for "andrea mitchell reports." and brett kavanaugh and a woman who is charging him with sexual assault when they were teenagers and why isn't the fbi investigatin investigating? >> there is a lesson in the anita hill experience which is that a abbreviated and inadequate fbi investigation there which lasted for two days ended up in the abusive questions, and second corroborating witnesses. >> red line in an unprecedented action, and president trump orders the declassification of secret documents relate nod the fbi investigation of him and his campaign. is he trying to compromise the russia probe? >> he is really taking the p powers of his office, the powers of the presidency and using them to advance his personal interests which he defines as continuing in this war gaiagain the intelligence community and

the war against the fbi rather than protecting the national interests. >> and inconvenient truth. as destructive tornados hit virginia and floodwaters continue to rise in north carolina, al gore warning about the political costs of ignoring climate change. >> every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the book of revelation. >> more from my conversation with the former vice president coming up. and goodday, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washingt washington. the democrats and republicans are preparing for battle to pit supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh against his accuser california professor christine blasey ford over a charge that he sexually abused her, and it

is a charge that he vehemently denies. joining me is a panel to discuss this. welcome all. kasie, first to you, it ist clear yet that the democrats are going to get the demand that there is going to ban fbi investigation first before they hold this hearing? >> i have to say, andrea, this morning has been marked mostly by confusion. it is over a kocouple of things the fbi investigation as you indicate, and there has been some discussion of some sort of investigation from senator thom tillis, and it is possible that he is referring to the background calls that the committee was doing, but no commitments at this point from as to whether the democrats will get that demand that you o outlined that they want the background investigation reopened up. but andrea, the bigger point of confusion is just what is going on with dr. ford and her attorneys, because the judiciary committee says that they still

have not heard back from her, and that they offered to have her testify thursday or monday, but there is a lot of confusion up and down the ranks of the republican leadership and i believe a widespread assumption after debra katz appeared on the "today" show with savannah guthrie that she was willing to testify that they would hear back in short order, but it is not as if there are negotiations going on or an indication that she is not coming from the lawyers, but simply there has not been any communication at all. and while it is only has been a few hours in today's news cycles, and with the stakes here around this hearing, really, unprecedented since little over two decades of what happened with anita hill, and the anticipation here is very high and it is strange that this is remain i remaining unresolved, andrea. >> and at this hour, brett kavanaugh is back at the white

house and nine hours yesterday, and clearly, coming up with a strategy that you first telegraphed when you talked to kellyanne conway in the morning that she deserves to be heard, and the president not at all combative and lis phoning the advisers and they clearly recognize as chuck todd said this is political dynamite for the republicans with the midterms coming. >> yes, that is absolutely right. and kellyanne conway in the morning saying that essentially dr. ford deserves to be heard, and then president trump remarkably restrained in the comments about all of this stressing that he does stand by judge brett kavanaugh. at the same time saying, look, he wants a complete process, and he wants everybody to be happy attend of this, and he was asked if judge kavanaugh should withdraw the nomination, and he dismissed that and said it is a ridiculous question. brett kavanaugh is back here at the white house after that nine-hour marathon session that you talked about yesterday, andrea, in which he was reaching out to the lawmakers personally,

and making the case, and we know that the case includes according to one white house official that he was never at that party. so we anticipate that is what he is going to say when he testifies publicly next week. in terms of the preparation moving forward the white house keeping it very close to the vest, but one white house official said that he is chomping at the bit, and eager to clear his name, and so he would prepare as you would expect him to, andrea. >> and susan collins ark key player here on the committee, and a republican, a woman who had been focused mostly until this happened on roe v. wade, she had this suggestion of what happened with frankly anita hill where the republicans and both sides, the senators did not do themselves any good in the way they questioned that witness. take a look. >> one idea that i have been thinking of is that it might be effective to have the two

attorneys who are representing judge kavanaugh and professor ford do the questioning for the first round, and then go to the committee for questions. that it is not unheard of to have counsel do questioning. >> jen pal marmeiri, the politi are questionable here. because anita hill has posted with "the new york times" an op-ed saying that there is no way to re-do 1991, but there are ways to do better. in 1991 in senate judiciary committee had the opportunity to demonstrate the appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence of the kas character of a nominee no the supreme court and failed on all counts to do better, and the senate judiciary must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives

must respond. if you were back in the white house as communications director or as any adviser here, what would you say to both sides? >> the -- i mean, i think that what senator collins is trying to avoid is a is situation that you had in 1991 where the senate republicans were, you know, just treated anita hill atrociously and imagining the political impact on the midterms for americans to see the wombatered that way by republican senators. so that is what they are trying to aide. and it seems that he might withdraw his nomination and nominate someone else in order to avoid that, and i can imagine that mitch mcconnell can has never been enthusiastic about this nominee to push the white house to do that. but you know, we keep coming back sexual assault and sexual

harassment to be litigated through a political process and this is making everyone unkom fo uncomfort able, but that is how we make progress and deal with the ills in society is that they are aired in the very uncomfortable situations, by, you know, if you are a nominee or a candidate for office, you have to understand that you rar going to be judged by today's standards. not by the stanrds in which whatever bad behavior was occurred, and that, it seems to make a lot of republicans uncomfortable, but that is the reality. i went to high school in the 1980s and i find her story very credible, and women didn't speak up to say what happened to them not because they were going to be believed, because nobody would have thought it was a big deal. no one would have thought that it was a big deal. they would have said that you should not have put yourself in that situation, and that is the lesson you should take away from that. if i don't want to be raped, i

should not have gone to this party, and then you watch at what happens to a anita hill, well, that is what i should expect in the workplace, because the united states senate said that man is okay to become a united states supreme court j justice, and so the implications are way broader, and even in the very important implication of who you put on the court, but it is what you are telling america is that it is okay of how to treat a woman. >> fascinating to say that, because i was truck by a previously unaired part of an interview with anita hill in 2017 that rachel maddow dug out and remembered to reading in a transcript and in her classic fashion, she found this. and so lett me play this of wh ap anita hill told us what pain ed her, her mother and father, rural farmers from oklahoma and church people had to hear the details of that testimony,

because of frankly, the crude way in which she was questioned by many of the senators. let's watch. >> to watch them go through it, the sense that they -- that they felt that they could not protect me from it. i think that it was really hard on them. it undermined their confidence in whether or not the government truly represented them. and for an african-american family, those kinds of questions have existed, and the to have it personaliz personalized, i think it was really difficult. >> i mean the pain in her voice is so present, joyce vance, and she is talking about the questioning where arlen specter was asking her, well, basically, what is so wrong with him saying big breasts, and she was saying, no, senator, it is the way he described the women and what

they were doing with the big breasts in the pornographic material, and she had to go into explicit detail. >> and these sort of situations are extremely painful for women, and if we have evolved as a society since anita hill went through this, we have to guarantee a better process for dr. ford. it is so important to think about who the players are here. and judge kavanaugh has already been through senate confirmation hearing hearings, and this is a forum that he is comfortable in, and she is not a lawyer, and she has never been in the senate and the idea of rushing her in front of the committee is so unfair, and in fact, it flew in the face of the rule that requires a seven-day grace period in scheduling a senate hearing which pushed us back to monday, but she is entitled to have time to talk to lawyers who can explain to her how the process works, and how the question proceeds and what the rules of fair play are if there are any before we get into the substantive topics that she is

going to have to discuss which will be extraordinary painful. she is not here because she wanted to be. she finds herself in this situation now, and it is critically important to the integrity of the supreme court going forward that these issues be fully explored, because her allegations are in many ways kred canable as she presents them at the -- credible as she presents them, and at the same time judge kavanaugh is entitled to a fair process where he can put forth his side of the story. but we have to guarantee as a society, to do can better for women and sexual assault victims as we move forward. >> and jeff flake, a key republican is with kasie hunt right now. >> and so that we gave the one-week notice and complied with the senate rules. and so the hope that she can come on monday. >> we are live on "andrea mitchell reports" so you are aware. what do the republicans need to do, or tone they need to do in questioning dr. ford? >> well, obviously, she deserves to be heard. as soon as she came forward she

deserves to be heard with an allegation -- >> and mistakes were made in the anita hill hearing, and it did not age well. >> right. optics of the men there and the republican side, it is what it is. and that is the committee right now. and so we will just have to do our best. >> you mentioned the optics of having male senators questioning her, and do you need a female senator to come in to question her? what are the optics? >> well, obviously, that is the knock on the clarence thomas hearings, and all men on both sides at that time. but, you know, there are republican women senators gratefully and more, and my seat is going to go to a republican woman, and that is great. >> you don't know that, sir, because it could be a democratic woman. >> yes, you are right. the first woman in arizona h history. yes, that would be good. >> and so, this is a witness

panel and why not allow this? >> i do think that they each side is allowed to have a another witness i believe and those are the senate rules i believe. so we will have to -- >> do you think that the fbi needs to reopen? >> well, it is unfortunate how all of this unfolded, and it is not the fault of the woman who came forward, but she we wanted to remain confidential, until it was leaked, but, coming right before, you know a scheduled vote was not optimal obviously, but, but, the key, and the key is, she needs to be heard publicly and so obviously, judge kavanaugh deserve s s to be hea in rebuttal. >> in terms of who is telling the truth, do you risk confronting your predator? >> we do it the best we can. >> and so to make sure that there is a full investigation so that all of the seps or the and

who is going to have full access to the -- >> well, we have a week, and a lot of the -- and i know that the committee is reach iing out and interviews, and so, we are doing the best we can. obviously, we have -- this is, it has been going for a while. we have had exhaustive hearings in the committee already, but something this important needed to be heard, and that is why we will have a public hearing. >> and ultimately, it is going to be coming down to what she says and what judge kavanaugh say, and how do you make a determination on whoo is credible? >> we will have to hear the testimony. there is noge make the magic th and we have to hear the testimony. and it is important that she is there and important for him to respo respond. we do the best we can. it is not a perfect system, but it is what we have got. >> and do you -- >> no, not that i know of. i don't nominate. >> are you disappointed that the senator feinstein did not bring this up before -- >> she said that she was honoring the confidentiality,

and so i guess that it is unfortunate that it leaked the way it did and forced the woman to come forward if she didn't want to. but i don't know how to gauge that. i don't have all of the information. >> and do you think that the committee needs to hear from mark judge, the person who said that was in the room. >> anybody that close, we would want to hear, from and i am not sure whose witness he would be, because i don't know enough about it. >> and how important is what the witness said in this hearing to your decision-making process? >> well, you know, i think that most of us were inclined to, on the republican side, to support kavanaugh, and that is where i was. i had my questions answered in the hearing or in q&a afterwards, but this is important. if the allegations are proven to be true or people believe that they are, then that changes the equation, certainly. >> and is it disqualifying? >> i would think that if the

incident occurred as she described it, it would be disqualifying, and that is why we are having this hearing. >> for yourself is the standard a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt? >> we will see when we get to the hearing. >> andrea? >> kasie, great job. >> we are not sure if you can hear. >> we can, kasie, as you want to summarize this, senator flake said it would be disqualify iin if your final question, that if it occurred as she described it. >> that is right, andrea, and i found that to be a little bit of news there, because it is a question that we have received a range of answers to, and there have been some most democrats saying, and some of them are saying it is disqualifying on the face already, but senator doug jones gave us the same answer as jeff flake just did, and he is of course, a swing vote potentially from alabama

and a moderate democrat, and he said, look, if these allegations are credible, then it is disqualifying for a nominee for the supreme court, and jeff flake saying the same thing, and leaving the door open to believing this woman, and you know, it does not take, and it only takes two republican senators to have that kind of the change of oheart, or view of the situation to put this confirmation really on ice. andrea? >> kasie hunt with all of the breaking news there at the capital with senator flake. thank you, jen palmeiri, and kristen welker of course, and joyce vance. meanwhile, career intelligence and law enforcement officials are expressing shock and concern over an unpr unprecedented move of president trump to ordering the release of oclassified documents over whether the trump campaign conspired with the russian

government. teams of the national intelligence and justice department have been ordered by the white house the work through a declassification process of classified documents relating to the russian probe and the fisa warrant, and the special surveillance of carter page. to get reaction to this from the senior national security analyst and former cia director john brennan and how unusual is this? >> well, it is very unusual and concerning from two perspectives. one is that it is highly inappropriate and unethical for mr. trump to the take any action that pertaining to the criminal investigation of russian collusion, and russian and in cooperation with russia in the election of which mr. trump and close associates are subjects. so that should not happen that he would be able to take such an action, and he certainly has the authority to do it, but i think it is highly inappropriate, and anybody who knows the issues feels similarly. and secondly, to basically order the de the department of justice and the fbi to release this information, even that which is redacted earlier, it is really

just pushing this envelope, and i believe it is making a lot of law enforcement official, and justice enforcement officials and intelligence officials concerned about the negative consequences of that. so, yes, he has the authority to do these things, but the question is whether or not it is the right thing to do and whether or not it is something that mr. trump is trying to continue to find ways to get himself out of the mess that he is currently in. >> and now, as we sit here and talk about this very important decision, the president, and we want to the say is now coming out with first lady to welcome the polish president for a working lunch and a news conference later today. we will carry that live. that news conference is 10 minutes after 2:00, and as they arrive here at the south por-- portico, we don't expect any comments, but as you say, the nature of this is going to the heart of the warrants against carter page, and warrants and a wealth of documentation that

could include sources and methods, and now, how that is decl declassified is up to the agencies, but, you have to think that the dni and the top officials would not be welcoming this move, but it is an order from the white house should they be allaying it or protest iing, and some people have said that, some people should be resigning in protest. >> and i think that christopher wray and dan coats and rod rosenstein who is overseeing the investigation should push back from any directive that is going to have a negative impact on our capabilities as well as the investigation. so i think that they should continue to push, push, push, and if mr. trump and the white house does not relent, then they have some decisions to make, and whether or not they are going to the just not follow that direction and be fired or to resign, and if they really believe it is going on to have serious impact on the national security law enforcement and judicial process, they have an

obligation since they took the oath of office to the constitution of the united states and not the mr. trump to uphold their responsibilities and the agency and the departments' author otis. >> bruce ohr is a current official, and someone that we understand has a great deal of knowledge about russian organized crime. so, some have suggested matt mi miller and others who used to work in the justice department that this is probably being cheer cheered by, you know, russian intelligence and russian organized crime suspects, because it might expose exactly what the u.s. knows about them. >> well, i am sure that the russian intelligence services are just waiting to see what comes out, and not the russians only, but others in terms of what the fbi's collection capabilities are, and what was happening at this time, and the russian intelligence services can putt the pieces of the puzzle together, and come up with some insights that could impact and negatively affect u.s. government's ability to, you know, carry out the law enforcement and intelligence

responsibilities so my understanding is that mr. trump as well as others reportedly and including devin nunes have not looked at the report rs and are a arbitrarily and capriciously and recklessly releasing it for craven political purposes is what it is. and neither party has in my experience monopoly on the embellishment embellishments and hyperbole and misleading information. but i have never seen the degree to which the republican party, today, not everybody, but a number of individuals are trying to protect mr. trump, and to abusing the authorities and the powers whether it is in congress or within the executive branch, and this is something that i am hoping that individuals of conscience are going to stop and prevent, because i am concerned this is one indication that mr. trump is going to increasingly look for steps to take in order to further, and try to subvert

the mueller investigation. >> and we should point out that devin nunes, the house intelligence chairman who in the past has been criticized, sou soundly for his private dealings with the the white house and hurt the bipartisan nature of his committee, but he brought it up at a campaign fund-raising event and said it is very important to get this stuff out, and he telegraphed it would happen and saying it is important for the midterm elections. >> it is blatant politicization of the governmental processes and mr. nunes and others are using the authorities and whether it is the chairman of committees or access to information to very selectively either release the information or leak information or to pursue channels that are going to to try to enhance the ability of mr. trump and others protect themselves from a very legitimate and lawful and important investigation that bob mueller who is such an experienced professional is undertaking right now. it is critically important for

all of the american citizens to learn the results of that investigation, and whether or not it implicates mr. trump and others, we have to be ready to accept those findings as apolitical, and not something that is being done for political purposes. >> john brennan, thank you, as always. great to have your perspective. and coming up, the dangerous aftermaths of hurricane florence spawning tornadoes across virginia. >> and my conversation with former vice president al gore in the age of odonald trump. stay with us on "andrea mitchell reports" right here on msnbc. the fact is, there are over ninety-six hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan,

wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com you may be learning about, medicare and supplemental insurance. medicare is great, but it doesn't cover everything ...only about 80% of your part b medicare costs. a medicare supplement insurance plan may help cover some of the rest. learn how an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company might be the right choice for you. a free decision guide is a great place to start. call today to request yours. so what makes an aarp medicare supplement plan unique? these are the only medicare supplement plans

endorsed by aarp because they meet aarp's high standards of quality and service. you're also getting the great features that any medicare supplement plan provides. you may choose any doctor that accepts medicare patients. you can even visit a specialist. with this type of plan there are no networks or referrals needed. also, a medicare supplement plan... ...goes with you when you travel anywhere in the u.s. call today for a free guide.

[vo]for your fall travel.hwest one-way for just 69 dollars and if you think these sale fares are low, you should see what we charge you for two checked bags. low fares. no hidden fees. that's transfarency. [clap clap ding] this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time.

show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. this is just in, president tr trump will visit north carolina tomorrow to tour areas affected by hurricane florence, and meanwhile, the latest death toll stands at 32 people. slow-moving floodwaters are engulfing inland areas of north carolina. the national weather service is saying that the storm has dumped 8 trillion gallons of water on t the state. and florence also triggered tornado ds all of the way up to virginia. hurricane florence is the latest ex example of how the warming ocean waters caused by climate change

are endangers americans from coast to coast, as "time" magazine points out, this is not being recognized by president trump, and president obama's greenhouse emissions policies. and i a talked to former vice president al gore about this. we are in the aftermath of a hurricane, and tornadoes, and storm surge, and these are stronger than what we have experienced in the past. so what do you say too the climate change deniers led by the president of the united states? >> well, i think that at this point, it matters less what i would say to them or more importantly what the scientists would say to them than what mother nature is saying to them, not only do we have this massive storm hitting the u.s., but simultaneously the philippines is being slammed by another super typhoon, mangkhut, and

hawaii hit by tropical storm olivia, and we finished the largest fire in the history of california a month ago. every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the book of revelation. >> and presidential leadership in the moments of crisis is very, very important as you know, and better than anyone having been in the white house, what does it say to america when in the aftermath of the storm a year ago in puerto rico, and in the united states that the president of the united states denies a scientific death count? >> from his own administration. >> and as if there were not 3,000 people, or nearly 3,000 people. >> and thank you for asking the question. honestly for me, when a new outrage comes around every few hours, i have to download exist ing outrage to make room for the latest outrage, and this is one that stands out as he criticized the justice department for

proceeding to prosecute corruption at the risk of losing some republican seats in congress. these are not normal actions or statements by a president. we all know that. but i have the sense, andrea, that there are a large number of americans who don't want to get into the arguments about donald trump, but they are quietly very determined to go to the polls this november, because if there was ever a time to activate the checks and balances our funders put under the constitution, now is that time. >> and we n the media, and political figures and people in the democratic party, discounted the anxiety of a lot of americans in the oshf so-called red states, and people against nafta, and the agreements and how do you counter act that in 1919 and 1920?

>> that is true. the stagnation for 40 years has been responsible for the wave of populist authoritarianism that is not only present in the united states, but quite a few countries around the world. i'm a member of the democratic party, and i will say that both parties have to respond much more effectively to the deep concerns and anxieties that americans have been expressing and they have not gotten the kind of response that is needed. >> we spoke of norms being change and when we have the president criticizing the justice department for not being partisan enough. >> ugh. >> and how do you counter act that? >> well, the rule of law is the bedrock of the united states of america. going back to the magna carta, long before our revolution and our founding, we cannot allow that to be challenged or overturned. this experiment with trumpism is

not going well in the view of most people, and you know, in science and medicine, some experiments are terminated early for ethical reasons, but to the answer the question, i think that there is more resilience in the american system than we often give it credit for. we have gone through worse times, and we have bounced back before. we have seen for example in the wake of watergate, the re-establishment of norms of ethics and behavior that restored our equilibrium as a country. and in the wake of donald trump wh whenever that comes, i think that we have an excellent chance to see the re-establishment of what the real spirit of america ought to be. i know that there's polarization and disagreement in the country, but i also think that there is a growing number of among donald trump's base of support who are

really quite r worworried and beginning to worry and thinking that checks and balances are what we need right now. so these elections this november may turn out to be the beginning of a course correction. >> and i want to ask you about a white house under siege by an outside investigation. you saw what that was like for a president of the united states. you have any sim ympathy for th argument that a president should not have to submit to an investigation while he or she is still trying to run the country? >> none whatsoever. i understand the point. but no person is above the law. full stop. >> and we are hearing from the oval office the president telling the pool inside, and we are waiting for the tape to come out that he wants to get judge kavanaugh confirmed as quickly as possible. we will be back with the inside scoop. stay with us. ♪

oh, look... another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair® works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula available. it's clinically proven to work on fine lines and wrinkles. one week? that definitely works! rapid wrinkle repair®. and for dark spots, rapid tone repair. neutrogena®. see what's possible.

and as the president continues to talk in the oval office and is talking about judge kavanaugh, and we will have that tape as soon as they bring it out. joining me for the inside scoop is white house bureau chief and political analyst philip rucker who spoke to former vice

president joe biden about anita hill and the investigation. and also joining us is robert costa who is a political analyst and host of "washington week" on pbs, and nbc political contributor ben rhodes who is former deputy adviser to president obama, and frank kazluzzi who is a former assistant for counter intelligence at the fbi, and chuck rosenberg is former u.s. attorney and former r senior fbi official. so we have all of the experts here. and fill rucker, to you, because we are waiting for what the president is going to say, and he was asked if there should be a reopening of the fbi investigation, and as i understand it, the white house has not ordered that, and so the allegation from dr. ford, blasey ford is going into the background report. you had a chance last night to talk to joe biden, of course, who chaired the judiciary com t committee on anita hill, and

what did he have to say? >> yes, that is right. it is interesting, andrea, because he said that first of all at the time of her testimony, he believed her allegations about sexual harassment about clarence thomas, and biden came under criticism as you will remember for the way he handled the hearings and for intense and the personal and probing questions that he allowed from the committee members into the testimony. he said that one of the challenges is that and one of the regrets is that he was not able to control the questioning from the fellow members, and that is a lesson for today, and he also said importantly, that any woman who comes forward with claims like this, such as dr. ford eers, should be taken serious seriously, and there should be a belief that there is some truth in the essence of what she is saying, even if she does not remember specific facts of the encounter, because it was so long ago. >> and both sides are, you know, garnering the forces here as we have the prospective hearing on monday and it is not set firmly

y yet, and so, at least mitch mcconnell is saying today that he has not heard from the accuser or the attorney. and robert, cosko costa, what ae strategy and coming off of the hill? >> well, here at the capital, you have the senate republicans continuing to stand by judge kavanaugh, and some of them are questioning the credibility and the account of the dr. ford. i spoke with john cornyn, the second republican on the hill from texas, and he said that he does not have details. and so there is quite a showdown next week, and critical question, and asking the sharp questions about the accuser. >> and ben rhodes, as we have seen politically, this could be di dynamite for republicans going into the midterm elections if they go after this woman, if she is testifying the way that anita hill is challenged. it was not an election year, but

this is going right into the midterm election. >> absolutely, andrea, and they can't seem to decide whether they are attack iing the accuses credibility or saying that the because this happened a long time ago it does not matter. the actions seem to demonstrate that all they care about is getting him on the court, and it is all men on the republican side of that committee, and that at a time when the democratic women are running for office in unprecedented numbers and democratic women make up a big piece of the blue wave that is building, this is perilous for republicans republicans. >> jack rosenberg, we understand that the president was asked about the fbi, and we will hear him, himself, speaking shortly, but he indicated that he does not think that the fbi should reopen this. and even suggested that the fbi does not want to reopen this. who is in charge of this background check, and if a new allegation comes forward, who is -- dianne feinstein referred it to the fbi to be investigated. >> so the fbi does the background checks for most of the executive branch positions,

cabinet position, and supreme court justices and the like, and what they do, andrea, they collect information and pass it for the white house, and then the white house decides whether the background is sufficient to nominate andrea mitchell or or not. but the notion that the fbi would be forbidden from doing further investigation if necessary strikes me as crazy. >> and -- to frank, as a former fbi guy as well, how perilous is this for the bureau? for the fbi, to be caught in the middle of the political cross fire here when there are witnesses who could be called and not just this other boy or teenager, frank? s sorry, frank, apparently, he can't hear me, so we will fix that, but kristen welker, you are standing by at the white house as we are waiting for the tape of the president to come out, and the fbi is caught here

in the middle where the democrats are saying, you need to reopen this investigation, and there are people who, you know, others who may have been at the party, and there are her, you know, psychologists or her marriage counselor whom she told at the time, and others quoted in the newspaper at the "mercury paper" out there, her local newspaper who were contemporaneous witnesses at least to the way she was dealing with this in her a adult life. >> and i think that the calls for an fbi investigation, andrea, could likely grow loudly, but president trump again, just to reit rate se rre that he does not believe that the fbi should be involved. i spoke to someone here from mercy shlap, and no response on that point. she did reiterate it is important for dr. ford to be heard. but lett me tick through the readout from the president in the oval office. he says that we are looking to

get this done as soon as possible. meaning the confirmation process. it is a process, speaking for all of the republicans, and we want to give everybody a chance to say what they want to say, and judge kavanaugh is anxious to do this. i have not wanted to speak to judge kavanaugh, and there is a little bit of the headline, because he has not spoken to judge kavanaugh, and that is consistent with the reporting here, and he says that specifically, because i thought that it was not a good idea to do. i'm totally supportive and i'm very supportive. just to reiterate yesterday when he was asked about this, if he should withdraw, and if judge kavanaugh should with a drau the nomination, the president dismissed it completely saying that is ridiculous. and so those are the top lines of the pool spray coming out of the president, and meeting with president of poland, and we will get a number of headlines, but the focus is going to be centered on the potential investigation. >> and so, frank, i think that

you can hear us now, and sorry for the interruption, and we may get the tape in a moment and soy may interrupt you again, but what is the role of the fbi if there is new information and the leading democrat on the senate judiciary is asking for new witnesses to be brought forward, can the president say, we don't want that? >> so in the background investigation that has been closed, the client needs to request the fbi to reopen and the client here is indeed the white house. so, the fbi and i confirm ed ths through discussions is in wait mode, receive mode. they are prepared to receive a request from the white house. but that needs to come directly from the white house. what would they do if they received the request? independently try to corroborate what the victim is saying. they would independently interview the nominee, the victim and other witnesses, and if we want it done right, we want it done without partisan politics and the fbi needs to be

able to do that >> and frank, this is what the president would say to that point. >> any way, shape or form, it is our honor. >> mr. president, how long of a delay is acceptable for the hearings of judge kavanaugh, and there is some discussion that the -- >> well, is a great question, frankly. we are looking to get this done as quickly as possible. he is an outstanding person who has an unblemished record and this a terrible thing that took place, and frankly, a ter terrible thing that this information was not given to us a long time ago, and months ago when they got it. they could have done that, and instead of waiting for everything to be finished a then all of the sudden, spring it. but that is what the democrats do. it is ob struck shn and resist and whatever you have to do, and with all of the that being said, it is a process, and we all feel, and speaking for all of the republicans, we feel that we want to go through the process, and we want to give everybody a chance to say what they have to

say. so we have time available, and we will delay the process until it is fin uished out, i guess that we have invited everybody. i can the tell you this that judge kavanaugh is anxious to do it. i don't know about the other party, but judge kavanaugh is anxious to do it. and delay is certainly acceptable, and we want to get to the bottom of everything. we want everybody to be able to speak up and to speak out. the fact is though that this should have been done a long time ago and when senator feinstein had judge kavanaugh in her office for a long time, and she never even mentioned this. that is a long time ago, and never mentioned it, and so why wouldn't you bring it up when he is sitting in her office for a pretty extended period of time. so it is unfortunate. he is an incredible man. he is an incredible intellect, and he is going to make an incredible supreme court justice, but we feel that we want to go through the process,

and we want to hear both sides. >> and will you ask the fbi to open up the files, sir? >> how important is the -- >> i don't think that the fbi should be involved really, because they fbi should be involved, if they want to be, this not as they say their thing. i think politically speaking the senators will do a good job. they will. they will open it up and do a very good job. >> reporter: how important do you think this is, security polling in in there security polling almost as important to this man. i can't say as, i hope almost. >> i hope mr. trump will be in poland together. >> it's very special to me. sri lanka, it's a brave countries. i think one of my best moments was making that speech in poland. people liked me and i like them. they're very, very exceptional

people. the security of poland is very important to me. it's very important to the our country. >> reporter: [ inaudible question ]? >> we will see, we want transparency. what i want is total transparency. this is a witch hunt. republicans are seeing it. the democrats know it's a witch hunt, too, they don't want to admit it. it's not good politics for them. it's a terrible witch hunt. it's hurt our country. the things we have found about text messages back and forth are a disgrace to our nation. i want transparency, so does everybody else. congressional committees came to me. they wanted this. i did it based on their q. i think it's a good thing. we should open it up for people to see. thank you very muchsh everybody. >> thank you, we're done, press, let's go, keep moving, let's go, let's go, make your way out.

>> specifically, i haven't wanted to. you know, i think it's something that he will do very well. i think specifically i haven't wanted to speak to judge kavanaugh because i knew somebody would ask me the same question that you asked me, have you spoken to judge kavanaugh? specifically, i thought it would be better not to. he can handle himself better than anybody. he's a very outstanding man. >> reporter: he knows you are totally supportive? >> i'm very supportive. i would say few people i have seen, i've known people of great success have been so outstanding as judge kavanaugh. >> reporter: is this all politics? >> i don't want to say that, maybe i'll say that in a couple of days, but not now. thank you very much, everybody. >> the president saying he has not met with judge kavanaugh. he's right do under the hall meeting with white house hours.

the one thing interesting he said about the fbi is i don't think the fbi should be involved because they don't want to be involved. this isn't really their thing. chuck rosenberg? >> i agree with you. the notion that it's the federal bureau of not really our thing is really flat out wrong. it's the federal bureau of investigation. that's what they do. they do investigations. as frank said earlier, they would need to be asked because right now the background investigation is closed and at the white house. but i think this illustrates a much more important point and it's an irony, too. the president has routinely denigrated the fbi and the men and women who work there. now we see, yet again the types of things we ask them to do, hard, complicated, difficult investigations, and we need to and ha to trust their findings. so how on one hand can we ask them to do these really hard things. on the other hand, how the chief

denigrates their work. it's untenable. >> this declassification order, with i is unprecedented and which gets to the heart of the mueller probe, with i he, his organization, his campaign are a target of. >> reporter: yeah, andrea, that's a remarkable effort at selective declassification, to try to obscure the real issue the declassification is not about the underlying question of what happened in the 2016 election. that's the picture that bob mueller is going to give us. instead what he's trying to do is selectively declassify things apparently over the objection-his intelligence agencies in order to propagate his narrative of this being a witch hunt. again this further politicizing the use of the intelligence community. i think you'd appreciate, he's sitting next to a leader who engages in democratic rollback if poland, frankly interfering in the justice sector in poland. we're seeing this, autocratic select of declassification, his

attack on law enforcement and to obscure the real issue, which is what did russia do with the 2016 election? >> frank, just in a couple of seconds, it's from your perspective the declassification order? >> reporter: yeah, look, at best, it's a disgraceful attempt to distract from the russia investigation and from the caf knauss matter. at worst, it is that furtherance of obstruction and tampering with an ongoing investigation with the president. deaths could occur from the exposure of sources and methods. this is not a game. >> phil rucker, what what your take on the president, he seems to be sort of champing at the bit but a bit restrained on this kavanaugh issue? >> i think it's striking how he has restrained himself, he has not gone after dr. ford and instead he says he defends and supports judge kavanaugh and

that he's kind of focused his ire at for feinstein and the democrats for the way they've handled the process and the timing of these claims, not going after the claims, himself. >> bill rucker, of course, bob costa, chuck rosenberg, kristen welker, ben rhodes. in more than an hour, donald trump holding a press conference with the president of poland. our live coverage ahead on msnbc. stay with us. which egg tastes more farm-fresh and delicious? only eggland's best. which egg has 6 times more vitamin d, 10 times more vitamin e, and 25% less saturated fat? only eggland's best. which egg is so special, i'd never serve my family anything else? for me, it's only eggland's best. better taste, better nutrition, better eggs.

you always get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed?m let's get someone to say it with a really low voice. carl? lowest price guaranteed. what about the world's lowest limbo stick? how low can you go? nice one, carl. hey i've got an idea. just say, badda book. badda boom. badda book. badda boom. nice. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke

due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ♪

south l.a. is very medically underserved. when the old hospital closed people in the community lived with untreated health problems for years. so, with the county's help we built a new hospital from the ground up and having citi as an early investor worked as a signal to others to invest. with citi's help we built a wonderful maternity ward and we were able to purchase an mri machine. we've made it possible for the people who live here to lead healthier lives and that's invaluable. ♪

that's all for today on a busy edition of "andrea mitchell reports." craig melvin is in new york. >> good afternoon, craig melvin here in new york city. hunkering down, the president speaking moments ago, publicly supporting his nominee brett kavanaugh in the white house now after a nine-hour day there yesterday. also, unclassified, the president wants some of the highly classified evidence from the investigation into his own campaign released to the public. but why now? and cloud of suspicion. while fema deals with a monster storm that's crippled much of the carolinas. its leader faces a problem of its own a new investigation into the fema director's travel has now been referred to federal prosecutors. we start with breaking