like getting your worst dream fulfilled and having to live it everyday. shelly holliday and tim, thank you. rachel maddow starts now. thanks for joining us. in 1962, john frankenheimer made "the manchurian candidate," one of the all time classic american political thrillers. frank sinatra as the hero and angela lansbury as the creepiest mother and the brain-washed communist plant inserted into u.s. politics at the highest levels, one of the greatest american movies ever, as far as i'm concerned. the original, not the remake. two years after the manchurian candidate came out, this came

out, "seven days in may," in 1964 and because it was such a sensitive subject they set it a decade in the future in the 1970s to try not to quite freak people out so much because of the plot in the movie potentially unfolding in the united states in the early 1960s. "seven day is in may" is another classic scary american political thriller. it's about the u.s. military rejecting civilian control of the military. the u.s. president, in the movie, he sign as nuclear disarmament treaty with the soviet union and the senate ratifies it and military leaders freak out and decide they disagree with that so strongly that the leaders of the u.s. military plan to launch a coup. drama ensues.

we have a pantheon of great great dark american thrillers, movies and books that simultaneously freak us out and also serve the constructive purpose of spelling out the kind of outlandish dangers and threats we might maybe conceivably protect our country some day, at the very edges of the constitution, the very edges you might imagine is possible in u.s. history. here's another that ought to be thought of in this same breath. called "night of camp david," actually written by the same guy who wrote "seven days in may," the one about the military coup. had john frankenheimer made a movie for this book like he did with the others, it might be another cultural touchstone we all know about decades later, a movie that still entertains us

but gives us a cultural vocabulary for talking about what otherwise might be hard to imagine threats that might some day arise around a u.s. presidency. in "night of camp david," the book, not a movie, not nearly as well-known, the serious problem that befalls the presidency and the country in that book is that the president goes nuts. an otherwise unremarkable senator from the president's own party figures out the president is going nuts because the president repeatedly invites him up to camp david for late night chats at camp david and in those chats the president turns out all the lights and sits in the dark and rants and raves and tells the senator all his destructive secret paranoid fantasies and tells the senator his rather insane plans for the country and the world, some things might not be things the president is ruminating about and some things the president is

starting to hint at and made mention of in public but nobody is taking it too seriously yet. the senator realizes, people who take this seriously. this is the book when it came out in paperback. the big titled "night of camp david," you look at the top you see the grab the reader subhead. "what would happen if the president of the usa would go stark raving mad." it's fiction. it does have a snappy ending, i promise you. here's what the "new york times" said in their book review when it came out in 1965. the portrayal of a mentally competent president was quote a little too plausible for comfort. our hero senators quote dilemma as he discovers when he tries to enlist the help of some elder statesmen in washington is that the president turns out to be a borderline case in terms of his mental infirmity.

at what point is the president's pathology obvious enough to justify action and who gets to make the decision? who does get to make the decision? previously unimaginable things keep happening now in our politics, in the white house specifically. unprecedented behavior by a u.s. president means literally specifically we don't know of examples of any other president ever behaving this way. that's not only to say these things are remarkable, there's a practical consequence of these things being unprecedented. the practical consequence of this unprecedented nature of this controversy and this president's behavior is history is no help to us. court precedent is of no help, in terms of us sorting out as a country the range of options we might reasonably have for how to respond to a situation like the one that we are in. history can't help us, court precedent can't help us. fiction can at least help us

imagine it, right? there's frank sinatra in "the manchurian candidate," desperately trying to unprogram "the manchurian candidate," to save the country. "night of camp david" the senator trying to convince the wisest wise men in washington something has to be done about the president going increasingly insane, goes to the upstanding leader of defense and to the white house physician. can he convince them all? is this the right group to try to convince? if he does increase this group, what outcome do they try to achieve and under what authority? books like that, thriller books and movies like that invite us as americans to imagine what we might do with a presidency gone that haywire. turns out, that all might have

been good training because today's news invites us americans to consider the same, "the times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed essay, we have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the trump administration whose job would be jeopardize by disclosure. and we deliver this as an important perspective to our leaders. this is the headline as past practices follow would not have been written by the author, the times' editors. "i am part of the resistance inside the trump administration." subquote i work for the president but like-minded colleagues and i have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. >> like-minded colleagues and i. who's "i." the speculation all day has been

very fun, all speculation. if we believe "the times," a person serving in a senior role in the administration, currently in that job, not a former official, a current official, whoever this person is, he or she has made the truly unnerving decision to stay in the white house as a senior administration official while also secretly notifying the public the president of the united states is unfit to be president, and part of the reason this person is sounding that alarm anonymously rather than quitting in protest is he or she believes he or she needs to keep that white house job so he or she can keep using that job to secretly undermine and sabotaging the things the president is trying to do in an ongoing way to hurt the country. yeah. happy wednesday. i wish this was a novel. "president trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern leader. the dilemma which he does not

fully grasp is that many of his senior officials in his own administration are working diligently to frustrate his agenda. i would know. i am one of them. to be clear, ours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want the administration to succeed and think it has already made america safer and more prosperous. we believe our duty is to this country and the president continues to act in ways detrimental to the public. that is why many trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institution until he is out of office. this is a currently serving administration official saying he or she speaks for others, other senior people in the administration who have quote vowed. vowed? vowed to each other like in an organized way, to thwart the president's actions to save the

country from him because he continues to act in a manner detrimental to the health of our republic. then, we get this warning first about the dangerousness of the president's character and second, about the dangerousness about what this senior administration official says is what the president wants for our country. quote, the root of the problem is the president's amorality. anyone who works with him knows he is not mored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making. although he was elected as a republican the president shows little affinity for ideals espoused to republicans, free minds and free marketing. the press is the enemy of the people mass marketing, his impulses and trade are anti-democratic. it does not mean he is against the democratic party, means he is against the democracy quote in public and in private, president trump show as preference for autocrats and dictators, says a senior white

house official. quote, from the white house to 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 theirselves from his whims. meetings with him veer off top ing and off the rails. he engages in repetitive rants and his impulsiveness results in half-baked ill informed decisions that have to be walked back. describing him as impetuous, adversarial and his behavior erratic. since this was published this afternoon, there's been a lot of attention to who the author might be. a lot of speculation maybe it's mike pence, the vice president. the vice president apparently really likes using the word lodestar in a lot of other remarks, cold comfort and both of those phrases appear in this

op-ed. under that semi-mathematical reasoning, maybe it's the vice president or somebody who regularly writes remarks for the vice president or maybe white house counsel, don mcgahn, on his way out the door, we know talking to the special counsel at length and we know has an uncanny way of getting his perspective into the newspaper without ever having his name explicitly on it. you will have noticed now don mcgahn is the hero of every story that mentions him which usually tells you a little something about the sourcing of these stories. don mcgahn is supposedly behind the engine to get his friend, brett kavanaugh onto the supreme court. if you think the kavanaugh nomination started to crash and burn today with this litany of serious allegations kavanaugh may have lied under oath on multiple occasions the last time he was before the senate, maybe it's worth seeing this op-ed that came out this afternoon as a way to distract from brett kavanaugh's sinking for tunes. that said, if you think the

kavanaugh nomination is going well anyone hoping for him to get on the court wasn't happy with this op-ed someone in the white house screaming the president is off his rocker will presumably give some patriotic senators pause doing something on behalf of this particular president at this particular moment. it's also been discussed it could be somebody in the white house communications shop or white house press shop, since this whole operation with the "new york times" today would have required some considerable savvy when it comes to dealing with the press. maybe. we do not know who it is honestly and the speculation thus far is interesting but just speculation. something worth noting, at one point in the op-ed this anonymous senior official turns reporter and stops giving his or her own take on the matter and instead quotes someone else. "there is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next.

a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an oval office meeting which the president flip-flopped on a major decision he made only a week earlier. this is the op-ed writer stopping giving his own take, here is something somebody else told me coming out of a white house meeting with the president. if that's true, which ever top official said to another senior administration official there is no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next. the person who said that knows they said it and they know to whom they said it, so if this anonymous op-ed writer is telling the truth about that interaction, that top official who uttered this quote, knows who wrote the op-ed. for all the attention trying to figure off who this writer is and the white house calling this treason and the "times" on

national guard ground has to hand over this person to the government, for all the attention this was, this op-ed writer does not purport to be acting alone here. quite the contrary. like-minded colleagues and i. trump appointees vowed to do what we can and many senior officials in his own administration trying to frustrate his decisions and some aides have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained in the west wing. it ignores the fact this op-ed purports to be from effectively the spokesperson for a group within the white house. a group that wants to be seen as unsung heroes. quote it may be cold comfort in this chaotic era but americans should know there are adults in the room. we fully recognize what is happening and we are trying to do what's right, even when donald trump won't.

a few possibilities here. it is always possible the "times" is getting hoaxed, right? halloween comes early, boo, the cold fingers of inantism your foot droops off the bed, ah-ha, a hoax. also possible the "times" is getting played by the white house. maybe this is a white house endorsed effort to make the president seem so besieged from within it justice extreme action by the president to clean house and fire lots and lots of people without too much scrutiny on any one of those firings. there's no reason to think either of those things is what happened and no reason to think the "times" would have done their due diligence on this and not getting played or hoaxed. there's every reason to think it

is what it appears to be. if it is what it appears to be, if this is a real senior administration official that feels the need to speak out about what's wrong with the long serving president, why are they making this public case now and what exactly are they trying to get us the public to do about it? you can snipe these sort of comments in gossip. you can make these sort of plans and plots among your fellow c co-conspirators in the white house and all the worst things he wants to do to the public, you can do it without signaling to the country, hey, op-ed "new york times," why signaling the public? what are they asking of the public here? i ask that specifically because this op-ed has a little bit of

false ending. this is the end of it looks like it's supposed to be the ending quote there is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. but the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the label in favor of a single one, americans. let's all be americans first and let's come together. that is definitely the way a nimble politician would end any op-ed, no matter the topic. unimpeachable solid sentiment there. what's the instruction? hey, public, you need to know to do this? hey, public, you need to know this is happening. we're sounding the alarm here. that's what you need to do. that closing is noise to the president's supporters they should stop blindly supporting him. even the president's own officials within the white house say he's not worthy of support. if that's the message, the "new

york times" op-ed page was a strange place to give the message to the supporters. and what ought to have been a real clarion message is hard to work out and why i say appears to be a false end to this piece. the real one, given the instability many witnessed there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th amendment which would start a complex process to remove 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. 25th amendment to the constitution as everybody and their mother googled today we all know came into effect in 1967 after the assassination of john f. kennedy for the procedures of handling the line of the president if he became

unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency. there's more to it but section 4 of the 25th amendment spells out in that instance the vice president and a majority of the cabinet would notify the house and senate the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. with the senate and house so notified, the vice president would then assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. it gets more complicated from there. the basic idea if the vice president and senate have enough unanimity to continue to serve as president. know, there's no case law or historical precedent establishing what that threshold might look like, if they all got there together theoretically the 25th amendment might be useful for removing president trump from the office of the presidency, from within, at least temporarily. is that what they're telling us

needs to be done here or is going to be done here? in the michael wolff book, "fire and fury," steve bannon is quoted twice invoking the 25th amendment coming to president trump. spicer, priebus, cohn, powell, bannon, tillerson, mattis, mnuchin had traveled through the stages of adventure, challenge, frustration, battle, self-justification and doubt before finally having to confront the very real likelihood that the president they worked for did not have the act to function in his job. the debate, as bannon put it was not about whether the president's situation was bad but whether it was 25th amendment bad. a few pages towards the end of the book, bannon is quoted saying there is a one-third chance the president would livermore to the end of his

third and one-third chance the mueller impeachment would lead to the end of the president and one-third chance trump would resign perhaps in the wake of a threat of the 25th amendment about his incapacitation. >> maybe we should have seen this coming. that book with warnings about the president being removed from office this way, that book came out the very start of the year in january. since then, we got the first book from a former senior advisor to the president. she chose as the title to her book, the word "unhinged," and she was not talking about herself. we're about to get the book from bob woodward, not out yet, getting advance copies but talks about senior officials stealing documents from the president's white house and senior members of the white house telling him he's not ordering things that he is seen to order including

attempted assassination of on for leaders. yes, sir, we'll get on that. but not doing it. >> that might make you root for the military, thank god they're not following dangerous orders from the president. oh, boy, is that a dangerous thing to break. there is a reason why the u.s. military not answering to civilian leadership anymore is the stuff off disopen toian novels and movies like "seven days in may." those things make it into political thrillers because the thrill is they're supposed to scare us. in this case today, not "seven days in may," a touch of "camp david," someone in the white house is trying to warn the country the president is nuts and unfit and the senior people who work-around him know it. the end is near. maybe in the form of the invocation of the 25th amendment by the vice president of the united states and the majority of the president's cabinet.

if this is what it appears to be, if this is true, then, one, hey, this is a remarkable time for the senate to russia ahead to try to install a nominee from this president on the supreme court as a lifetime appointment. two, if they're not too busy trying to move ahead with the president's nominee for this lifetime appointment, hey, maybe this is something congress might want to look into. as of today, a senior white house official says members of the president's cabinet have discussed invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president from office on the basis of the fact they believe he's unable to discharge the powers of duties of his office. they only held back because of worries of removing him might cause a quote crisis. now, something has happened since then that has this senior administration official warning the public even though they elected not do this before the public should start thinking this now as an option moving

forward. that might seem the kind of thing congress would want to look into. of course, the unavoidable last question here is what has this set in motion? the 25th amendment discussions in the president's cabinet may have been secret before but they are public now on purpose because of somebody who works at the senior levels of the trump administration. why did they make this public now? this is a stark warning from somewhere near the top of the government. if the president is amoral and anti-democratic and erratic and impulsive and reckless and all the rest of it, then, what do we expect him to do next now in response to this? who's ready for it inside and outside the administration? i know you're sick of hearing the word unprecedented when it comes to this president and this administration, that word is not being overused in this administration, it is apt. when the previously unimaginable

keeps happening, we do need to think urgently and imaginatively about how our country comes out whole and responsible and constitutionally in tact on the other side of this. the other side of thisd be b f throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with liberty mutual new car replacement we'll replace the full value of your car. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ we really pride ourselves on >> temaking it easy for youass, to get your windshield fixed. >> teacher: let's turn in your science papers. >> tech vo: this teacher always puts her students first. >> student: i did mine on volcanoes. >> teacher: you did?! oh, i can't wait to read it. >> tech vo: so when she had auto glass damage... she chose safelite. with safelite, she could see exactly when we'd be there. >> teacher: you must be pascal. >> tech: yes ma'am. >> tech vo: saving her time... [honk, honk] >> kids: bye! >> tech vo: ...so she can save the science project. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪

billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart.

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.

♪ steam live games every sunday afternoon with nfl sunday ticket .tv. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit nflsundayticket.tv

we are getting a sense tonight of how this anonymous op-ed ricochetting in washington. saying the problem for the president is the author could be so many people -- that's insightful -- eke -- the sleeper cells have awoken, asserted on text messages on aides and outside allies. it's like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house. joining us now is nicolle wallace. she served as a senior official in the george w. bush white house as communications director and to john mccain during his 2008 campaign. thank you for being here. >> thank you for getting on the phone at 4:00. >> right when this broke and you

were handling the enormity of this when it was all emerging. a lot of people talking about the fact this is unlike anything that happened in another white house. there was a lot of drama in the george w. bush white house, there were those that left and wrote damning books. >> those were indictments of policy decisions, kick clark after 9/11 saying he jumped up and down and tried to warn the president and condi rice of something 9/11-like, indictment of policies and interrogation of others. there was never anyone that came out and wrote anonymous op-eds that the cabinet talked about invoking the 25th amendment. never happened. never ever happened. what's so extraordinary in that piece by ashley and phil rucker and their colleagues, these are things people close to trump has been saying since he was 1 of 17

candidates in the primary. the criticism of his character. >> criticism of his character, observation of not a man who reads books and wasn't a titan of business and essentially ran a family business and not talent. the video that came out, is that trump or me talking about someone in the third person. this is someone whose rot of character is known by everyone known to him. >> this isn't a story of him working nuts, i started working for him because he was all right and started working for him and now sounded the alarm. mechanisms to prevent something like this happening. >> like community dave.

>> or presidents known to pick up the bottle, not something like that. something was fine and not become fine. what you're describing is consistent with my own understanding of the people involved here, the president is not seen as being any different as he was. so why has this alarm been sounded now? >> since the beginning the people who worked in the national security apparatus at the white house and as i understand it, state department and defense department and other places have truly seen it as their jobs and when pressed after something like charlottesville, they were the ones on the phone saying you don't want me to leave. i understand how you're saying we're staying with the president's racism. believe me, if you knew what i know you wouldn't want me to leave and the national security officials are there. >> they are there sabotaging the president's intentions? >> they wouldn't say sabotaging, preserving the president's national security. >> if you have to be there or

the president will cause damage, what they're doing is undermining. >> it's a cover-up. you should go to congress. the other problem is the committees in congress that used to be the bipartisan security agencies are broken. would you go to the house intel where devin nunes is a trump stooge, who would you call? >> in fiction, people find wise men and find, go talk to the chief justice of the supreme court or talk to an upstanding cabinet secretary seems to be outside the fray or find individual lions of the senate or old hands of the house who can be trusted and there's an informal caucus of gray beards for lack of a better term to make sure things land right. is that real or only fiction? >> i think that may at one time

have been real when there were people like ted kennedy and john mccain who had a bipartisan relationship there and if they caught somebody hurtling toward the unknown. i don't know who that is. lindsey graham went from being president at john mccain's funeral to basically grovelling before this president in whiplash speed in hours not days. the idea there is anybody on the hill you could go to seen as a nonpartisan protector of our national security is sadly a fiction. >> where this president has decided to go with this incredibly serious alarm is to the public. >> the "new york times." the decision to go to the "new york times" is interesting, too. that it's not a journal of sort of the right. >> it's not where you go to speak to trump supporters. >> when you go to speak to trump because we know he reads it, he rages against it. this person sounds like a republican to me.

he or she, sounds like he's described as a man is speaking to republicans. i don't understand why republicans, they now know from a person high up in the trump administration, a political appointee, may have worked on their staff and many have come from capitol hill. they have now said donald trump's cabinet, all political appointees, all republicans have talked about invoking the 25th amendment. why there haven't been calls for congressional hearings, even if they're in secret and closed from the public right now, every cabinet member should be called before a closed hearing to be asked what is at stake? what is at risk, as long as there are men and women in our military in far-flung places with their lives on the line. >> nicolle wallace, author of "deadline." the "new york times" op-ed said he, and then everybody said it maintenance. at least we know it's not

kellyanne conway, not like there's all that many people working in the white house. the times clarified the person who wrote the tweet does not know the identity. >> okay. >> including the gender of the op-ed writer. even though they had given that clue, they said, it's not a clue. won't be long before it comes out. thank you. stay with us. stay wit at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.

whoooo. tripadvisor makes finding your perfect hotel... relaxing. just enter your destination and dates. tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites to find the hotel you want for the lowest price. dates. deals. done! tripadvisor. is part of a bigger picture. that bigger picture is statewide mutual aid. california years ago realized the need to work together.

teamwork is important to protect the community, but we have to do it the right way. we have a working knowledge and we can reduce the impacts of a small disaster, but we need the help of experts. pg&e is an integral part of our emergency response team. they are the industry expert with utilities. whether it is a gas leak or a wire down, just having someone there that deals with this every day is pretty comforting. we each bring something to the table that is unique and that is a specialty. with all of us working together we can keep all these emergencies small. and the fact that we can bring it together and effectively work together is pretty special. they bring their knowledge, their tools and equipment and the proficiency to get the job done. and the whole time i have been in the fire service, pg&e's been there, too. whatever we need whenever we need it. i do count on pg&e to keep our firefighters safe. that's why we ask for their help. can a sitting president be

required to respond a subpoena? >> that's a hypothetical question. >> the president claims he has a right to pardon himself. >> the question of self-pardons is something i have never anlgced. >> i would like your commitment you will recuse yourself yourself-analyzed -- yourself as to criminal or civil liability. >> i should not and could not commit how i would handle a case. >> do you believe -- a prosecutor criminally investigating? >> that's a question of precedent. >> i'm asking about your position that you stated in this law review article that a president is not subject to investigations while in office. >> sarah, i'm not going to answer hypothetical questions. all i can say, senator, is that

was my view in 1998. > need to be careful and stay away from the line, three zip codes away from the line of current events or politics. today's marathon confirmation hearing, senator after senator pressed brett kavanaugh on the less hypothetical question over the serious investigation of could he be indicted or pardon himself. despite judge kavanaugh's extensive public comment in public records saying he believes the president should be excused from the legal system and shouldn't answer subpoenas and shouldn't be questioned, today, when pressed on those matters, the judge gave no answer, no answer, no answer, the kind of thing you expect at a confirmation hearing these days, typically the way these things go. but then remarkably, in addition to the no answer stuff we knew

to expect. senators ended up pressing brett kavanaugh on three separate instances they say he may have lied to the senate during his confirmation hearing for a seat on the d.c. appeals. during the first question that seemed to catch him by surprise had to do with a former staffer as having leaked troves of documents taken from senate democrats on the judiciary committee. at that 2006 hearing for his judgeship, brett kavanaugh was asked whether he had any knowledge that staffer was behind those leaked democratic documents. as an attorney in the white house counsel's office, brett kavanaugh had worked closely with that staffer on a number of judicial nominations, sir, did you know anything about it? brett kavanaugh back then denied knowing anything about it. today, senator leahy of vermont said he saw e-mails telling it

into question and trying to get those e-mails released to the public so the public can see if brett kavanaugh lied under oath on that matter. he also called into question brett kavanaugh's questioning in 2006 he had no involvement whatsoever in the bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program suggesting again, evidence withheld from the public's view contradicts what brett kavanaugh told them under oath the first time he was before them 2006. the democrats were giving no quarter today pressing him on his prior testimony, not being involved in policy involving enemy combatants when credible reporting suggested he absolutely was involved shaping those policies and asked about his extent of his relationship with a federal judge accused credibly of sexual harassment who stepped down from the bench because of it. kavanaugh says he knows nothing about that. they pressed him to his noted

antipathy to affirmative action and whether the things he said under oath has been true. it doesn't usually come up in a supreme court confirmation hearing that a nominee is accused of having repeatedly lied under oath the last time he or she has appeared before the senate. that is what has now happened with brett kavanaugh. one of the senators who just wrapped up his questions joins us next, senator cory booker. orr

woman: where are we taking him? i have no clue. we're just tv doctors. if this was a real emergency, i'd be freaking out. we are the tv doctors of america. together with cigna reminding you to go, know, and take control of your health. schedule your annual check-up today.

to go, know, and take control of your health. if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain

infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio®. entyvio®. relief and remission within reach. the wesby case, in my view, had nothing to do with that issue. >> i tried to give you some time there. this is what i'm hearing now, sir. you know, and i appreciate your rhetoric on these matters. again, you are going to be a judge on the supreme court if you are confirmed and have the power to make massive differences in our country. these are real issues. i asked you if the fisher case was rightly decided. you refused to answer. i asked you whether you believed adversity was a compelling

interest. you didn't answer that, sir. that's not good enough for the nominee to the highest court. >> his hearing has been -- in a lot of ways whether the protesters or democrats insisting it be delayed so they can review his lengthy paper trail being denied to them and to the public and his unusual amount of public statements whether a president has to submit to investigation given this president is tied up in a number of ongoing investigations. durings the confirmation hearings thus far judge kavanaugh has stood accused seriously of not telling the truth on at least three substantive matters. the last time he was under the oath and before the senate being confirmed before a judgeship in 2006. joining us now, senator cory

booker fr booker. i know it has been a long day for you. thank you for joining us. >> yes. >> >> he's managed to duck and dodge a lot of questions folks want to know. where is he going to be on rowe? he won't speak to those issues. especially with the jeopardy growing around donald trump and being an unindicted coconspirator and the investigation ongoing, refuse to talk about recusing himself when we know he wasn't even in those early lists from the federalists society, appeared there after this investigation even began and donald trump picked him because, in my opinion, one of the factors was his views on whether a president had immunity or not, in effect. so it's been frustrating day.

but what's most frustrating is how many of these e-mails, correspondences and paper thas a they are hiding. i had a tense moment with a friend of mine, mike lee, just about some of these things called committee confidential. you have e-mails like the one i tried to use that's literally labeled racial profiling that has this candidate's profiles there but something they have been trying to shield from the public. we are going to press through. we have another day tomorrow and hopefully they make a good case to the american people that should this man become a supreme court justice, it's not just rowe v. wade, it's our health care, what's going to happen as these issues around the president begin to unfold. so many aspects of our lives. the effect it is a lifetime appointment for years to come. . all americans should be speaking up about this nomination. >> you referenced that e-mail,

that document that you are not allowed to read from and describe in public that you say is labeled racial profiling and contains judge's rulings. with all these things being labeled committee confidential, with this weird process where it wasn't the national archives. it was a lawyer who was a friend of judge kavanaugh, a lot of people started to wonder why democrats are essentially respecting that designation. these documents have been labeled committee confidential. you believe some shouldn't be kept confidential. what would be the consequences if you decided to read it into the record? >> well, i pressed that very

hard today to the extent that it definitely caused some conflict, let's say. i think that's going to continue to happen over the hearings tomorrow. but remember, these committee confidential, which there are rich nuggets that reveal his thinking, reveal dishonesty about some of these issues, that's still only about 7% of the total documents we're asking. of the universe of his documents of his career, we've only got about 10% of those documents. we are doing a job interview only knowing about 10% of this candidate's interview. i wouldn't hire an intern with only 10% of their resume. there is so much more the american public should see about this candidate and should be able to see the public eye before we put him on the highest court in the land, the backstop for human rights, for access to health care, for so many of the issues for the rest of his life. he is a relatively young man. this could affect america for decades to come and we do not

know what his record is. >> you described judge brett cav that's record as essentially making him somewhat of an o outli outlier. he does seem to be somewhat unusual in his views on those presidential immunity and presidential sus peceptibility immunity issues. do you feel like those issues dove tail at all about whether or not this changes the calculus about whether this president should be making a nomination, let alone this nomination at this time, particularly when his own white house is signaling that he may be in the position of potentially being removed from office by his own cabinet. >> this has been a stunning two days. in the midstdebate,

these one-two punches land where people around this president have been sounding the alarm. almost like a paul revere moment, coming out and saying such dramatic things. i said to one of my colleagues today, if we were reading this four years ago and somebody said it was a novel, we would think this is wild fiction. there is nothing normal about this, that you have people making serious allegations that are close to this president literally talking about invoking an amendment in the constitution about taking a president away from power. this is a very, very not strange time, not non-normal time. this is an alarming moment in american history. and so my job, and i'm grateful that i have had some partnerships on the other side of the aisle, people like lindsey graham who stood with me to introduce and get out of our committee, efforts to protect this investigation and protect

mueller, we've got to really start understanding the constitutional implications, the crisis that can come to our country if we're not prepared to deal with these crises. that brings, as you said, these supreme court deliberations back to the center. and a president who in the midst of all this crisis, unprecedented and an unindicted coconspirator, more and more indictments coming out, he is not above the law, and he should not be able to pick his own judge. that is an affront to our ideals of justice. he's not above the law. so that's another reason why we should not be doing this. i think history will look back at this as a moment you rushed to support a supreme court justice at a time when our country was in crisis. they are in crisis. they are in chaos and they are now revealing true corruption. >> democrat of new jersey. senator, thank you for talking to us again. a very, very long day today and another one tomorrow. thanks for being here, sir.

>> on days like this where you keep thinking we are really in unchartered waters, on days like this, we like to talk to the counsel -- we like to seek the council of our next guest. thank you for being here. i feel like you're a booey bobbing in very, very chopping seas right now. >> i feel they are choppy seas right now, you're right. >> you're the reason i read "night at camp david." because i was trying to get my head around at least fictional precedence if we couldn't find real historical predencedence. there have been discussions about the 25th amendment before, yes? >> yes, there have been but never came here to being invoked. it will be hard to do if it were because you do have to get those

two-thirds. this morning you had this nominee for the supreme court, judge kavanaugh who is filling the seat of kennedy. in comes kavanaugh with almost fringe views with how much a president should be able to get away with and this cry for help from someone high up in the trump administration saying things are very bad and they're getting worse and basically we don't know if we could hold things off for much longer. >> do you know of other officials have have taken a step like this to denounce the sitting president while still serving that president rather than resign anything protest or writing a tell-all book around the world? >> never in real-time. you know, you had for instance, nixon's secretary of defense at the end, he was worried that nixon would use tanks to surround the white house. might even threaten to use

nuclear weapons to somehow keep himself in office and not resign. he delivered an order saying if nixon gives any order like that to the pent began, make sure that i, the defense secretary, counter sign that. but you have never had in real-time someone who is in place saying something like this to something like "the new york times." it is incredible. >> the president responding by calling this treason saying that "the new york times" must hand over the identity of this op ed writer to the government as a matter of national security. is there anything we should look to in terms of understanding the way that the president is reacting to this? >> yes. that's what author titarians do. that was what joseph stallone did. he was saying who around me is not loyal. i do hope that we're not in a position where our president of the united states does anything that reminds us of those times.

>> nbc news presidential historian. i really appreciate your time tonight, sir. please, if you have any other fiction recommendations for me that can help me keep my head on straight, i will always welcome them. >> i will think hard. thank you. be well, rachel. >> that does it for us tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. wow, a a day. it is now time for the word last with lawrence o'donnell. >> we are going to have to -- someone is going to have to because i can't invent a new, bigger version of the world "unprecedented". >> yeah. >> it's run out of gas. >> yeah. >> we need something stronger. >> well, the practical consequences of something being unprecedented is that we don't know where to look in order to figure out what we might do next because nobody has gone through it before. >> yes. we've never been through it before. >> we usually think of ourselves as like standing there in a stick -- with a strike like even