>> does judge weigh in soon? >> we'll hear more from the judge tomorrow. what happens to these people who. the government tricked me into signing these documents. >> all right. thank you. that's it for "all in" this evening. rachel maddow starts now. >> happy to have you with us. burgess everett is a reporter for politico.com. he covers congress. out of all the beat reporters in national politics, dedicated congressional reporters are often the most fun to watch. and that's because of the sort of breath of their beat. sometimes in congress they are covering gigantic stories of national significance and even potentially international significance like confirmation hearings for a new justice for the united states supreme court. sometime they're covering the biggest story you can imagine.

even when there isn't a huge earth-shaking story like that, congressional beat reporters have to be there in congress covering whatever is happening on any given day. so today a reporter got to cover the supreme court nomination hearings for brett kavanaugh, a huge deal. but he had to cover the other stuff that happen in the senate today which i flernd mr. everett's twitter feed today included the senate apparently passing a resolution today confirming that september is school bus safety month. i had no idea. a couple weeks ago he had this. might be important, might not, but i saw it. here it is. mike expense having a very long chat with senator chris coons. it might be something, might be nothing but it was observed by the congressional beat reporter and therefore it was reported.

sometimes you get public facing complaints about congress. quote, dean heller still won't talk to me. or it's no tie wednesday for bernie sanders. see? i wouldn't have known that if we didn't have beat reporters in national politics whose beat is congress. is it important? might be. sometimes, not always, but i'm glad somebody was there to report and it did so. and on july 19, seven weeks ago, burgess everett, for politico.com, was apparently right outside senator dick durbin's office in the capitol. because he's a congressional beat reporter, right? but for whatever reason he ended up at that exact spot at a very opportune moment and he was able to report this. quote, mcconnell withdraws bounds nomination. i can hear democrats literally cheering in senator durbin's office. that day in the u.s. senate,

democrats were not going around in the halls openly cheering and celebrating what had just happened but they apparently did burst into cheering behind closed doors. doors that apparently were not thick enough to block shoe leather congressional reporters. at least one of them from hearing they were shouting and cheering inside senator dur binl's office. what they were celebrating that day was this guy. not becoming a judge. for everything else the trump administration has proven itself incapable of doing, they have been just a juggernaut at confirming conservative judges. republicans in the senate under president obama had a strategy about this. they held open every single judicial seat they could for as long as they could, including even a seat on the u.s. supreme court. they would not let the obama white house put any federal judges through. so in the obama years, the vacancies for judicial seats

mounted and mounted and mounted for years. and then having followed that strategy for years, republicans finally got their payoff when a republican president was elected and they were ready and they launched hundreds of conservative nominees, all at ones, all for lifetime appointments and there were plenty of vacancies to fill because republicans had held them open. republicans have been running the nominees through like factory made chocolates on a conveyor belt. faster, faster, faster. it is like they think this administration might not last so they have to hurry them through as fast as they can. on july 19th, despite this well oiled if fairly frantic system, one failed. ryan bounds. he was a conservative prosecutor in oregon. he was nominated to one level below the supreme court and in general, republicans in the senate have been ramming through

trump nominees by the fist full. but this ryan bounds nomination was stopped and it was stopped because, number one, all democrats in the senate opposed him. they were united in their opposition against bounds. and number two, senator tim scott also opposed him. senator tim scott, the lone african-american in the united states senate. it turns out this nominee a robust lengthy history of really inflammatory racial writings. none of which he had turned over to the judiciary committee when they were supposedly vetting him for a lifetime appointment to the appeals court. the nominee had associated himself with some racially sort of crass stuff when he was opinion editor of the campus newspaper, for example, that paper started using this nice

angry indian cartoon to illustrate his section of the paper. they did that because there was a history of native-american groups objecting to that today todayture at that campus. i can say that for example because i went to this same school at the same time as this guy and i remember the fights. but despite the racially inflammatory stuff in this nominee's written record in his past, and despite that he had apparently tried to write those writings from the senate, it was confirmed through the republican senate anyway on what was expected to be a party line vote until senator tim scott voted against him. he was not willing to vote a guy had publicly mused on aryan student unions and ethnic elites. according to the reporting at the time in politico.com, senator tim scott started to voice his concerns and the possibility that he might vote

no on this nominee one day before the vote was scheduled on ryan bounds. apparently senator scott spoke to the nominee himself to try to assuage his concerns. that did not work. then senator scott went to talk to his friend, senator marco rubio about it. and they decided to talk together to the nominee. they did so. that did not work. afterward, senator scott said no, i am not doing it. you cannot have my vote for this nominee. senator marco rubio said okay, no, if you're voting no, i will join you in that, too. and that was all it took. the nomination died. and burgess everett was there to their democrats cheering about it behind the doors of senator dick durbin's office. that was seven weeks ago. republicans are in control of the u.s. senate but only barely. they only have a 51-49 majority. at the time of that ryan bounds

nomination seven weeks ago, that's when senator john mccain was out sick. so at that point wasn't 51-49. it was 50-49. that meant it would only take one defection to sink any judicial nominee or any other vote in the senate as long as democrats stayed unified in opposition. now senator mccain has been replaced. now it's back to 51-49. that still means the only two republican senators people off on any one vote or nomination, as long as the democrats are unified, that nominee is toast. now after 31 hours of hearings for brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, it is becoming clear that democrats are proceeding -- republicans are broegs that very, very nomination in mind.

there have been some forgive me, i think there's been quite a lot of facile commentary. i don't mean that to be snarky but i think there's been a ton of facile commentary and some headlines suggesting that they're trying to make a spectacle because the democrats are in the minority and there's no way they can stop this nomination so they're setting off fireworks pointlessly to make a scene. you've seen that's what the democrats have been doing. with the stunts, releasing documents from kavanaugh's history, are documents that the republicans say should be confidential. if democrats were just trying to make a spectacle out of it, if they knew it was a futile effort, he was definitely going to be confirmed anyway no matter what, if they just wanted to

make a stink, there are easier and fun ways to do it. that's not what they're doing. what's becoming clear is the democrats aren't just trying to make a spectacle of it. they appear to be actually trying to block the nomination. they appear to be trying to win. democrats aren't used to seeing this so i'm not sure it is being recognized coast to coast. they're not just making sound and fury. they're doing something to try to win and stop kavanaugh's nomination and they may not win. but i think it is worth showing that that's what they're going for. for a number of reasons, this nominee is actually super unpopper la. nationwide polling shows he is less popular than any other supreme court nomination than harriet meyers.

the reason i'm not saying just as harriet meyers, she never made it to the supreme court. she had to withdraw when it became clear that she had nowhere near enough support to proceed. public support for brett kavanaugh's nomination is even lower than what harriet mers had. and it is even lower than what we had for robert bork. judge bork insisted on going all the way through to a vote and not withdrawing the way that harriet miers did. but bork was rejected by a fairly large majority in the senate. that was a failed nomination. he didn't have enough support. brett kavanaugh's support is lower than bork's support. and the public doesn't get a direct vote on supreme court nominees but it is striking in this case that support is so low for kavanaugh. and ultimately that kind of

thing does end up mat ordering the senators if they have reason to really seriously consider their vote here. ultimately, it does matter to elected officials. particularly right before an election when more americans don't want brett kavanaugh confirmed than do want him confirmed. and in national polling he is underwater that way. more want him rejected than confirmed. in that swrirmt a weak and unpopular nominee, having been chosen for the position by a weak and unpopular president, who has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal felony case and at the center of a huge criminal case and investigation that is literally going to result in one of the campaign aides being sent to prison probably tomorrow in the middle of the brett kavanaugh nomination hearings while the jury proceeds for the

campaign chairman up on eight felony counts, with a weak and unpopular nominee nominated by a weak and endangered and unpopular president and with a razor thin majority in the senate, democrats are not throwing up their hands and being like, we've got no choice heretion can't do nothing. let's just make noise. democrats have one small specific task this week and it is not to change the world's perception of brett kavanaugh or donald trump or to somehow transform the republican caucus in the senate somehow. all they need to do is people off two republican senators. persuade them on decide for their own reasons that they can't vote for this man. what democrats are doing here is not a turn on the sprinkler strategy. this is an aim the squirt one strategy. for example, there are two republican senators who say they are pro-choice. they have made clear to their

constituents for years, in both cases for decades, that they will not freeway vote that leads to overturning roe versus wade. up to now, senator murkowski and collins have said they are satisfied with brett kavanaugh saying he versus roe versus wade as settled law. >> we talked about whether he considered roe to be settled law. he said that he agreed with what justice roberts said at his nomination hearing, in which he said that it was settled law. we had a very good, thorough discussion about that issue and many others. >> senator susan collins of maine. the other one is hees murkowski of alaska apparently indicating some satisfaction that brett kavanaugh told her that he

considered roe versus wade settled law. that by her admission is something that matters to her in terms of her nomination. well today somebody leaked to the new york times and then to nbc news this e-mail written by brett kavanaugh he wrote in 2003 in which he argued that roe versus wade is not recognized to be settled law because the supreme court could very well overturn it. quote, i am not sure that all legal scholars refer to it the as settled law since the court can always overrule its press denial and three current justices on the court would do so. at the time he was writing in it 2003 he was probably right that three justices would have voted to overturn roe. right now there are certainly four justices, and judge skaung likely to be the fifth vote to do just that if they ever put him on the court. so that e-mail first made public

today despite it being stamped comfort gin confidential, why wait marked confidential and not released to the public? what about that was not okay for the public to know? that was him commenting on a proposed op ed. what is the sanctity of an op ed that says we need to be protected from his changes? also, how do senators like lis murkowski and susan collins explain that they're still confident booms he'll treat it as settled law. that there's no chance he believes it could be overturned. it is there in black and white that he doesn't believe it is settled law. that he absolutely thinks it could be overturned. again, what democratic senators are doing is not a broad attempt to persuade the media.

i say it is a democratic stlat because nbc news says when they got it, they got it from democratic sources. this strategy is aimed at two specific republican senators. it has an audience. a very specific audience. and they have admitted that they will base their vote in part on that issue. whether or not anybody was moved or persuaded about the certainty of the vote to make abortion illegal, whether or not this memo persuades anybody, the key question whether they are persuaded by the release of this memo. hawaii senator also thwarted the confidentiality that republicans tried to assert by releasing this one from kavanaugh's time in 2002. here he is writing, i think the testimony needs to make clear that any program targeting native hawaiians as a group is

subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable validity under the constitution. that is a very specific issue. why would she be going out on a limb as a senator to break the supposed confidentiality of these documents in order to release this specific document from brett kavanaugh's past? it is not on a lot of issues. it is that one statement basically. now, is this kind of an issue going to turn the national tide against brett kavanaugh? no. that specific document might not even garner a specific national headline when it comes to kavanaugh. you don't need to turn the whole country. you need to turn two votes. lisa murkowski was specific, she said i troefr a committee confidential document where

judge kavanaugh questioned the validity of the programs benefit native hawaiian sxrams by extension, alaska natives. in case it is not clear enough that it is specifically targeted, specifically designed, narrow cast to make it impossible for alaska senator lisa murkowski to vote for this nominee, she's willing to put a point on it. >> i think you have a problem. your view is that native hawaiians don't deserve protection as indigenous people tunneled constitution and your argument raises a serious question about how would you rule on the constitutionality of programs benefiting alaska natives. i think my colleagues from alaska should be deeply troubled by your views. >> my colleagues from alaska. so we've got democrats giving susan collins and lisa murkowski a reason to vote now by showing that roe versus wade is not

settled law. they've both that that's key to their vote. in addition, we have lisa murkowski with another reason. expose this document that shows that lease did murkowski might have a real problem back home with the considerable alaska native vote in her home state if she votes for this nominee is hostile to programs. and you might have seen this morning the announcement that she had released the announcements. it came after cory booker stopped the show when he said he was willing to risk expulsion from the senate to risk exposing documents that had been named confidential and hidden from the public. the one he wanted to release was about racial profiling. thanks to that action, we have this document.

here's brett kavanaugh in 2001 calling it a naked racial set-aside. he was talking about a department of transportation program is supposed to benefit minority owned contractors. forgetting government contracts. he calls it a naked racial set-aside. he is also calling the program for had a wines. it is like writing about the naked elites. except ryan bounds never became a judge. because republican senator tim scott and maybe even republican senator marco rubio said they could not stomach that pass wroig a race for a judicial nominee and they decided that a few weeks ago and they failed. they don't need to entertain any of us.

they just need two votes. and those no votes can be for any reason at all that's important to these two republican senators. so the democrats did blow up the process again a little bit today by calling republicans' bluff on what kavanaugh documents could be shown to the public. but it is not a blind eruption to get attention. when you look at what they're releasing and the way they're releasing it, this is a very, very tough effort. they might have with specific elements of brett kavanaugh's record that would not have made it into the newspaper. for the most part it fathers republican senators who are being targeted here in this effort are not senators who are members of the committee. those are documents that wouldn't have otherwise been seen by anybody off the committee. when they're releasing the

documents, that may be the only way they can let senator tim scott that says affirmative action is the set aside. that may be the only way to let them know. that may be the only way to lay it out as clearly as possible for senators collins and murkowski that brett kavanaugh doesn't think roe v. wade is settled law. it is not just noise here. there is a melody. there is a method to what they are doing. and alongside that, there are two other things going on that we'll talk about over the course of the evening. number one, there quite robust effort to show that not one, not two, not three, not four times that he may have lied to the senate when he was up for judge ten years ago. democrats have been probing around the edges of that

allegation. today they started laying out the proof. we'll have more on that coming up. and then in addition there is the drama that has been unleashed by california senator kamala harris. >> judge, have you ever discussed special counsel mueller or his investigation with anyone? >> well, it's in the news every day. >> have you discussed it with anyone? >> with other judges i know. >> have you discussed mueller or his investigation with anyone at the law firm founded by mark cass wits, president trump's personal lawyer? be sure about your answer, sir. >> well, i'm not remembering but if you have something you want to -- >> are you certain you've not had a conversation with anyone at that law firm?

>> benson and torres, the law firm founded by mark kasowitz, president trump's personal lawyer. have you had any conversation about rob mueller or his investigation with anyone at that firm? yes or no? >> is there a person you're talking about? >> my question have you had a conversation with anyone at that firm about that investigation? it's a really specific question. >> i would like to know the person you're thinking of. >> i think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us. who did you have a conversation with? >> mr. chairman, i would like the raise an objection here. this town is full of law firms. >> first of all, i would like to you pause the clock. thank you. >> that was the cliffhanger that we were left with at the end of

last night's questioning of brett kavanaugh. where did that come from? senator harris has just had another round of questioning brett kavanaugh. she went back with him tonight. we've got that ahead for you in just a moment. and then we think depending on what happens in that hearing, we think we may have senator harris joining us live on the show. stay with us. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price.

so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. bundle and save big, but now it's time to find my dream abode. -right away, i could tell his priorities were a little unorthodox. -keep going. stop. a little bit down. stop. back up again. is this adequate sunlight for a komodo dragon? -yeah. -sure, i want that discount on car insurance just for owning a home, but i'm not compromising. -you're taking a shower? -water pressure's crucial, scott! it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. -they don't say that. it's like they say -- location, location, koi pond. the first thing that was important for me to change was the culture of the company. and i think that had to shift to responsible growth. second thing i wanted to change was the leadership of the company. and the third was for us to start listening. listening to our riders. listening to our driver partners. i think listening is ultimately

going to make us a better company. this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪

this was just a little while ago this evening at the brett kavanaugh hearings. >> have you had a special counsel or his investigation with the law firm that has represented president trump? as you'll recall last night, i asked you whether you had had such a conversation and under oath you gave no clear answer. then today my republican colleagues raised the issue with you and again you said you don't recall and that you had no, quote, inappropriate conversations with anyone at that law firm which has led a lot of people to believe that was equivocal in terms of a response. so whether a conversation was appropriate in your opinion is not a clear answer to my question. my colleague, senator

blumenthal, again asked you and you said, you were pretty confident the answer was no. so frankly, if last night you had just said no, or an absolute no even today, i think this could be put to rest. but i will ask you again and for the last time. yes or no. have you ever been part of a conversation with lawyers at the firm of kasowitz benson torres about special counsel mueller or his investigation? and i asked, were you ever part of a conversation, i'm not asking you what did you say. i'm asking you, were you a party to a conversation that occurred regarding special counsel mueller's investigation? and a simple yes or no will suffice. >> about his investigation. are you referring to a specific person? >> i'm referring to a specific subject and the specific person i'm referring to is you.

>> who was the conversation with? you said you had information. >> that is not the subject of the question, sir. the subject of the question is you and whether you were part of a conversation regarding special counsel mueller's investigation. >> the answer is no. >> thank you. >> and it would have been great if you could have said that last night. thank you. >> never mind. >> we were racing toward showtime when that happened in the brett kavanaugh session. joining me, senator harris, i know you were right in the thick of it. >> i am. sorry i couldn't be there in person. i'm on the phone in the back of the hearings room. >> if you need to jump off at any point, jump. help us understand what's going on. you said that you have received reliable information that this nomination, this nominee had a

conversation with a law firm that is representing the president and at one point represented the president in the mueller conversation and that conversation was specifically about mueller and his probe. what do you make of the nominee giving you a flat denial on that at last tonight? >> well, i don't know why it took 24 hours to get a final answer that was a firm no. i'll tell you that he has been unable to agree that he should recuse himself on the investigations if they should arrive at the supreme court and he confirmed he has not given clear answers on whether the president can fire him. and you know, a lot that has been about this, where he's been evasive in terms of his answers. >> he was really pressing you both last night and tonight to tell him who you were asking about. republicans suggested, and the nominee suggested a little bit

that was the only way co-answer the question. because he couldn't have any way of knowing if people he was talking to about the investigation were in fact associated with that firm. what did you make of that framing to answer the question? >> i'm still, i must admit, i'm still really unsure about why he keeps equivocating. you're absolutely right. he wanted clarification about who exactly at the firm, he wanted a list of the people who are at the firm. he wanted to know the subject matter. even tonight he did that. it leads me to believe that there is more to this than he's letting on. and i frankly, when we look at his whole record. there's a lot about it that leave us with a lot of questions. >> can you share anything with us about the intelligence or information you received that

leads to you believe this conversation did take place? there's a lot of speculation that it might have been a conversation with edward mcnally, someone who is a partner at that firm who he worked closely in the george w. bush white house and they're still friends. can you tell us anything about the information you received that led to this line of questioning? >> i'm sorry. i can't. i guess i feel like a journalist at this moment. i received it as confidential information [ inaudible ] to prompt the question. and for almost 24 hours we went without him giving a firm answer. i don't know who he consulted with before he could say what he said but the burden is on him, frankly, to explain why he has equivocated for 24 hours and still seems to want to parse out the question and answer. >> without asking but your source and the nature of the information, you raised the

issue about him refusing to entertain the idea that he should recuse on anything related to the president and this investigation of the president. the president's potential criminal liability or susceptibility to things like subpoena. this information that you received, if this nominee has had conversations with people associated with the president's legal guests this matter and they haven't been disclosed to the senate, would that be cause for him to commit to a recusal on those cases? is that what you would expect to be the implication of that kind of information coming light? >> i absolutely would. i went through the [ inaudible ] and i think that is definitely the case with -- [ inaudible ]

it made cheer that he was involved in these conversations. there's no question he should recuse himself. the american public has a right to know that certain matters go before the united states supreme court involving this president, that they'll be heard -- [ inaudible ] as it relates to the possible scenarios around this president and the various investigations, it is very possible that very significant questions will need to be answered by the united states supreme court and tonight united states supreme court. so it is a serious matter. the fact again that as a nominee he has been parsing and playing around with words before giving a direct answer gives me pause. >> senator kamala harris in the judiciary committee. thank you so much. i know you have to get back. see, i should have had her call in on two phones at once.

so when it started cutting out on the one phone, i could have that, turn to the other side! it never works out. but what i do count on... is staying happy and healthy. so, i add protein, vitamins and minerals to my diet with boost®. new boost® high protein nutritional drink now has 33% more high-quality protein, along with 26 essential and minerals your body needs. all with guaranteed great taste. the upside- i'm just getting started. boost® high protein be up for life

but let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance. which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. so you'll remember it. 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. little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats moderate to severe plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla,

75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla . it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have  a history of depression or suicidal thoughts,... ...or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe.

pg&e wants you to plan ahead by mapping out escape routes and preparing a go kit, in case you need to get out quickly. for more information on how to be prepared and keep your family safe, visit pge.com/safety. a couple months before the 2016 presidential election donald trump did an unusual thing that no other candidate had ever done before. it was very unexpected. he publicly released a list of all the people he might possibly nominate to the supreme court. he did not write the list. the list was compiled for help by conservative legal groups

that eventually included 21 names. when trump released the final list, he said, this list is definitive and i will choose only from in it picking future justices of the united states supreme court. that's presumably assuaging worries from republicans who might think that he will appoint judge judy or somebody off fox or whoever it was. sure enough when trump won the presidency, his first nominee, neil gorsuch, came right off that list. a few months later when rumors started to swirl that maybe justice kennedy were thinking of retiring, trump said if that happened, he would definitely pick his nominee off the same list that he picked neil gorsuch from. a couple weeks later, robert mueller was appointed special counsel and then something odd happened. that list from 2016, that was the final and definitive list, it suddenly grew some new names

that hadn't been on it before. including a judge named brett kavanaugh. he was not on the original list. he was added after the special counsel was appointed more than a year after the list was supposedly finalized. when anthony kennedy did retire, sure enough, brett kavanaugh became the front-runner for the seat even though the republican here mitch mcconnell reportedly warned that kavanaugh would be the most difficult nominee to confirm because of his lengthy paper trail. why did brett kavanaugh have to be add to the list? and then chosen over the objections of the leader of the chamber that would have to confirm him? well, one way in which brett kavanaugh does appear to stand out from everyone else, he is on the record as having an extremely and pagsive view of presidential power when it comes to investigations and presidents getting in trouble. he is a very hard line conservative on most if not all

policy areas. but specifically on a president's susceptibility to investigation, he stands how soon. he has written that not only should presidents not be indicted or subpoenaed, but they shouldn't even be investigated. they can't be impeached but how do you impeach someone if you can't investigate? he was pressed harder and harder. brett kavanaugh has refused to answer any questions that whether a president can be subpoenaed, whether he can fire the investigator. he has refused to discuss recusing himself. so that's where brett kavanaugh came from. add to that the president who nominated him really is the subject of the most serious

counter intelligence of a president ever and he is now a co-conspirator in a felony violation campaign case that will send his personal lawyer to prison. add to that how the republicans have chosen to deal with the lengthy paper trail. they've decided to outsourcing the curating of the documents from his time in the bush white house. they decided to outsource the curation of those millions of documents to a republican lawyer who has no government role but he happens to represent major witnesses in the russia investigation. bill burck who has been deciding which comments will be released to the committee and of those, which documents the public is allowed to see. he represented reince priebus and steve bannon as well as three other former trump

staffers. he's representing like six people in the russia investigation and he's deciding what we need to know about the nominee who was picked probably because of the russia investigation. it is starting to feel like the mueller investigation and the kavanaugh nomination are not competing stories but they are the same story.

♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea;

and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪ how much more does congress need to see? donald trump has now been implicated in two felony crimes, and he's all but confessed to them on fox news. no one is above the law, so we have to make sure this president doesn't use pardons to cover up crimes. if you agree that a president should not be allowed to pardon himself or his associates, join us at needtoimpeach.com. the washington establishment doesn't have the courage to act, but the american people can.

when "the new york times" published the unnerving op ed yesterday afternoon with an anonymous senior official trying to assure the country that although the president is manifestly unfit to hold the job he has, don't worry. there are people inside the administration who are secretly willing to sabotage him and thwart his efforts. rest easy. our next guest responded with this. there's so much wrong about what is wrong but blame falls squarely at the feet of a republican congress's absolute failure to check the president.

they will not check him. so cowardly aides who will not speak out publicly have gone rogue. joining us now is congressman eric swalwell who has a seat on the swal well. thank you very much for your time tonight. >> we have been covering intensely and the country has been following the confirmation proceedings for brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. as a member of the house, you do not get a vote in that confirmation proceeding. but i wonder if you see connections between this supreme court nomination, what's happening in terms of brett kavanaugh, and what's happening with the president, controversy around the president and the russia investigation specifically. >> i do, rachel. and brett kavanaugh may will legally qualified to be nominated for the supreme court, but we shouldn't fool ourselves as to why donald trump fooled him. he was affiliated with the bush administration and donald trump

does not want anything to do with the bush administration. so his late addition to the list i think shows that he's there for the wrong reasons. he's the wrong judge at the wrong time. right now we have a president more legally exposed than any other president ever, not just criminally but civilly. we have a judge that believes that that president and any president is above the law. rachel, in the law, there is this issue of rightness. you know, whether a case is ripe for litigation or not. these issues are ripe for litigation because rudy giuliani said the president will not answer in writing or in person to the special counsel requests. these issues are ripe. the judge will not say he's going to recuse or separate himself from his prior beliefs. so the issues are ripe. but he's just not the right judge to sit on this panel or join this court. >> you bring up the issue of mr. giuliani's comments this even g

evening. but you're right, that what he has said tonight is that the president won't answer any questions in person or in writing. not only about the russia collusion issue but also about obstruction of justice. if the president does try to assert that, if this isn't just mr. giuliani making this up, how do you think that ultimately gets resolved. how does that get settled? >> well, the mueller team, they would have to decide if they wanted to subpoena the president and go down that legal road, which would ultimately end up at the supreme court or just proceed without his information. and you know, rachel, if the president is not interviewed even after telling special council he will not subject himself to an interview and a report is issued without his interview, he will just pan the report and say, i never had my chance to tell my side of the story. we're seeing him do that right now with the bob woodward book. i think the best thing special counsel can do, mindful that i

think they're doing a terrific job right now, is to subpoena him and show him they're not going to treat him any differently than any other criminal or suspect in an investigation. >> thank you for being here tonight, sir. we'll be right back. stay with us. engineered to take the crown. the lexus ls 500 and ls 500h. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. the full value oft wyour new car? you'd be better off 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 ♪

you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. wmust have cost a lot. a fancy hotel. actually, i got a great deal. priceline saves you up to 60% on hotels, but that's something the hotels don't really want other guests to know. i saved about 120 dollars a night! did you say you saved 120 dollars a night on a room? 120 a night on a hotel room... that's a lot of savings! i saved even more on my flight. save up to 60% on hotels with priceline.

>> when richard nixon's former white house counsel testified to the senate water committee in the summer of 1973 he read from

a statement that took him six hours to get through it all. this is the headline the next day in the washington post. dean tells inquiry that nixon took part in watergate cover up for eight months. that was 45 years ago, john dean to the u.s. senate. now john dean is going back. tomorrow we expect the senate to call witnesses in the brett kavanaugh confirmation hearings on the list of names called by democrats is john dean. he's expected to testify against judge brett kavanaugh tomorrow, specifically on how to investigate a president other hold one to account. we also expect to hear from cedric richardson. senators will hear from someone who survived the school shooting in parkland, florida, a development disabled woman who will explain why it is important for her and her community to make medical decisions for themselves and a lawyer who helped an undocumented teenage

girl to get an abortion. day three of the hearings are still going tonight right now and there is still a lot to get to. witnesses slated to start tomorrow. watch this space. -♪ he's got ler and arms of steel ♪ ♪ he eats a bowl of hammers 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. that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flights for us. so i'm more than confident. kayak. search one and done. this is the kid i went to the he was a cutie!h.

and if you go down, that's me, above him. you won best looking in your senior year of high school? somebody had to win it. my best high school moment was the day i walked across the stage. my dad...couldn't read real good, so, it was a milestone for me. ancestry now has over 300,000 yearbooks from all across the country. so go back to school with your family, and discover more of their stories. start searching for free at ancestry.com. there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ ) but he has plans today.ain. hey dad.

so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. so i have to go. show is other. quickly though, can i show you where we talked to her tonight when we got her on the phone? look. this is where senator harris called from. a closet in the senate. you can see next to the mail cart and the box of pretzels. i'm sorry the cell phone reception was not awesome. but now we know why. all right. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> when i worked there, they actually had phone