back in the next few days to talk about one other element of this that's premature to talk about yet but it's going to come right in the next few days, which is the interaction of the legal and political fight here with what we're likely to see in terms of a protest movement in terms of direct action and people mobilizing on this issue. i look forward to having those conversations with you as we see this unroll. >> happy to be back. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. y hot water heater, she was pregnant, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege.

we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

the new united explorer card hooks me up. getting more for getting away.

traveling lighter. getting settled. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com

we've got one last story for you coming up tonight. it's actually an update on something that we led the show with. this is a story that if you saw it when it first broke you are going to want to see the update that i'm going to do next because that story has taken a complete 180 and totally undone itself since it first broke just a little while ago. that update. it's an important one. is next. stay with us. (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life.

♪ ♪ looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor. you like to be in control. especially when it comes to important stuff. like, say... your car. well, good news. the esurance app lets you keep an eye on your repairs when your car is in the shop. it's kinda like being there, without being there. which is probably better for everyone. that's insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company.

click or call. 2:00 p.m. this was the headline in the "wall street journal." "mike flynn joins global consulting firm." really? mike flynn, trump national security adviser, who is

criminally charged, pled guilty, is now awaiting sentencing, not holding back. he just got a new job. his new employers are very excited. "general flynn will direct the firm's business development and provide strategic consulting on international military and peacekeeping activities." neat. that was 2:00. 3:16 p.m. we got an excited statement from general flynn himself. "i'm excited to begin this new phase of my career as stonington's director of global strategy. i'll work every day to put my over 33 years of experience to good use in helping companies and governments enhance the goals of freedom and liberty." freedom, liberty, old career, new beginnings. that all happened today over the span of about an hour. and then it unhappened. new headline. "mike flynn's lawyers say he is no longer joining consulting firm." "general flynn has not joined stonington and did not personally issue any public statement, mr. flynn's attorney said tuesday.

he was aware a statement was being drafted but he did not intend that it be issued at this time." new job? i didn't mean to -- mike flynn -- where did you get that? welcome to the new normal, where the sky is green, the earth is flat, and disgraced national security advisers publicly announce they have accepted new consulting jobs and then say they never did any such thing. totally normal tuesday. that does it for us tonight. see you again tomorrow. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. and if you were hiring michael flynn, wouldn't you want to know what his sentence is going to be now that he's pleaded guilty? what if he gets six months or a year or something? his plea bargain in. >> you can imagine the negotiations. so what are the personal time plans? is there flex time? and if i'm not able to telecommute will i still be able perhaps through the glass -- i know. it's awkward. >> business development in possibly a federal penitentiary. what do we know about that stuff?