our lives. think of it this way. we are all able to say tonight that we lived in the time of aretha franklin. gone today at the age of 76. that is our broadcast for a thursday night. thank you so very much for being here with us. good night from nbc news headquarters here in new york. ♪ baby just a little bit, just a little bit ♪ boy has there been a lot of news today. the jury in the paul manafort case met for just over seven hours today before they ultimately broke off deliberations and they passed a note to the judge. there were four questions for the judge on that note. we'll get some expert advice in just a moment from somebody who used to be the lead federal prosecutor in that district. the former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia. we're going to talk to that expert, the person who has had that experience. seasoned prosecutors who know

the district, who note judge, they can sometimes look at moments like that with the jury asking questions with those specific kinds of questions being asked. they can sometimes tell you what that might mean for how the trial is likely to turn out. so we'll have that coming up. i am super curious as to what somebody who might know, would think about that development today with the jury today. i'm looking forward to that. we know for sure tonight there's not going to be a verdict in the manafort case because the jury has gone home. that said, i can't help myself. i can't stop myself. even though we know there isn't going to be a verdict tonight and we have to talk about the questions and everything, there is one thing i cannot stop myself from doing. i just want you to hear exactly how the oddly compelling judge in this case, how he sent the jury home tonight. i mentioned they have a day of

deliberation and they stopped and gave him this note because they wanted to ask him these four questions. they all came back into the courtroom and the judge answered their four questions. and then this is what happened next. ready? quote, judge. all right. do counsel need to come to the bench for any reason. >> no, your honor. thank you. >> mr. downing, the defense lawyer, no, your honor. >> the judge turns to the jury and says all right, ladies and gentlemen, i'm also advised that you would like to cease today at 5:30 p.m. and return tomorrow morning at 9:30. am i correct? the jury, yes, your honor. the judge, okay, i will do so. it is now 5:20 p.m. so we will recess. you will leave your books and everything here in that room. the court security officer already lock everything up and maintain its security and then we will recess for the evening. now, it's always been important and it continues to be extremely important that you not discuss the matter with anyone or undertake any investigation on

your own by any means. put, if puck, i will try and you should try, to put the matter out of your mind. i think it will be easier for me to do because i have a boring dinner tonight. i would tell you where it is, but some of you might appear there. it's not even a restaurant. but put it out of your mind and i'll see you tomorrow morning at 9:30. thank you for your work in this matter. and then the jury is dismissed. the judge in this case is like, watching a parking lot where one person in the parking lot is trying to play bumper cars even though everybody is actually in a regular car. like, what is he talking about? i have a boring dinner tonight. it's not even at a restaurant. you jurors might show up. what is he talking about? i love court transcripts no matter what because i am a dork but i am going to miss these judge ellis transcripts more than the rest when this is all over.

okay. speaking of when this is all over, once upon a time, last year, the president of the united states confessed in an interview that he had fired the head of the fbi not because of any of the reasons his white house had publicly cited for that firing, not because of recommendations from other officials, that was the official cover story. no. he flat out confessed that the official cover story wasn't true. actually, he fired the fbi director, he said in an interview, because the fbi was investigating whether russia helped elect him and whether or not his campaign was in on that. >> i was going to fire comey. there's no good time to do it, by the way. >> in your letter you said i accepted their recommendations. so you had already made the decision. >> i was going to fire regardless of recommendation. he made a recommendation. he's highly represented, very good guy. very smart guy.

the democrats like him. the republicans like him. he made a recommendation. regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey knowing there was no good time to do it. and in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself, i said, you know, this russia thing with trump and russia is a made-up story. >> that actually happened a little more than a year ago. it was just -- it is surreal now but when it happened, it was just as surreal then as it still is now. >> back to james comey, your staff has been insisting all week that you didn't fire him because of his russia investigation. >> no. i didn't. >> wait, what? >> i fired him because of russia. i thought, he's investigating russia. i don't like that. i should fire him. >> and you're just admitting that. >> uh-huh. >> but that's obstruction of justice. >> sure. okay.

>> wait, so did i get him? is this all over? no, i didn't? nothing matters? absolutely nothing matters anymore? fine. >> michael chai and alec baldwin beak getting the truth more true than the truth. but you know, we can't, we have to refuse to believe that nothing matters. we can't accept that nothing matters. obstruction of justice is a thing. presidents are not allowed to do that thing. the only question we're living through now is how this president might get stopped from doing it. i think that's part of what we're still sorting out as a country 15 months after the president really did just tell a reporter in a live interview that that is what he had done, that he fired the fbi director to obstruct an ongoing fbi investigation into him and his campaign. that was 15 months ago. now it has happened again. in a story that interestingly, the "wall street journal" has

tried to bury online today, ever since they first published it. this is a heck of a scoop. they have already taken it off their front page. i don't know why. but report hes peter nicholas and michael bender did get this scoop. here's their report. quote, president trump drew a direct connection between the special counsel investigation into alleged russian interference in the 2016 election and his decision to revoke the security clearance of former cia director john brennan and review the clearances of several other former officials. in an interview, mr. trump cited mr. brannan as among those he held responsible for the russia investigation. brannan was director of the cia and the democratic administration of former president obama and one of those who prepped evidence to trump shortly before his inauguration that russia had interfered in the 2016 election. mr. trump said in the interview "i call it the rigged witch hunt. it is a sham.

and these people led it," he added. so i think it's something that had to be done. reading this in the "wall street journal," i feel like michael chai, like okay, so we got him, right. >> this is all over, right? no? nothing matters anymore? john brennan was white house homeland security adviser, he ran the national counterterrorism center under george w. bush, he spent 25 years at the cia, rising to become cia director in 2013. in his capacity as director, he was directly involved, personally involved with the initial response to the russian attack on the 2016 elections. he ran the agency right through the 2016 elections until the day of trump's inauguration which is when he retired. as such, president trump never got the chance to fire john brennan. now president trump is admitting in black and white that the reason he has taken away brannan's security clearance was

because of brannan's role in the russia investigation. a lot of the reaction to this today is that this is unique. this has never really happened before. but this isn't the same admission of obstruction of justice that we saw in the lester holt interview about james comey last year. james comey was leading the fbi while the fbi was investigating the russia issue. firing him in the middle of that investigation might logically have had an effect on the investigation. since at the time he was head of that agency. in contrast, john brennan is already retired. and with the exception of bruce orr who still works in a senior role at the justice department, all of the other senior law enforcement personnel who the president threatened and put on this list yesterday for security clearance revocation, they're all prior officialsnous, too. they're formers. they're not running anything

like when trump fired him. and i got that distinction. there is one part of this that you should know. which is what brannan himself was saying right up till this whole thing blew up yesterday about how he was using his security clearance these days. >> i don't know what's going to happen. they have a real flawed understandinging what security clearances mean. i've gone back to the agency a number of times to review my files so i can be prepared for congressional committee hearings as well as interviews by staff. i've never requested a briefing on any issue over the last year and a half since i left government. >> what he has used his security clearance for is to go back to the agency a number of times to review his own files so he can prepare for congressional committee hearings and interviews by investigative staff. so everybody is saying this is a

symbolic thing the president has done, right? maybe it is troubling but it doesn't necessarily have any material consequences for the ongoing investigations or for the president's legal fate. but from the president's perspective, think about this for a second. what if the practical effect of taking away a security clearance from a former official who was involved in the formative stages of the russian investigation is that you interfere with that former official accessing his or her own notes and files? his or her own materials? from former agency whereas those people worked during their time working on the russia investigation. according to brannan, that's something you need to do and that you might employ your security clearance to do if you're going to be questioned on these matters as part of ongoing investigations. look at the list. look at almost all the names on the list of people the president wants to do this to.

brannan, cia director during the russia attack. comey director of fbi during the attack. mccabe deputy director of the fbi during the russian attack. strzok, susan rice, national security adviser during the russia attack. sally yates attorney general during the russia attack. security clearances may not be anything they're using for their current work. but if they are stripped from their clearances or blocked from ever getting them again, what does that do for them to prepare for testimony and to testify if need be? >> we have good reason to think that a bunch of these people might have important things to say provided they can speak about classified material in a classified setting. >> do you believe donald trump colluded with russia? >> it is a question i don't think should i answer in an open setting.

>> miss yates, do you have any evidence? are you aware of any evidence that would suggest that in the 2016 campaign, anybody in the trump campaign colluded with the russian government or intelligence fashion in an improper fashion? >> and senator, my answer to that question would require me to reveal classified information. i can't answer that. >> on the flynn investigation, is it not true that mr. flynn was and is a central figure in this entire investigation of the relationship between the trump campaign and the russians? >> i can't answer that in an open setting. >> on january 24th, you just testified that national security adviser flynn was interviewed by the fbi about his underlying conduct. what was that underlying conduct? >> again, is i hate to frustrate you again, but i think i'm going to have to because my knowledge of his underlying conduct is based on classified information. so i can't reveal what that underlying conduct is.

>> at the time of your departure from the fbi, was the fbi able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the steele document? >> i don't think that's a question i can answer in an open setting. >> what was it about the attorney general's own interactions with the russians, or his behavior with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the fbi to make this decision? >> our judgment, as i recall, is that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. we also were aware of facts that i can't discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a russia related investigation problematic. >> i can't confirm whether or not those conversations regarding sanctions occurred. that would require me to reveal classified information. >> "the guardian" has reported

that britain's intelligence service first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between trump advisers and russian intelligence agents. this information was passed on to u.s. intelligence agencies. over the spring of 2016, multiple european allies passed on additional information to the united states about contacts between the trump campaign and russians. is this accurate? >> i can't answer that. >> general clapper? is that accurate? >> yes, it is. it is also quite sensitive. >> okay. let me ask you this. >> the specifics are quite sensitive. >> director, there is what is referred to as consciousness of gut evidence. that's when somebody lies about a material fact and that fact, the fact of them lying can be used against that person because it would be in essence an effort

to cover up what happened meaning if you were telling the truth, you wouldn't have anything to cover up. with respect to some of the contacts that you've referred to between russia and trump campaign officials, are you aware of any of those u.s. person who's had contacts with russia either making false statements about those contacts or failing to disclose those contacts? >> i think that's something that you can pursue in closed session. >> this list of people the president is targeting in terms of taking away their security clearances, that would of course wall them off from here on out from any classified information. given what they know from their previous involvement in the russia investigation, as senior law enforcement and senior intelligence officials, that might end up being a really important thing if and when this

whole scandal ever gets adjudicated. whether it is in a court of law or impeachment proceedings or whatever. keep in mind, when the president blurted out to the "wall street journal" in this interview that he made this list of targets, and he went ahead and revoked brennan's security clearance because of the russia investigation, he didn't tell the "wall street journal" that he did that because he doesn't like john brennan's recent criticism of him or any other people having spoken against him. he said explicitly, the reason he did it is because they had a role back in the day leading the russia investigation, what he called the rigged witch hunt. he is not after his critics. he is after the witnesses. the "washington post" reports just tonight that the president is gearing up to strip more security clearances from more people on his list. and then there is this. >> the other question that i have is, where does this end? what is to stop president trump

from, say, suspending the eligibility for access to classified information of bob mueller and his entire team? and they have to -- they can't operate without access to classified information. >> james clapper, long time director of national intelligence, he is facing having his own security clearance revoked by the president. he raised the prospect immediately upon getting this news last night that this opens the door to him yanking security clearances from special counsel robert mueller and his team of prosecutors and investigators. if you look at the mueller indictments thus far, particularly against russian intelligence and russian operatives, it seems way more than likely the people working in the special counsel's office have had to have clearance to their work as prosecutors on this case. senate intelligence vice chairman mark warn ser now raising the same alarm. >> i guess to me, this has an

eerie memory of an enemies list. these people are being singled out to have clearances revoked or in the process of being revoked, to me smacks ofninismo type practices of silencing anyone who criticizes this president. i wonder if it will lead to the president trying the take away mueller and his whole team's security clearances. this is clearly an effort to not allow the mueller investigation and for that matter our senate committee investigation to get to the bottom of there. there would be nothing this white house would do that would surprise me at this point. >> the security clearance raid here, this is not just talk from the president. this is action by the president. and number one, it may really have legal consequences if he is

targeting witnesses. if the people he's targeting will be witnesses in the investigation or in future investigations or impeachment proceedings. walling them off from classified information may affect their performance as witnesses. also, since no other president has done anything remotely like the before, we don't know where this will end now that he has started it. if the "washington post" is route tonight, brannan was just the first one, he was just the one to break the glass to get us all prepped for more to come. the number two on the senate committee and the immediate past director of national intelligence are both warning that this is as much in line with what the president has just done as anything else. why wouldn't he do that? but i think it is worth considering finally here, that the response to what's going on right now may end up being just as historic as the action itself. john brennan himself punching back with brass knuckles on

today in this op ed in which he uses a neat little double negative. the president's claims of no collusion are hogwash. do you see the double negative? he says there was no collusion? well no, to that no. that denial is bunk. the collusion happened. he said the only questions are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred and how many members of trump incorporated attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing money movement into their own pockets. the collusion, that took place. john brennan is apparently not cowed in the least by the president going after him in this unprecedented way that he has. we'll hear more from john brennan at this time tomorrow. he will be here in the studio tomorrow for an extensive interview.

it's his first live tv interview since this whole thing broke open. as i said, the response to what has just happened to brannan and the list the president has created, the response may be as much a part of history as the rest of this. including this. this remarkable gauntlet thrown down by admiral william h. mcraven. the super hero name, the legendary commander of jsoc. it infiltrated the navy s.e.a.l. team in pakistan to take out bin laden. this is not someone you would expect to weigh in on any ply matter whatsoever. oh, my god, has he. quote, dear mr. president, former cia director john brennan whose security clearance you revoked on wednesday is one of the finest americans i have ever known. few americans have done more to protect this country than john. he is a man of unparalleled integrity whose honesty and character have never been in

question except by those who don't know him. therefore i would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well so i can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency. like most americans, i hoped when you became president you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs. a good leader tries embody the best qualities of his or her organization. a good leader sets the example for others to follow. a good leader puts the welfare of others before himself or herself. your leadership has shown little of these qualities. through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and worst of all, divided us as a nation. if you think for a moment that your mccarthy era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. the criticism will continue until you become leader we prayed you would be. that's the whole thing. i would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security cleempbs, as well,

mr. president, so i can add my name to the list of people who have spoken out against your presidency. we covered the security clearance raid by the president last night as something that i said did have echos of nixon's enemies list from 47 years ago. when the nixon enemies list was exposed 45 years ago, it became a public point of pride in the watergate era. it became an honor to be hated and illegally targeted by this disgraced president before he was forced from office. i said last night during our coverage that the trump list of enemies, first published by the white house yesterday, might eventually be treated the same way. now with this from admiral mcraven, i have to admit that i did not think it would take less than a day. honestly, i just want to add, i don't know what happens after this. i mean, i know the next step here is that the president and presumably the fox news channel will now start to try slime admiral mcraven, the special

operations commander because of what he's done. i know that inevitably will be what happens next. but for the life of me in all honesty is, i don't know what happens of that. we're talking about going after admiral bill mcraven? i honestly don't know what happens once they inevitably start to go after him, too. aah! ...i would have said you were crazy. but so began the year of me. i discovered the true meaning of paperless discounts... and the indescribable rush of saving drivers an average of $620. why does fear feel so good? i fell in love three times -- once with a woman, once with a country, and finally... with myself. -so, do you have anything to declare or not? -isn't that what i'm doing?

♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma transitions™ light under control™ visit your vision source doctor to ask about transitions™ brand lenses nixonian. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price.

so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor.

this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's.

if paul manafort's defense lawyers could wave a magic wand, they would probably use it to mind meddle the jury noor thinking about one person and one person only as they try to decide whether to convict the president's campaign chair on 18 counts of federal felonies. but it is probably not who you think it is. it wouldn't be the star witness, rick gates. i don't think it would be the president, donald trump. if paul manafort's defense lawyers could get the jurors to think about just one person, it would be special counsel robert mueller. the reason it seems that way is because yesterday, paul manafort's defense lawyers kept bringing him up all over the place even when they weren't supposed to. this from their closing argument.

so ladies and gentlemen, we need to take ourselves, now you've got all the evidence and pull the lens back and begin to re-examine here. what have you seen in the way the case has been presented the way it has? let me point out saying there are a lot of charges of bank fraud. you're familiar with those now. the prosecutor went through they will. there's not a single bit of evidence that any of the banks came to the government and complained about a fraud. these are frauds that were discovered in the course of the special counsel's investigation of mr. manafort. they claim they're frauds but this is basically a group that has come along and looked at every financial angle, pored through documents and tried to find any place doesn't match up and they've done a good job of selectively pulling that information together, but it has been a selection. "to the extent that you have a problem at a bank, there's a process well, nobody went through with that process.

nobody came forward and said, we're concerned about what we're seeing here. not until the special counsel showed up and started asking questions. ladies and gentlemen, i submit to you if this were fraud, we would have courts across the country filled with bank frauds. people do not get prosecuted by typical justice department prosecutors when what they've done is had some issue about whether their property is being rented or personally owned and it changes. this is part of that going through each piece of paper and finding anything that doesn't match-up to add to the weight of the evidence against mr. manafort." not until the special counsel showed up and started asking questions. it's interesting. that is actually not an argument the defense was allowed to make to the jury. but they did it anyway. they kept bringing their closing argument back to the special counsel. normal prosecutors wouldn't bring this. the only reason this turned up is because this special team going through all this stuff trying to nail him. it's just because the special counsel's office is doing this.

they weren't supposed to make that argument to the jury and they did it anyway. after they did it anyway, the judge in the case tried to make the jury pretend they had never heard any of that because they weren't supposed to. the judge ended up instructing the jury to ignore any argument about the department of justice's motives or lack of motives in bringing the prosecution. so we don't know if the jury was thinking about the department of justice or the special counsel as they dlib raided for seven hours and 15 minutes today. we know they caused a lot of excitement when they sent a note to judge ellis with four questions. two really technical questions about financial terms. one sort of provocative question about reasonable doubt. also a request to have the indictment added to the exhibits. here's something to look forward to. today judge ellis said he will make the jury's physical note a part of the public record. so we will get to see their note as well. which probably means i will act it out. but after their first seven hours and 15 minutes of

deliberations today, what should we read into the jury's questions, if anything? should we be thinking about how this will ring for all the other cases that are connected to it? we know that manafort's defense team will be representing him at his next federal trial if d.c. next month. that one is already chugging along. there was activity in that case today. frankly tomorrow special counsel is due to be back in court giving the court their sentencing recommendation for good old george papadopoulos as well. as all of these move forward on different tracts. do they start to interact? and what do we make of those questions from the jury? hold that thought. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident.

liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort. new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 24-month financing on all beds. only for a limited time. sleep number. proven, quality sleep.

joining us now, chuck rosenburg, former u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia where the manafort case is taking place. also a former justice department and fbi official. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure. >> the jury came back after deliberating for just under eight hours today and they had four questions that they posed to the judge in note form. first of all, do juries often ask questions of a judge early on in the deliberations? >> they ask questions all the time. it is reasonably common for jurors to ask questions and always in note form. >> that doesn't -- does that necessarily indicate good news or bad news for the defense or prosecution? >> so it is a parlor game. we have little information to go on so we overindex on the information we have. we study the notes and we look at their faces when they walk back if and we try to divine

some meaning from notes and dresses and all those things that provide little meaning. >> we do know the content of the four questions. the jury asked, not in order but they asked for a definition of reasonable doubt. >> which is a very common question, by the way. >> why is that? >> because it is not apparent what reasonable doubt is. particularly to the lay men and women on a jury. if i had to fick one question that gets asked the most often, it is probably what the heck is reasonable doubt? >> the defense counsel talked about reasonable doubt a lot in their closing argumented to the point that they made a chart that showed you all the places where you might find reasonable doubt. so i think people saw it as a victory for the defense that the jury was asking about that term in particular because they made it such a center piece. >> here's what i want to know. is it one juror hung up on one count? on a reasonable doubt question? is it 11 jurors hung up on reasonable doubt on 1 counts?

the answer to those two questions matters a lot. but i've had that question in my trials time and time again. not every time but time and time again. and i think in every case we ended up with a conviction. that doesn't mean we'll have one here but i wouldn't overindex on it. >> in terms of the other questions from the jury, this has been discussed, sort of fought over before the jury got the case, was whether or not the indictment itself is something that the jurors could look at, whether it is an exhibit that they could look at and they asked, could they please have a copy of the indictment and the judge ultimately said no. >> i think they'll get a copy of the indictment. my understanding of what they wanted was tell us of all the exhibits now in trial and sitting on a big stack on our desk, which exhibits go to which counts. >> so they wanted an index. >> exactly. this is why during the trial prosecutors want the judge to permit them to show the exhibits to the jury during trial. we call it to publish it.

so there was some question that whether or not the judge had admitted stuff, he had, and whether he would permit the government to publish it to the jury and he did not. now you're seeing the ramifications. the jurors want a road map. what stuff goes to what count? >> this helps me. in terms of the way we've been reporting this. we focused around the intrigue of the federal savings bank and the supposed job offer to the secretary of the army, to the ceo of that bank, and a lot of most provocative physical evidence we saw, e-mails and such, including one to jared kushner where he said he was on it in terms of that job recommendation, we knew that we could see those pieces of evidence because they were published by the court. we couldn't tell if the jury had seen them. and it was the judge's decision you're saying to not show that stuff to the jury during the course of the trial. they have it now. so now they don't know which count maps to. >> and he properly refused to map it for them because then he

would be putting his seal of approval on to each of those exhibits and telling the jury which counts to consider them for. he says you have the stuff, the indictment, the exhibits, sort it out. >> wow. giving them extra work. i have a feeling i know how you'll answer this but when you were talking about us overindexing from the information that we have sort of extrapolating too much from the little bit of data that we have, is your best counsel here we should stop trying to figure out what the jury is going to say and just wait? >> it is interesting. when you're waiting on the jury which is an agonizing time for everybody involved. it's unavoidable that you do this. i found you really can't tell. if they send a note that says we are hopelessly dead locked, that's a pretty good sign. short of that, it really is tea leaves. >> i will keep reading them des put myself. >> so will i.

>> chuck rosenburg, former senior fbi and justice department official, invaluable asset for us here. we'll be right back. stay with us. paying too much for insurance you don't even understand? 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. esurance. an allstate company. i've been making blades here at gillette for 20 years. there's a lot of innovation that goes into making america's #1 shave. precision machinery and high-quality materials from around the world. nobody else even comes close. now starting at $7.99. gillette. the best a man can get. sharper vision, without limits. days that go from sun up to sun down. a whole world in all its beauty. three innovative technologies for our ultimate in vision, clarity, and protection. together in a single lens. essilor ultimate lens package. purchase the essilor ultimate lens package and get a second pair of qualifying lenses free. essilor. better sight. better life. at priceline, to save you money.ways like mixing and matching airlines to get lower prices on flights. oh, that's how i saved on my trip! oh, for your wedding?! no, my ex-boyfriend's wedding, he's confused.

jason! mix and match airlines to save more. stay at la quinta. where we're changing with stylish make-overs. then at your next meeting, set your seat height to its maximum level. bravo, tall meeting man.

start winning today. book now at lq.com the days leading up to brett kavanaugh's con if you weremation hearing to the supreme court have been marred by his time serving in the george w. bush white house. democrats are very upset that most of those papers and records aren't being made available to the senate. late today, three senior senate democrats suggested that the papers they have seen indicate that brett kavanaugh gave misleading testimony. that he did not tell the truth under oath the last time he was up for confirmation in the senate which was 2006 in his con furthermoremation hearing for a seat on the d.c. court of appeals which is where he sits as a judge now. not telling the truth in an earlier confirmation hearing, that's the kind of thing would sink any number of nominees. even for minor jobs.

the senate really as an institution doesn't like being lied to, particularly under oath. when it comes to a supreme court nomination, it is completely unheard of but definitely getting close to unbelievable that the senate might move forward without fully examining whether or not this nominee lied to the senate judiciary committee the last time he sat before them. beyond sifting through records from his past, and that question of his last confirmation, there is also a search for clues about what kind of justice he would be. how he would rule on the most divisive issues in the country. on that front, we haven't had many clues because judge kavanaugh is very careful with his public statements. but tonight we do have one. it's a bit of a scoop. and that is coming up next. 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. 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. here's a trip tip: when you search hotels on tripadvisor... enter your destination and the dates of your stay. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to find the best deal on the right hotel for you. tripadvisor.

here is a piece of tape i don't think many people have seen. it's from not that long ag. this is from a speech that brett kavanaugh gave in 2016, two years ago, at an event honoring the late justice antonin scalia a few months after he died. in the course of his remarks, brett kavanaugh brought up two landmark supreme court cases. the first one was planned parenthood v. casey, which affirmed the right to have an abortion. and also allowed states to impose some limits on that right. planned parenthood v casey is sort of part 2 of roe versus wade. but the other case he cited is much more recent. that's the case that ruled that

same sex couples in this country have the same right to get married that straight people have. jut scalia dissented in both of those cases. he voted against the ruling to affirm abortion rights and he voted against an equal right to marriage. so what you are about to hear is brett kavanaugh talk about those two supreme court rulings and specifically scalia's dissents. if you are wondering how brett kavanaugh might vote if abortion rights or marriage votes came before him at the supreme court, here more clearly than anywhere else we have found, he spells it out. again, he's talking about scalia's dissents here, scalia's dissent against abortion rights and against marriage rights. watch what cav flau says about that. >> justice scalia was a fierce guarantor of rights. he was never afraid to use his judicial role to up end even seemingly settled practices that

infringed on those rights. no deference there. but on the flip side, courts have no legitimate role, justice scalia would say in creating new rights not spelled out in the constitution. on those issues he believed in complete deference to the political branches in the states. deference not for the sake of deference but deference because the constitution gave the court no legitimate role in the case. think about his dissens in casey on abortion and same-sex marriage. his opinions on the constitutionality of the death penalty in response to the abolitionists can positions articulated by some of his fellow justices over the years. for justice scalia, it was not the court's job to improve on or update the constitution to create new rights. >> what he is suggesting there is that scalia was right to say no in both those cases, those so-called new rights don't actually apply here in this

country, which could extend to a lot of modern life, if you think about brett kavanaugh's remarks about scalia giving us more than a hint as to how he would vote on those two issues and what legal reasoning he would use. supports of reproductive rights have been warning that a justice cab anyhow would definitely mean the end of roe versus wade. this recording would suggest that as clear as anybody might feel about that, you should probably feel as clear about what a justice kavanaugh would mean in terms of same-sex marriage rights. the warnings are having an effect. particularly on the reproductive rights issue. the latest polling shows the percentage of americans who would like to see him confirmed to the court is only 37%. the percentage of americans who would not like to see him confirmed is 40. that means net support of negative 3% smack dab between past nominees like robert

bourque who was voed down haren yet meyer who's had to withdraw because she wasn't going to get confirmed. better off than bourque is not a great place to be. but the constituency that's dragging him down in this latest poll and all recent polls is women. the percentage of women in america who want him to be confirmed at the supreme court is 28%, less than three in ten women across the country want to see him on the bench. for all the super important fighting that's now going on over access to his records, this is the kind of public fight, this nominee presumably knows he's walking into, right? but with that much public opposition based on policy, there's no reason to think that the cab naug nomination should be anything close to easy. ♪

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

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. ♪ it is such a good time to dance ♪ ♪ it is such a good time to [ laughing ] ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo ♪ scoobidoo doobidoo [ goose honking ] ♪ [ laughing ] a bad day on the road still beats a good one off it. ♪ progressive helps keep you out there. ♪ with the new cha business unlimited card i ge with the new cha it's so simple, i don't even have to think about it. so i think about mouthfeel. i don't think about the ink card. i think about nitrogen ice cream in supermarkets all over the world. i think about the details.

fine, i obsess over the details. think about every part of your business except the one part that works without a thought your ink card. introducing chase ink business unlimited with unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase. chase for business. make more of what's yours. two things to keep on eye on tomorrow's news that you might not otherwise know about. first of all, george papadopoulos. the trump campaign foreign policy advisor who put model u.n. on his resume he pled guilty to lying to federal officials. he's apparently been cooperating with prosecutors ever since. it was his an apparent advanced knowledge of the russian government's hack of democratic e-mails that started the fbi's russia investigation in the first place in the late spring, early summer of 2016. well, tomorrow, big day for george papadopoulos. the government is due to tell the court how much time he should get, what they are recommending in terms of his sentence.

part of the drama is that his wife, who appears to play a key role in the whole drama of george papadopoulos and the russians and his contact with the trump campaign and all the rest of it, he has been making noises that george papadopoulos might need a new lawyer and that his plea agreement might be a bad deal with the government that should be torn up. most people believe if he tries to tear up his plea agreement with the government at this point, that would essentially be a legal act of i don't want to say suicide, but it would be an ongul on the part of george papadopoulos. it does inject drama into the proceedings tomorrow when we will wait to see if the plea agreement survives and how much time the government suggests he should get if it does. that's one thing. i mentioned on the top of the show we will have a big night tomorrow night. we will be joined by john brennan, who is the author of

this incredible op-ed in the "new york times" calling the comrams of president trump's claims of no collusion hog wash. he will be here tomorrow for his first live tv interview since the president revoked his security clearance. now senior national security and intelligence analyst. he will be here live with me in the studio tomorrow night at p.m. that does it for us tonight. i'll see you again tomorrow night. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. i can't wait to hear what john brennan has to say tomorrow night. last time he was on tv was right here and the next day he got his security clearances revoked. >> it's a pleasure to be a book end with you. >> what happens on saturday? >> i have not had an interview with john brennan before. i'm really, really happy he's going to come in here. i have a gazillion questions to ask him. with the way the story is developing about the president taking this unprecedented action against him, now "the washington post" reporting he's going to take that same action against

lots of other people and shortly this feels like a very fast evolving big deal story. >> we will all be watching tomorrow night. >> thank you, richal. well, i have kept the napkins well, i have kept the napkins exactly twice in my life. my first time at the white house and then at aretha franklin's birthday party in new york. here they are. i got three of them from that birthday party. and they will be right here on the desk throughout this hour as they are on my desk upstairs here every day. like most of you, aretha was a regular viewer of this program and was always eager to get our take on the news of the day, so that is what we will do first on this important news day. later, we will consider the life and achievements and unique contributions of her majesty the queen of soul, aretha louise franklin.