a neighborhood known well by the person standing by to take over at 4:00 eastern time where she usually is found. nicolle wallace is standing by. and, nicolle, as we hand over the coverage to you, we do so noting that during this day when the white house would normally prefer coverage concentrated on their nominee and the hearings meant to confirm that nominee, the president has now twice today pulled the coverage back to the woodward book, not yet out, and the damaging quotes contained therein. >> it is remarkable on so many levels. one, that the president doesn't have the restraint to stop pushing this book up to the top of the amazon best seller list, which is where it is at this hour. two, that the president -- it's interesting to me today that the kavanagh/mattis juxtaposition, arguably the two most sort of qualified and reassuring people,

the two most qualifying people that when you look back on this presidency to have ever been associated with donald trump, he's spending this day instead of letting the spotlight be on brett kavanagh, who very much animates the kinds of voters he'll need to attract if he wants to stand for reelection -- that's a known unknown at this point -- by continuing to rapidly respond like a one-man band, like a rodeo dee jay, radio dee jay, to this book which depicts him as we often cover him, a loose cannon, someone who is undisciplined, but not only distrusted by the closest advisors around him, but someone who the closest people to this president fear what he would do without the checks and balances provided by men like general mattis. so, it was a stunning juxtaposition which you just played. >> and note the two references in those comments, number one, he noted the quote about him that mattis had delivered. number two, he noted the book he

has generated during the time of his presidency, which is why we have a broadcast called "deadline white house." take it away, nicolle. >> it's a remarkable thing to watch. and we are going to keep monitoring all of the day's events. thank you, brian, for that. we're going to dip back into the questioning from senator ted cruz from texas of the president's nominee for the supreme court, judge brett kavanagh. >> critically important. i think, again, justice kennedy and justice scalia in texas versus johnson, what could be more unpopular than burning the american flag, and yet they upheld the right to do that, not because they liked it and that's the whole point of justice kennedy's concurrence, but because they thought the first amendment had to protect the most unpopular of ideas in order to accord with the precedent and principle of free speech. >> so you mentioned religious liberty, religious liberty is

one of our fundamental liberties cherished by americans across the nation, the right to live according to our faith, according to our conscience. can you share your views on the importance of religious liberty and how the constitution protects it? >> yes, senator. to be in with it's important in the original constitution before the bill of rights, the framers matd clear in article 6, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. so, that was very important in the original constitution that the framers thought it very important that there not be a test to become a legislator, to become an executive branch official, to become a judge under religion, recognizing the religious freedom, at least to serve in public office. and then of course, in the first amendment to the constitution ratified in 1791, the principle

of religious liberty is written right into the first amendment to the constitution. and the framers understood the importance of protecting conscience. it's akin to the free speech protection in many ways. and no matter what god you worship or if you worship no god at all, you are protected as equally american as i wrote in my new opinion. religions, religious people, religious speech, you have just as much right to be in the public square and to participate in the public programs as others do. you can't be denied just because of your religious status. and the supreme court has articulated that principle in a variety of different ways in particular cases. you look at, for example -- >> --

>> in other countries around the world, in china, for example, you -- >> -- he's a threat to people with disabilities. look at his voting against people with disabilities -- >> so, if you look at other countries around the world, you're not as -- you're not free to take your religion into the public square. crosses are being knocked off churches, for example, or you can only practice in your own home. you can't bring your religious

belief in the public square. >> without the information about judge kavanagh, you can't tell. many people don't know he lied -- >> being able to participate in the public square is a part of the american tradition. i think as a religious person, religious speech, religious ideas, religious thoughts, that's important. so, too, on the establishment clause -- >> -- >> some of those cases are, as you know, particularly complicated in the supreme court precedent with the supreme court precedent for example in the town of greece case and others has recognized that some religious traditions in governmental practices are rooted sufficiently in history and tradition to be upheld. sk and so in that case, town of greece case, the supreme court upheld the practice of prayer before a local legislative meeting, marks v. chambers,

local town, upheld it in a legislative meeting as well. so the religious tradition reflected in the first amendment is a foundational part of american liberty and it's important for us as judges to recognize that and not -- and recognize, too, that as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. our job -- under the religion us freedom restoration act question the insert of religious belief, meaning is someone lying or not about it. we can't question the reasonableness of it. the supreme court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected. justice brennan really the architect of that. so religious liberty is critical to the first amendment and the american constitution. >> how would you describe the interaction between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause? and are they at cross purposes and intention or are they

complementary of each other? >> i think in general it's good to think of them as both supporting the concept of freedom of religion. and in the case i wrote, i tried to explain some of those principles. i think it's important to think that to begin with, urie kwally american -- you're equally american no matter what religion if no religion at all. it is important the supreme court has said religious people be allowed to speak, participate, enter the public square without having to sacrifice their religion in speaking to the public j.r., for example -- public square, for example. at the same time both clauses protect the idea or protect against coercing people into practicing a religion when they might be of a different religion or might be of no religion at

all. so the coercion idea i think comes out of both clauses as well. the cases that are establishment clause cases that don't involve coercion but some of the more -- the symbol, the religious symbol cases, as you well know, senator, that's a complicated body of law. each area of that has to be analyzed in its own silo. as a general matter, i think it's good to think of the two clauses working together for the concept of freedom of religion in the united states which i think is foundational to the constitution. >> when you were in private practice, you represented the adopt shalome sin gol, did you that for free. can you describe that representation and why you undertook it? >> i undertook that representation to help a group of people who wanted to build a synagogue but were being denied the ability to do that based on

a zoning ordinance that seemed to be the application, at least, of a zoning oesrdinance in a wa that seemed to be discriminating against them because of their religion, and that may have allowed other building to be built there. but they were being blocked or at least challenged from building a synagogue there. so it seemed to me potentially a case of religious discrimination that was being used to try to prevent them from building. so, i wanted to -- i agreed to represent them because i like -- i wanted to do pro bono work and i wanted to help the community in particular. these people want to build their synagogue had the right to do so, as i saw it under the law, and i thought i could help them do so. and we did prevail in the district court in maryland and

that synagogue now stands. they were very grateful. so that was the kind of litigation -- that was a couple years i was at a law firm that did some pro bono work and that was very rewarding pro bono work to have a real effect on real people in their practice of their religion in the state of maryland. so, that's something that means a lot to me. they gave me something -- a thing to hang on the wall, justice, justice shall thou pursue, which hung in my chambers the years i've been there, which is a reminder of the representation i had in the past and the importance of equal treatment in religious liberty and the successful pro bono representation, that meant a lot to me. >> i'll note some of the democratic senators on this committee -- >> --

>> some of the democratic senators on this committee have suggested -- >> -- >> rich and powerful entities at the expense of the lit guy -- >> we're going to dip out of that coverage of kavanagh's hearing to bring you some breaking news. "the new york times" taking the extraordinary step this afternoon to publish an anonymous op-ed. let me read to you from their note. the times today taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed essay. we've done so at the request of the author, senior official in the trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. we believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. here is that perspective. this is a self-described member of the resistance to donald trump who writes anonymously in "the new york times" today. president trump is facing a test of his presidency unlike any

faced by aid moernd american leader. it's of just that the special counsel looms large or the country is bitterly divided over mr. trump's leadership or even that his party might well lose the house to an opposition hell bent on his downfall. the dilemma which he does not fully grasp is that many of his senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. i would know. i am one of them. i am joined here today by jonathan lemire from the associated press, former congressman david jolly and former congressman steve israel. this is an extraordinary -- matt miller is also standing by in washington, d.c. to get us through the hour. an extraordinary rebuke from someone, it would appear a political appointee detailing how they are working to frustrate the president from inside his ranks. >> it is a remarkable thing to have someone say this and put this in "the new york times." it sort of continues on the

theme of the woodward book, which is obviously dominated the discourse the last couple days, they are working to stop the president from within. i think the president would, of course, call this the deep state. the person who wrote this suggests it's a much more conscientious effort and that they agree with some parts of the agenda, but feel that the president is a threat to the nation and must be blocked at certain times. this is a remarkable thing. we know the white house is sort of conducting, you know, it's own sort of probe to figure out who is talking -- who talked to woodward for that book and to consider -- >> a weekend investigation, checking e-mails, phones, and texts. >> imagine the president's fury when he sees this, one of his own has done this, delivered it to "the new york times," of course. the paper the president loves to hate. and the number one washington guessing game right now is who wrote this. >> let me read a little more of this to you, matt miller, and bring you in on something we talk about all the time, the rule of law. this is a senior administration official penning this op-ed. it says, we believe our first duty is to this country and the

president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic. that is why many trump appointees have vow today do what we can, describing himself as a political appointee, to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting mr. trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office. in other countries, matt miller, they sometimes call this a coup. >> yeah, i think this op-ed one way to read it is one answer to the question that really i think we have all wrestled with since the beginning of the administration. that is, what is the obligation of an official serving in the government when they see the president acting recklessly, at times in violation of the law. you can make an argument that people in the national security responsibility, maybe people who have responsibility in economic positions, you know, there is an argument they should stay and try to constrain the president. and then there are other people, you think of people in the press office who are serving mainly to enable him. they often go after critics.

and i think the question i would real really pose for the author of this piece, whoever he or she may be, is writing an op-ed like this enough? certainly you have a duty if you're inside the government to try to prevent the president from acting irrationally and prevent him from doing things that would harm the country. but is your duty to the country not just to constrain him, but also to blow a whistle to the american public? anonymously is one way, but should you be offering testimony to congress? should you be in an impeachment about how the president is behaving. >> he does diagnose, the author diagnosis sort of the root of the rot and that's the president's lack of character. let me read this part to you, david jolly. this is a conversation you and i have been having day after day. the author of this anonymous op-ed posted just a few moments ago in "the new york times" writes, the root of the problem is the president's a morality. anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any

discernible first principles that guide his decision making. from the white house the executive branch departments and agencies senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. most are working to insulate their operations from his whims. meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails. he engages in repetitive rants and his impulsiveness results in half baked, ill informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back. this is describing someone in this op-ed who does not appear to meet the basic standard of fitness for the office. >> there are millions of americans right now, including myself, who are trying to temper their rage when they read this. these are the words of a coward, not a patriot. there are two questions. first, should "the new york times" have published something with anonymity. they probabliery erred on the s of getting information out.

the question of patriotism, someone willing to hide behind anonymity to suggest the person they work for, the nation they try to advance is represented by someone who is no longer fit for office. you cannot -- >> stunning, you're making my blood boil. >> you cannot orchestrate the president's behavior through anonymity and "the new york times." you do so, as matt suggested, by going to capitol hill. the branch the founders suggested had oversight to control this type of behavior, i want to testify about this president's failure to perform the very basic duties of his office. it is the >> it is the reads we have whistleblower protects. we haven't seen them deploy, i don't think, to protect a whistleblower blowing the whistle about the president's fundamental lack of fitness. let me read a little bit more and get you in on this. the erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in and around the white house, some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media but in private they

have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the west wing though they are clearly not as successful. it may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but americans some snow there are adults in the room. we fully recognize what is happening and we try to do what's right even when trump won't. the result is a two-track presidency. i worked in the white house on 9/11. a two track wouldn't have worked well when someone is making decision biz life and death. >> david jolly and i have both sat in the oval office. it doesn't matter when you have a democratic or republican president. this president, who is both paranoid and impulsive -- >> and the other way around, right? >> the other way around. >> the cia director, secretary of defense needs to have confidence in the president. >> you have to have clarity, you have to have focus, a bridge between the two. nobody will be able to walk into this oval office without donald trump putting a target on their back wondering if that's the

person. this becomes a who done it. let me say one other thing on the issue of whistleblowers. i can't resist acknowledging the incredible historic parallel. the last great whistleblower we had was deep throat in watergate. exposed by bob woodward who now produces a book that may be the beginning of the unraveling of this administration. >> i want to bring ashley parker in. let me read a little more of this to you, ashley. you're at the scene of what may be a detonation there of rage from the oval office. so, this anonymous author writing this afternoon in "the new york times" continues. "this isn't the work of the deep state. it's the work of the steady state. given the instability many witness, there were early whispers in the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president." ashley? >> well, i don't quite know what to say there. i mean, that's certainly

correct. there were those early rumblings and whispers. and it's interesting, again, that this official has chosen to take this approach, which is not outing them self, not going before congress, writing an op-ed. but i do have to say everything in there, that passage you just read and everything else does track with what you've been hearing, what jonathan has been hearing, what i've been hearing all along from people inside this white house. you can agree or disagree if they're making a decision, there is a sense people will privately tell you. you don't know the tweets i prevented from being sent. you don't know the decisions i prevented from being made. you don't know how bad it is. you don't know what he actually wanted to do to the press until we intervened or someone intervened. so we do have to say writing it publicly is a striking -- publicly but anonymously is a striking and stark move, but it does track what we've been hearing privately for a number of months now. >> let me press you and jonathan

on this because on the occasion that people have called and complained about things that we say on this show, it is always -- first of all, it is never about the president's conduct. there are very few people who excuse his conduct any more, even the people closest to him. it is always about criticizing the inability of the staff to serve as a guardrail and the explanation and the defense is always what ashley parker just described. you have no idea what he almost did. >> yeah, ashley could not be more right. those are conversations we have as white house reporters all the time with staff. people will suggest, hey, you think that was bad, i threw my body in front of it. it could have been far, far worse. this is -- >> they want credit. they want you to say, you think that thing he said about mika's facelift was nasty, you should see what was -- they want medals. they want to be held out as protecters of si vilt. it's b.s. >> i didn't have the mika conversation. it is self-serving. i think for some people in the building, that's how they

justify that they keep those jobs, that they keep going to the white house collecting those paychecks. they feel like they're doing their duty to country, yes, but they feel like i'm making a difference here. it does separate on two different tracks as you guys were just saying. there is the national security aspect of this where i think those people who have made these similar claims can really say to themselves, i'm doing this because i'm protecting the country. it's a little harder perhaps for some of the more political people who even if they believe in parts of the agenda but are standing idly by as the president does x, y and z. >> matt miller, let me draw down on some of the raw nerves inside the government. and i have no idea who the author of this piece is and where he or she works. but some of the raw exposed nerves are around what devin nunes has done as the republican chairman of the house intel committee to the president's own -- his own appointee runs the fbi. and what has been done to the justice department, what's been done to the fisa process, the secret court that's supposed to

really protect our most sensitive national security secrets. well, donald trump under his watch, that process has been revealed to the world, to our enemies. the fbi has been forced to out informants. and it certainly would seem that the sentiments expressed in this op-ed -- it starts with a line about the mueller investigation itself. president trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern american leader. it's not just that the special counsel looms large. that is present in all of their deliberations, in everything they watch, all the attacks on the rule of law, the attacks on the intelligence community that started before he was sworn in. this has unnerved people who have spent the bulk of their careers serving this country. >> you hear it from people across the government, from people in career positions in the intelligence community and the fbi, that the president not just attacks them on the things that matter to the president, but by doing so makes it harder for them to do their jobs. and i'll tell you, for the political people that come into those positions, you know, after

almost two years in the job now coming up on two years in january, there will be for some of them, they get close to the people that they work with in these career position ands they start to take on the characteristics of their building. there are i'm sure political people inside the justice department, not just rod rosenstein, but other people who were appointed by the president who are angry and frustrated about what he does. the question i have for them -- it's one thing for the people who argue they do the right thing. they're inside, doing the right thing trying to constrain him and keep him from doing even worse things to the country. the question i have also, though, for the people that have left, the gary cohns and dean a powells, and h.r. mcmasters who know how reckless and incompetent, where are they? how come none of them have sat down to talk about what they saw in the administration? they don't have a excuse they're trying to constrain him any more and by going public they would hurt their ability to do so.

at some point they have an obligation to tell the american people what will they've seen. >> i agree with you. a couple people, i'll put them on the air. they want to call, we have a few more minutes. i want to read to you again from this. the 25th amendment and the conversation about invoking the 25th amendment was something even steve bannon had weighed in on in interviews. it was never clear whether he intended or didn't intend for them to be made public. the evil ingeniouses intend or them to be in the stream of information. let me read the chunk about the 25th amendment and ask you if this should be a more robust die bait -- debate in this country. if we should be having a serious debate in this country. there were early whispers within the cabinet -- within donald trump's cabinet -- of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president. but no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis so we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until one way or another it's over. i have never in my life read

something like that from someone who is a political appointee to a sitting president, saying until one way or another it's over. what are those ways? >> so, so, there is a fundamental lack of competence that perhaps has not reached the 25th amendment, right. the suggestion the president doesn't understand he can't manipulate the department of justice, he can't manipulate the free press. a friend of mine who served a year and found himself looking at the presidential seeing saying, i can't do this any more. this doesn't represent the dig nits of the country in the office i signed up to serve. what continues to come out and the woodward book and in writings like this is whether or not the president is actually fit to perform the duties of the office. this is where we desperately need the oversight of a congress that will actually provide real oversight as envisioned by the founders where republicans have failed, why people like myself as a republican suggest we need divided government in january

because we need somebody to put teeth into ov the oversight. >> why won't they convene it today? >> this is about integrity. democrats, republicans, whoever they might be, in this case republicans -- as are they paul ryan, mitch mcconnell? >> every single republican leader on capitol hill. every person who writes a nonmupsly in "the new york times." everybody who is willing to talk 0 bob woodward but says they didn't, these are failings of personal integrity. and it is okay as fellow hugh plans and fellow americans to suggest you have failed yourself, you have failed your family and you've frald your fellow country men by not talking about this publicly. >> this seems like the kind of writing that would drive all these men and they're all men unfortunately no offense, into their offices to figure out what to do. you know how they whistle blow at the highest level of trump administration, writing in "the new york times" for publication that there were early whispers within the cabinet -- cabinet secretaries talked about invoking the 25th amendment.

this seems to justify immediate congressional hearings to find out who they were. i would haul up every single cabinet secretary. you have to protect an anonymous source, but i would haul up political appointees from every agency to talk about who talked about invoking the 25th amendment and what did you see. if as bob woodward reports, they wanted -- the president wanted to assassinate assad, mattis had to explain he was protecting the country from world war 3. we have a more serious problem than right/left polarization. >> ma konicolle, it will not ha with this majority in congress. there is an election in 19 days, 61 hours. a political fact going into a midterm election, your president determines your survival. they will not abandon him. they will not investigate him. they will not subpoena him because as much as they love the country, they love their seats in congress. after that, in a democratic majority, many of these anonymous sources may actually

have to come out of anonymity when they're responding to subpoenas. and the only way there will be subpoenas is if you have a different majority in the house of representatives. >> i understand. i worked in a republican white house. i am very familiar with that. let me just read a couple more things to understand the author of this because this is a, it would appear this is a republican who writes, this person talks about sort of being a disappointed republican. the author of the anonymous op-ed in "the new york times" writes, although he was elected as a republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives. free minds, free markets, and free people. at best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted sittings. at worst he has attacked them outright. i can't get it through my head, jonathan lemire, why republicans don't want to protect the country from a president who is describing someone someone who works for him as being so unstable that his own cabinet talked about the 25th amendment. >> all right. we've seen it time and time again, the only people who stand

up to him are those who are not facing voters for reelection. they're retiring or in the case of senator mccain, gravely hill and not going to run again. it is very interesting to see who this perhaps this person will be outed or not. the speculation about who this author is will run rampant in the hours ahead. the white house has not responded to requests for comment yet. they're not weighing in at this time. >> reading everyone's e-mails. >> they are hovering around this as we speak. >> let me bring rachel maddow on this. a rare day she's less agitated something written by a republican than me. rachel, your thoughts? >> this is -- nicolle, this is an unusual day in american history. it's hard to say. there is nothing new under the sun, but this is something new and it is -- i just feel like somebody is trying to pull the fire alarm and i'm not sure that we know as a country how we are su poedsed to respond when an

alarm like this is sounded. this is somebody who is loyal to the president and seeing the president up close if we believe the premise of this op-ed, saying that the president is, you know, is erratic to the point of being so dangerous that people are defying the constitution and defying their loyalty to him to undermine what he's doing in order to save the country from his impulsive recklessness and his -- what is essentially described as his mental instability. i was preparing to talk tonight about what's in the woodward book about people defying the president and stealing stuff off his desk and the military not following his orders. maybe that's comforting for a president you think is a little bit off the rails, but that's no way to run a country. that brings it to another level. it feels like the end of something. i don't know what happens next. >> can i ask you, is some of this on us?

david brooks reported in an op-ed about republican senators coming out of a lunch with donald trump talking about how he displayed some of the early signs of alzheimer's. i remember reading it, being uncomfortable reading it on the air. david brooks was a one-time person sympathetic to the right world view. i went ahead and do it. i think there is -- talking about the president's instability, even though it is on full display all day every day. >> i think -- i think there is -- yes, it's on us. but i think the psychological barrier we have to grappling with this stuff is understandable because there is no obvious thing to do because of it, right? that's why today feels like a start of something or the end of something. it feels like a pivot point. this is somebody inside the white house signalling to the outside world there is a very, very serious problem. it's one thing for us to all grapple with what we think is behind what we can see as his

erratic and inappropriate behavior. but for us to not only read about it, but recognize it and make a decision about it, we have to know what our options are in that circumstance and our options are dependent on people who are close to the president and certainly people who are in the president's own party being willing to not just admit it but talk about trying to fix this problem. there are constitutional remedies for a president who is unfit. and they are not partisan constitutional remedies. they're american constitutional remedies. and it will require people close to the president, people in the administration and people in the republican party to start seeing those as on the menu of options before the country can grapple with what we're now told is a serious crisis with mental health. >> i want to read one more line from this to you and ask your thoughts. the anonymous author in "the new york times" today writes, "there is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first." i'm guessing the word resistance

is not an accidental selection by this author. basically trying to reassure the country that the resistance goes all the way to the highest levels of the u.s. government. i was struck by the vice-president today taking a polar opposite view of jeff sessions who was attacked by this president all day on twitter, in private, on the phone, in person. do you think we've reached a point where the government is truly bifurcated? there's donald trump and the enablers around him, and everybody else? >> i don't know where that line is. i mean, further down in the piece, this anonymous author says given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process for removing the president, but no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. that means those conversations are happening among cabinet officers and they have wanted -- they thought it would be a crisis to take that route.

well, now, after that route was not taken, this senior administration official is saying the crisis is upon us, right? the way that you -- the way that you deal with a kongs institution -- constitutional crisis is by finding a way out of it. it's only a crisis if it doesn't give you an option for dealing with it. in this case the writer is telling him or herself, the 25th amendment is what ought to have been done. this is an unfit president but we were afraid to do it because of the crisis it would engender. that was apparently early -- that was apparently a year ago or something. now at this point, this author is trying to tell the country that something else has happened to advance this crisis further, that something does need to be done. >> in the clip -- in the graph you read, this author also reveals to us for the very first time that these conversations took place among the cabinet. >> yeah. >> i am surprised that we haven't yet heard any calls to bring the entire cabinet up foreclosed door sessions if they

need to start that way, to get every member of the cabinet on the record about where these conversations, as you just read, given the instanlt, there were many whispers in the cabinet. this person has put the cabinet on the record as talking about invoking the 25th amendment. it would seem that congressional hearings would be something that be considered immediately to get the cabinet on the record. who was so worried about the president's instability that they talked about invoking the 25th amendment? >> yeah, and because there has been such turmoil and turnover in this administration, there are former cabinet officials from this administration, you know, up to and including people like secretary of state rex tillerson and tom price who resigned disgraced health and human services secretary. if these conversations did happen within the cabinet, there are people who may have been in on those conversations who are no longer in the cabinet. there may be -- who therefore shouldn't feel constrained by any ability of the president to retaliate against someone within the administration. it sort of feels like this is,

as i said, this is an alarm being sounded. we're not sure how to respond to it. i think that the curiosity about who this is is the rightful province of the white house. i think that what the rest of us should be thinking about is what the constitutional remedy is to the kind of crisis that this anonymous author is alerting us to, and who this person is eventually we'll know or we don't. but wondering who it is is less important than the strength of this message. i've never seen anything like this. i've never read about anything like this in u.s. history. this is a moment we not only have to rise to, but how to rise to t. somebody needs to give us aimen yu of options here and it's not going to come from the white house. >> i want to ask you one last question because it is an area of expertise for you. i was reading the woodward excerpts yesterday thinking the reporting on mattis would be of particular interest to you with your expertise in our efforts in iraq and afghanistan. i wonder if you put together

woodward's reporting how bad the cabinet concerning the 25th amendment, what your level of alarm is for the men and women serving in far flung places today. >> it's so deep a concern and it is -- it goes so to the heart of the constitutional republic that we have. we have civilian control of the u.s. military in this country, and you talk to senior military officers and you talk to even nonsenior military officers. you talk to people who have enlisted recently who learned what it is to be in the military. there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the military about the importance of civilian control and the fact that the military is a nonpartisan, nonpolitical institution that does not make its own policies. that doesn't -- this isn't egypt. you don't have the army correcting for political problems. but at the same time with this president, with the problems with this president, we've got

according to very good reporting, we've got the military saying no or ignoring his orders to go kill assad. we have the military saying no or ignoring his orders to create a preemptive military strike plan for north korea. we have the military saying no or ignoring his orders when he wanted a war plan for iran. we've got the military saying noer 0 ignoring his orders when it came to him announcing 0 not twitter he was banning transgender people from serving. they were like, sure, sure, sir, we'll get back to you on that. it's comforting in a way if you don't want the country to have done those things he reportedly ordered and that were ignored. but what kind of country are we if the military no longer answers to civilian power? who is in control of the united states, the u.s. government and foreign policy if the military no longer answers to elected leaders? we've never been that kind of country before. >> it is an unbelievable place we find ourselves. we're grateful -- i know you're preparing for your show which is

always must-watch especially tonight. i will be watching. thank you so much, my friend, for spending time with us. >> thanks, my friend. >> everything she said -- >> sure. >> we don't talk enough about how long the tail is. but the president truly, his actions affect people who may or may not have voted for him, but their lives are on the line and his incompetence and his instability is laid so bare. i really worry what i asked rachel about, we've been too timid, we have been too reluctant to cover his obvious lack of mental fitness. >> this author is being too timid. if you're the author of this column and you truly want to effectuate change, you want to answer to a higher calling, you want to do something in service to the nation, you have to come forward and sign your name to this. look, steve and i have pulled the curtain back a little bit. i was chair of the dccc. he beat me the second time, right? but we're sitting here as people who served in a body, a democrat and republican who recognize there is a higher calling when

you take that oath. and this person took an oath to serve the country. if steve and i were in office today and the united states congress, we would be suggesting we need to hold the very hearings you're talking about, nicolle. this person can make that happen. hiding behind anonymity while it's comfortable is ultimately going to ensure that this goes nowhere. come forward today and you could change the fate of the country like that. >> kristen welker has made her way to the briefing room to fill us in on any reaction or lack thereof from the white house this hour to this extraordinary piece that was published in "the new york times" shortly before we came on air. kristen? >> nicolle, let me walk you through the past 20 minutes or so. my colleague peter alexander walked the up to the press department which is where top officials are. handed this op-ed to a senior administration official. asked if this person had seen

it, they had not seen it and that prompted a series of top officials going into cycling through the office of press secretary sarah huckabee sanders. i was up there just a short time ago, had the chance to ask sarah if they have any type of reaction yet to this op-ed. her response was not yet, we're still waiting for some type of reaction, presumably they are clearly focused on trying to sort of get to the bottom of how they're going to respond to this. and of course the context is so significant because it comes in the wake of this bob woodward book, this day that started with this white house on defense. the president, his top officials, his allies with this full-court press pushing back against the allegations in bob woodward's book. and my colleague hallie jackson has had a chance to ask the president a number of questions about that. he's called the book total fiction. that is a little bit of preview i anticipate we're going to hear from the president when he does respond to this op-ed. i can tell you we are hoping to get some more questions to him today, nicolle, because he's about to and i think we have a

live picture up, have a meeting with some sheriffs and my colleague peter is there and ready to shout some more questions at him about this really stunning revelation and op ed that we're learning. i think what stands out to me is this underscores so much of what was in bob woodward's book. the crux of it really, which is that there are people who work within the administration, according to this op-ed, accord tolg bob woodward's book, who are working to protect the country from this president, whether it be swiping papers off of his desk or as this administration official accounts in other ways. so, again, we are waiting reaction here from the white house to this, another stunning unprecedented turn in the wake of so many that we have reported on here, nicolle. >> kristen, do you detect any awareness from this white house staff that if the president's reaction is an investigation of the leak, that he will be confirming precisely what the author of this piece has described? >> well, i think what we sense right now is there is tension.

the fact that they are aware there are so many people who are clearly leaking, whether it be to reporters, to authors, to bob woodward in the context of this new york times op-ed, we know leaking has been a big focus for this president, nicolle. so i think in the past he has in some senses confirmed so much of the bombshell reports that have come out of this administration by really trying to crackdown on the leaks as you point out. that, in essence itself, a sort of indirect way of giving credence to some of these allegations. but, look, this is a white house that has been dealing with these leaks, nicolle. this has really defined this white house since day one. those very early days when this was an incredibly chaotic place. i think since those early days there's certainly been more stability here. reporters and administration officials would acknowledge that. and yet they are still dealing with the president, the commander in chief who is

unpredictable. so, again, we await what we're hoping will be some reaction from president trump himself, nicolle. >> any indication that any of this has any bearing on the kavanagh hearings underway on capitol hill? >> well, i thought today was interesting because it was clear that the president was really focused on getting his own narrative out. he was concerned that the bob woodward book was in some ways taking away from kavanagh and taking away from the importance of this moment from his perspective as a president, his nominee holding hearings on capitol hill. i certainly think they anticipated this week, they started this week thinking this would be about defending kavanagh, what is undoubtedly an already contentious grilling period on capitol hill. so it has provided this very complicated split screen for this communications staff as they try to navigate both defense on two fronts now, nicolle. but there is a whole staff that's sort of focused on

kavanagh alone on the confirmation process. that staff continues to really have their focus on capitol hill. but like so many moments in this white house, nicolle, they're working on a policy issue and yet having to deal with these very controversial headlines that speak to the way this president governs and the extent to which his staff may or may not be with him, nicolle. >> kristen, thank you so much for joining us. matt miller, let me ask you to pick up on kristen's response to how they react. it seems to me that if you've got a nominee to the supreme court under oath answering questions about constitutional matters, you might want to get him on the record about what appears to be possibly the beginning of a constitutional crisis. >> you might want to try. and some of the democrats have already tried to get him to answer questions about how the -- questions that would relate to the mueller investigation, questions about whether the president can be subject to a subpoena. and he's basically declined to answer those questions.

he's evaded them. it goes back to the question what will republicans do about everything we see from the white house. the only reason nominees get away with not answering questions of this magnitude is because the majority of the senate lets them get away. if republicans on the hill signalled, you know, this time is different. this is not just any moment in history where we have a standard supreme court nominee coming up before us. this is a time when the president faces grave questions of whether he abused his office. he's an unindicted coconspirator, in another he's the subject of a federal investigation. he may be subpoenas. there are questions whether he's going to pardon himself. you've been appointed by this president. you have to answer these questions. palomino if one or two asked him, they haven't insisted that he do it. because of that it's like every other thing. without any accountability from republicans on the hill, the white house and everyone who works for the white house have impunity to not answer questions and not do the right thing.

>> matt miller, at the highest levels of the justice department, there is a belief that leaks must be investigated and prosecuted. do you think there is an awareness across the government that the way the president investigates this, which is not a leak of any classified information, this is simply someone sounding an alarm bell as rachel maddow described about the president's instability about discussions that have already taken place, about invoking the 25th amendment. how do you think agencies like the one you used to serve in, like the justice department will react if what the president wants to do upon reading today's op-ed is to investigate and try to uncover the identity of its author? >> you know, leaks happen all the time. leekds of all sorts of information. some national security information, some that are just information that's embarrassing to the president or embarrassing to cabinet officials. if the president has his press secretary or chief of staff call around and try to figure out who did this, that would be one thing. that is the kind of thing that

happens all the time. if he were to order up a leak investigation from the justice department, i think you would see massive, massive protests from the deputy attorney general, maybe from the attorney general, but given the way he has behaved, i'm somewhat skeptical. i think i'm somewhat skeptical. i think you would see huge protests from the career officials that that is not an appropriate use of law enforcement. they are only there to investigate criminal leaks of national security information and that's not what this is. it would be a wholly inappropriate request, but given the way we've seen the president demand that his justice department go after his enemies and protect his friends, it wouldn't be surprising coming from the white house. >> jonathan lemire, do you want to make a bet or a prediction about what the response from the white house will be? we were talking at the beginning of the hour about how some of his officials act as guardrails. do you think if he wants to investigate and really go after "the new york times" and try to get them to reveal the author of this piece, who will try to stop him? >> this will be another telling moment. whether someone actually does. whether there are people who, as

described in the woodward book and as we've heard in our reporting to slow walk it and hope the president moves on to someone else or whether someone will get up in his case and defy him, which happens rarely, not very much in this white house. >> mcgahn has been fired and kelly is on his way out or on the outs. >> while sitting here reaching out to trump administration officials both inside and outside the white house and allies, my colleagues and i at the a.p. have been asking what is the reaction there. to a person, they're blindsided and they're asking us, who do you think it is? which i guess if you're the author, that's what you'd want to ask, right? they are totally taken aback by this and trying to figure it out. they're huddled, as chris just said, huddled in sarah sanders' office as we speak. the president is expected to appear at this sheriff's event shortly and the question is does he take the bait now or responds later on twitter. >> let me read a section to you. the author writes take foreign

policy. in public and in private president trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators such as president vladimir putin of russia and north korea's leader, kim jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allies and like-minded nations. the rest of the administration is operating on another track. when countries like russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly and allies are not ridiculed as rivals. >> this is one of the most damaging things of the trump presidency. we have always had a foreign policy that rests on three imperatives. clear, consistent and coheerngt. this president's foreign policy has been off the rails. this president's foreign policy was coddled our adversaries and rebuked our friends. this has been exceedingly dangerous. i'll say one other thing. i think the real casualty in all of this is, this is not

political, it's the american people. they are huddled in the white house right now preoccupied with who wrote this op-ed. they are not huddled in the white house trying to figure out what to do about constituents that you and i had that are ravaged by the opioid addiction. they are not trying to figure out what to do about north korea or paychecks or kids in college who aren't sure how they're going to pay their tuition. the true cost of all of this drama is the opportunities lost. whether you like trump or don't like trump, this is a presidency that is preoccupied with the president and not the american people. >> it's such a good point. instead of reading this and thinking even some of our supporters may be destabilized to read in "the new york times" or to see on tv that the president's own cabinet whispered about invoking the 25th amendment, instead of trying to reassure -- forget about the 60% of us who don't approve of this president or his job in office, but the 40% who like him, instead of worrying about reassuring them, you are absolutely right. there's one person who knows exactly who the author is and

it's "the new york times." i want to reveal their explanation for not revealing his name. "the times" is taking the rare step of pushing an anonymous op-ed essay. we have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. >> i think "the new york times" did the right thing. they erred on the side of getting the information out there. i think the author did the wrong thing by hiding behind anonymity. the author is giving us reason to fear for our national security. the president's lack of fitness puts us at greater risk. the other thing that we see in this and see in the woodward book and we have seen now for months is the closer you are to donald trump, the less you respect him. and that is the president of the united states. nicolle, you served in a white house administration where you served with respect for the person who you tried to support as they served the country. we see in this president, he is surrounded by people that the closer they get to him, the less they respect him.

that should be of concern to all of us. >> and not only -- and again, we should stress this is a senior administration official, could be someone in the white house, could be someone serving at a government agency. not only is that the case, but they don't just have a lack of respect for him, they have a lack of belief in his stability. i mean that seems to be the flashing red light today. >> so why do you serve, right? i mean this goes -- we ask this question a lot of times. this isn't enough cover for this author to try to explain to their kids 20 years from now, well, i wrote an anonymous op-ed. sorry, that's not good enough. it's just not good enough. we're not dealing in regular politics right now. we're dealing with a president whose fitness is being questioned. we're questioning whether he's putting us at risk, whether he's undermining a free press, a free judiciary, whether he's undermining the constitution, whether he even understands the office for which he ran and to which he was elected. this doesn't make your tombstone script any more honorable.

>> is it better than doing nothing? >> no, it's not. no, honestly no, it's not. you know what else i read in that, somebody who tries to conserve their bona fides. they're looking out for their longevity inside the beltway, their job security when this administration is gone so they can say, look, i've been a good soldier all along. they can change this, though. look, these are powerful words. and to suggest, and i do think this is the first time from a newsworthy standpoint that we are hearing that cabinet secretaries have said they have been brought into a 25th amendment conversation. that is now a source that suggests that conversation has been had. own that, and go forward with it. honestly, their legacy will be much richer tomorrow if we know their name than it is today without knowing their name. >> matt miller, i know this is all happening in realtime and we're reacting in realtime, but how does this change the message that democrats take to the electorate for the midterms.

we now have a whistleblower at the highest levels of the trump administration that says donald trump's cabinet has had conversations about invoking the 25th amendment. if you want to know who they are and if you want to know why they're so concerned about his mental stability, you can't trust the republicans to get to the bottom of it. does this become part of the message that democrats take to the country? >> it does. i think the democrats are running against two things. one, they are running against the fitness and ineptitude -- unfitness, i should say, coming from this white house on a day-to-day basis. one of the things that's shocking about this piece is that somebody wrote it. one of the things that's not shocking is anything in it. it's what people see all the time. the same as with the woodward book. there's nothing that was that surprising. there are details that we learned but we see that all the time. most of the american people can see that. if you look at the poll numbers, that's true. most of the american people can see what's coming out of the oval office. but the president is not in the ballot right now. who's on the ballot is members of the house and the senate. in these races, democrats are

going to be saying, you see what's coming out of the white house. what you see from the other end of the pennsylvania avenue is a republican majority that's doing nothing about it. they won't do even the faintest, easiest things to check the president. they won't hold hearings on anything. they won't investigate corruption in his cabinet. they won't do anything to check a president that is completely off the rails. that is the message for democrats to take to the country i think in the midterms. >> and if you're not shocked by any of it, i'm going to start drinking what you're drinking. i want to know how democrats make this message unassailable because it seems to me you don't have to be a democrat to think that finding out which cabinet secretaries were whispering from within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment is an urgent national security issue. you don't have to be democrat to want to know who among the people that see the president the closest and the most often were so concerned by what they saw -- we don't see what they saw. we don't see what the cabinet

sees. we don't have any idea, you might, but most of us don't. so why should that be a partisan message? how can democrats turn that into a message that unites the country. >> my answer is it depends on the district. if you are campaigning for re-election in brooklyn, new york, you're going to be all about this op-ed. if you are a democratic challenger in brooklyn, iowa, which is in a competitive district, people are not coming up to you at the supermarket and talking about in op-ed. >> you don't think the president's stability matters to everyone? >> not in these independent districts. >> what about a military family. >> which supported president trump. it really depends on the district. the 23 districts that are represented by republicans and voted for hillary clinton, this op-ed will have some impact and democrats will talk about it. but in those base republican districts, it's not what people are talking about in supermarkets. they're talking about their paychecks, they're talking about their crops, they're talking about it all, not this. so it depends on the district. >> all right. my thanks to all of you and to kristen welker and ashley

parker. matt miller, jonathan lemire, steve israel, that does it for our hour. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> so, nicolle, just ponder this for a minute, is the bob woodward book a one-day story? >> let me tell you something. you know, i have to tell you i'm up here in jeans and flip-flops because i thought we were going to be watching the kavanaugh questioning so i hope you're more prepared than i was. >> barely, but we're all in -- i'm not going to say we're in shorts and a t-shirt, i'm just saying you'll be glad to know what hugh hewitt is wearing. if it's wednesday, it takes a lot for us to say these days. but an extraordinary thing just happened.