ford have been invited to testify on monday. kavanaugh accepted the committee's invy toss aitation r to defend himself against allegations of sexual assault that happened during high school that he denies. professor ford has not yet accepted the committee eegs invitation. a friend of ford's is quoted in san "san jose mercury" news describing her mindset before taking the accusation public. "i've been trying to forget this all my life and i'm supposed to remember every little detail" one of those friends recalled her saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a junior lifeguard program. "they're going to be all over me." "the wall street journal" editorial board certainly was, taking up in kavanaugh's defense by writing, "this is simply too distant and uncorroborated a story to warrant a new hearing or delay a vote. we've heard from all three principals and there are no other witnesses to call. democrats will use monday's hearing as a political spectacle to coax mr. kavanaugh into looking defensive or angry and to portray republicans as

anti-women. odds are, it will be a circus," but a hearing is set and democrats and republicans are now fighting over the witness list with democrats eager to hear from kavanaugh's friend, mark judge, who professor ford claims was in the room at the time of the alleged assault. republican chuck grassley is working to limit testimony. the stakes couldn't be higher for the senate judiciary committee on both sides of the aisle. anita hill weighed in today in an op-ped in "the new york times." writing, "the job of the senate judiciary committee is to serve as fact finders to better serve the american public and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify." and within the last hour, donald trump voiced support for a hearing on ford's accusation and repeatedly expressed sympathy for the judge. >> i feel so badly for him that he's going through this, to be honest with you. i feel so badly for him. this is not a man that deserves this. this should have been brought to

the fore, it should have been brought up long ago. with all of that, i feel that the republicans, and i can speak for myself, we should go through a process because there shouldn't even be a little doubt. hopefully, the woman will come forward, state her case. he will state his case. before representatives of the united states senate. and then they will vote. they will look at his career. they will look at what she had to say from 36 years ago. and we will see what happens, be but i just think he is at a level that we rarely see, not only in government, anywhere in life, and honestly, i feel terribly for him. for his wife who is an incredible, lovely woman, and

for his beautiful young daughters. >> here to help us sift through the day's developments, some of our favorite friends and reporters. joining us from the "washington post," white house bureau chief phil rucker and white house reporter sung min kim is sheer here this afternoon on capitol hill for us. matt miller. former rnc chairman michael l steele. and at the table, mara, journalist and member of "the new york times" editorial board. and donny deutsch is back. let me start with you, you've been covering this since we began. where are we today and where is professor ford foin terms of responding to the invitation to testify in public or in it private as i understand has been extended to her as well this afternoon? >> reporter: that is the major question right now because we've been check bing in regularly with chairman chuck grassley's staff as to whether the attorneys for the woman, dr. christine ford, has responded to the judiciary committee. the committee had made two requests. one to schedule b kikind of a

regular follow-up call to talk about more details of the background check investigation. the committee did thatkavanaugh yesterday afternoon and called her again to tell her about this hearing happening on monday and as of frankly right now, the committee had not heard back at all. the real question is, will she end up testifying? republicans are happy to have it in public or private, they tell me, but, and if she doesn't testify, where does this go forward? i think it would be significant if this didn't end up happening because republicans, this -- the sense on capitol hill that i've been getting today by talking to a lot of senate republicans is that they are growing more and more vehement in their defense of judge kavanaugh. they, you know, the ones that he's talked privately to, and the ones who have been communicating with the white house, they believe, you know, his, quote, categorical and den. the key to swing votes on the senators susan collins and lisa

murkows murkowski, undecided about brett kavanaugh's confirmation and vote to confirm him, they truly do want to hear from the woman in, you know, whatever setting she chooses. so the real -- the major question that will determine the path forward for all this right now is if she does end up talking to the senate judiciary committee. >> phil rucker, i'm struck by how low the bar is. i talkeded to ed tto a couple ae president, they said wasn't the president restrained? i said a normal person would be knocked -- >> relatively. >> -- for simply expressing simpympathy for the accused. a normal person in the me too moment, even when it's his own nominee being called into question, would sort of maintain the line that, you know, let's give everyone an opportunity to be heard. which was the tone struck by presidential counselor kellyanne conway yesterday. but take us inside the white house's strategy and how they feel it's going on really sort of day three of the crisis. >> so, donald trump's instinct in situations like this is not

only to deny but to retaliate. he attempts to go to war against the accusers as he did with the many accusers that he faced during his presidential campaign. to discredit their allegations. he's not done so yet with regards to dr. ford. he's not even really invoked her by name at all. he's refrained from tweeting that these are phony accusations which is something we might have expected in the imaftmediate aftermath of the report. aides have encouraged him to withhold from tweeting, withhold from making any sort of out there statements. to sort of stick to a script which we've seen him do yesterday and again today. and there are a couple reasons trump's agreed to do that. one is he, according to people we've been talk bing to at the white house, he has faith in mitch mcconnell, chairman chuck grassley, to oversee this process in a way that helps judge kavanaugh. the other reason is that trump does not yet believe that the accusations against judge kavanaugh have anything to do

with himself, personally. he sometimes sees in the roy moore case, for example, he saw that in part as an attack on himself. but he doesn't view it that way yet. and so he doesn't see that he has much skin in the game. that he has to personally step in and wage this war, himself. >> matt miller, i want to play you something the president said today that struck us as odd about the role of the fbi. let's listen and talk about it on the other side. >> wouldn't bother me other than the fbi john said that they really don't do that. that's not what they do. now, they have done supposedly six background checks over the years as judge kavanaugh has gone beautifully up the ladder. he's an incredible individual. great intellect. great judge. impeccable history in every way. in every way. >> matt miller, what's he talking about? i'm just reading this. that's not what they do. i think the question was about having the fbi investigate these.

i understand they already administered a polygraph to professor ford. >> yeah, look, you could argue the fbi wouldn't conduct a criminal investigation in this case. there's no violation of federal law. vex yule assau sexual say saassault is a state crime. once a background check is closed if they get information like this, they will forward it on to the requesting agencagenc this case would be the white house. then what the agency would usual l usually do if there's concerning information that's come up as has happened in this case, they'd go back to the fbi, ask them to re-open it. go interview other corroborating witnesses either who can speak on behalf of, this case, dr. ford, it would be her therapist, husband, others she's talked to, speak to the friend of brett kavanaugh she claims was there in the case. the reason they haven't done that, the white house hasn't asked them to do it. the senate judiciary committee, democrats on the judiciary committee asked it. they won't do it unless the white house to whom they report

ask them and they're very deliberately not asking the fbi to do this investigation. clearly, it seems pretty obvious, they don't want to know what they'll find. >> michael steele, it's no secret that donald trump's picks for the supreme court were one of the only things about his presidency that stood the potential to unite, a very fractured republican party around this very chaotic and divisive president. let me read you some reporting from the "washington post" and get your thoughts. the "post" reports republicans fear reversals in november. they report the initial hope the conservative kavanaugh's appointment would encourage turnout by grateful gop voters this fall, tempered by fears that more voters, especially independent women, my head to the polls with fresh anger about republican handling of sexual impropriety after a new round of public hearings. the risk and insinuation here, whichever way this goes, the optics of republicans rallying around someone now accused of sexual assault is perilous in and of itself. >> it is. and it is somewhat reminiscent

of the roy moore case where you had republicans rallying around roy moore and the alleged pedophilia cases that he was involved in. this -- this whole relationship with women is a problematic one with the republican party and female voters. how this translates is important. and does it turn out a base? we don't know. does it keep a base at home? we don't know. but what we do know is that female voters are taking all of this in. and they're contextualizing it, nicolle, on terms of where the party stands on an issue that a lot of women have raised their voices about in the last two years and have been very, very clear about in the last couple of years. and so now the test is where do you stand? you know, i've heard some people, you know, question, well, you know, the judge has gone through a process to get to this level where the fbi and other investigators should have

been able to uncover this. where was this story when he was before the, you know, the senate for the appointment to the d.c. circuit? where was he in his prior -- where were they in the prior appointme appointments? that's a question that will get asked, i guess, but it matters how they ask that question. in that senate hearing as well. >> and we're reminded, mara, as we talk about, and at this hour, we should remind our viewers, it is unknown whether or not professor ford is going to agree to testify monday. that's the invitation that's been extended to her. but you cannot avoid the parallels to anita hill and she has an op-ped in "the new york times" today. we're going to get to some of that. let's watch some of what she's had to say. >> that the character and fitness of the person who is making decisions that will affect the lives of people in the workplaces, and everywhere, on every decision, that it

should be unquestionable. and so i really felt, and i continue to feel, that my testimony about clarence thomas' character was critical to their having a full sense of who he was and how he viewed the law. and so that was really what motivated me. >> it's powerful i think that anita hill's testimony is powerful here. it's a cautionary tale. we have an opportunity to do something right and do something better 27 years later. but i have to say that i'm not super hopeful about what that might look like. and part of that reason is that you already have, you know, the spectacle of white men in power choosing another white man who is being put there in part to overturn or diminish roe v. wade. and the way they're talking

about this, judge kavanaugh, amid the accusations around him, orrin hatch saying that miss blasey ford is mixed up. the president today, i agree with you, it's extraordinary to hear the president of the united states say that he, you know, feels for judge kavanaugh. well, of course he does because he can relate. right? >> yeah, yeah. or just the inability to hold the two thoughts in your mind that -- >> 100%. >> that there are two people in pain right now, there are two people -- arguably one is an alleged victim of sexual assault. >> right. what's remarkable about that to me is, listen, yes, there's a strong base that wants this appointment, but guess what, there's a majority of other voters, many of them women democrats, independents, who hear, they've been hearing things like this their whole lives. ohs she must have been mix the up. we hear these stories from our mothers, our sisters, our best friends. every one of us knows someone who's been sexually assaulted. this is not going to play well with voters now. it's not going to play well with voters in november. >> i want to put you on the spot, donny, because you're my friend and you're good at these sort of complicate bed questions.

this moment seems to test the strength of two very powerful things. the cultural wave of the me too movement that has done so much good. that has revealed so much bad behavior amongst so many men over so many years and the premise that we still believe and value due process. that a man or a woman accused of something as horrific as sexual assault still has a right to a presumption of innocence. and anita hill seems to make the perfect point that this isn't a court of law. he's not in court. this is about deciding who will be on the supreme court. how do you weigh those two really powerful dynamics? >> the trend that you're talking about to me is going to dominate everything. the entire me too movement started post the election with donald trump. >> do you think it was in reaction to the election. >> i think they had buyers remorse. some women said the "access hollywood" tape and just women who have ever felt victimized in their life, which is pretty much every woman i know, okay? we have to step back and say, this woman is coming forward and

putting her life on the line. six years ago, she didn't sit in a therapy session and make something up and have the doctors take notes in the thinking that brett c kavanaugh would be a supreme court nominee. everything in your gut tells you this woman has no incentive to make it up, where judge kavanaugh would have every incentive to deny it. having said that, the people on the line next monday will not be professor ford and judge kavanaugh. it will be the republican men. those republican men going after this woman in any way, shape or form, is going to be a suicide mission, no matter how they dance it because every woman sitting across america who has ever in any way been victimized is going to look at that and rise up and i think that wave is going to turn into a tsunami. i think that if the republicans were smart, they would bail now and get their next guy. they can find their next conservative. they can find that next judge. this is a devastating, devastating, big booby trap for

them. >> michael steele, the republican man, who we have recruited for the hour for bit -- >> uh-oh. >> let me put this same dynamic to you. so the powerful wave sweeping in so much overdue change. the me too movement. but the long-held american prin principle that there's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. how does the senate and senate republicans who have not won a lot of rewards for courage or enlightenment in the trump presidency, how do they balance those two important principles and cultural dynamics? >> i think, nicolle, beyond careful. i think this is, to donny's point, it is a bit of a trap. i mean, because you have a number of things that are coming together that makes this even more difficult. one is the idea that you, we tend to project backwards. we'll take our current ethos and attitudes and ideas and project them back on a different period of time. and then, and look at the situations and circumstances

through that prism. that's a very difficult thing to overcome. it's part of what we do, but you're in the position that our senators are going to find themselves, they're going to have to navigate that space because that's going to be -- there's going to be a lot of projection back. they also have to deal with the political reality. i think a lot of the senators would rather this go away, not have the hearings and just confirm the judge because they think the downside, to donny's point, is greater by going forward with the hearing versus just letting it go away in the sense that you don't have this hearing and you just go ahead and cast the vote. but that presents other political problems. so this is a no win for republicans right now, and there is, despite what some people might want to say on the street, there are conversations about how do we sidestep this? does the judge tuesday, wednesday of next week, withdraw his name? is there -- are there other ways in which this can be done to avoid the problem, again, to donny's point, there are a lot of other people on the list we

could go after who will not have this problem. >> michael steele, you ready to make a prediction about how this ends at this point? >> oh, heck, no. >> fair enough. >> michael, i have a lot of cash here. kavanaugh will not get this nomination. lisa murkowski and susan collins cannot be the swing votes that puts a man on the bench that will have roe v. wade in his hands. anybody wants to take that -- >> donny, this isn't about roe v. wade. let's be clear. let's not mix the apple and orange. this is not about roe v. wade. this is about someone who's been accused of sexually assaulting someone as a young man. so that's a very different narrative and very different set of facts for those senators to consider. >> i think americans will draw a line between those two very easily. >> thank you. they're absolutely related. this is someone who's going to be in a position to make decisions about women's health. and to take away a woman's right to make that decision for herself. so most women, many women in this country, see those as intricately related.

>> all right. seung, we're happy you have now officially become a regular on the 4:00. it's one good thing to come from this very disturbing story. michael steele, it's always great to see you, my friend. h thank you. >> all right, guys. after the break, donald trump obliterates another norm by declassifying national security secrets. it's a move that could further implicate him in the russia probe. also ahead, a set up for a bad joke, how many lawyers does it take to defend donald trump? brand-new reporting reveals among the dozen lawyers representing the president, none of them can control donald trump and none of them knows for sure if he's committed any crimes. stay with us.

to most, he's phil mickelson, pro golfer. to me, he's, well, dad. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop irreversible joint damage, and helps skin get clearer. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common, or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure,

or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 15 years. at fidelity, our online u.s. equity trades are just $4.95. so no matter what you trade, or where you trade, you'll only pay $4.95. fidelity. open an account today.

the norm that we've had since watergate that a president does not interfere in specific cases at justice, let alone one in which the president, himself, may be implicated, is shattered. and in the process, important sources and important precedent to protecting those sources may be violated by this president who cares little about the national security. >> under the cloud of scandal surrounding judge brett kavanaugh's supreme court nominati nomination, president trump last night hurled a grenade at his own justice department and fbi. demanding the public release of highly classified documents tied to, you guessed it, the russia investigation. including all investigation-related text messages without redaction from james comey, andrew mccabe, peter strzok, lisa page, and bruce ohr. the president also ordered the immediate declassification of heavily redacted portions of a fisa application for carter page. the former trump campaign aide

with suspicious foreign ties. nbc news is reporting some of that information is so delicate that, "justice and intelligence officials have resisted releasing the information on the grounds that it was too sensitive." trump's decision to overrule the judgment of his own administration stunned current and former officials who believe the release of these documents could pose a serious threat to national security. it's the latest desperate act by a president increasingly isolated by the growing threat of a mueller investigation, a reality underscored by a brand-new report in "the new york times" revealing that even his own lawyers aren't prepared for what's to come. joining us now, frank, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence. and jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and pentagon. phil, matt, mara and donny are still here. it's a full house. we need you all. frank, this is something you talk about all day long. the preservation of sources and methods that protect america particularly in a post-9/11 world is under attack by america's president.

>> this is not some new york real estate trance action, nicolle, where the buyer is countering an offer from the seller. this is a deadly serious game. it can take years to recruit a human source. it can take incredible effort to install a sensitive technical device in some foreign leader's office somewhere. there are undercover agents, informants and assets around the world and already gone through this with regard to the carter page affidavit. this is material already the intelligence community said, no, we can't release and the president's nowle toing in ordering it released. he seems far more comfortable releasing top-secret information than releasing his own tax returns and that's about self-interests over national interests. someone -- i'm not exaggerating when i say someone could literally die. throughout the course of my career in counterintelligence, people died overseas when their names were released as people

who were betraying their country to work for the united states. that's how serious this gets. >> jeremy bash, most people only contemplate these issues when they watch "the americans" or when they watch something that is made up. and i think that's why it's so incomprehensible. we're talking about complicated things. the fisa court, we should explain to our viewers the secret court where really sensitive national security decisions are made. the fisa application that the president wants to make public to defend himself in a political and legal challenge that he faces because of the russia investigation. the judges that signed off on that application were all republicans. but the last one that signed off on it was rod rosenstein. take us inside what you think the president's trying to do and as the former chief of staff of the cia and pentagon, how do buildings like that deal with a president like this? >> well, nicolle, this is as frank noted political selective declassification of national security secrets. it's an abuse of power by the president to try to interfere in

an investigation. he's doing so basically for political purposes. and the consequences are grave because as referenced, a fisa application really constitutes one of the most sensitively-held secrets in our government. in fact, during my tenure at the cia and defense department and during my time on the house intelligence committee, we were not permitted for the most part to review the contents of fisa applications because when you put an american under surveillance because you suspect that there's probable cause to believe they are an agent of a foreign power, that the russian intelligence services have recruited and are handling that individual in the case of carter page, that's what the justice department believed and the courts found, the methods by which carter page is being surveilled by the government is a secret that if you blow, if you give over to russia, it's going to undermine all of your counterintelligence efforts. so this is a really dangerous abuse of power by the president in this instance. >> matt miller, this is also a test for deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and for fbi

director chris wray. not that they need any more tests, but christopher wray has said he has steel in his spine. i believe in an interview with lester holt. and the deputy attorney general has talked about not being extorted under fierce questioning from some of the president's most fringey allies, if you will, on the house intel committee. how important is this test for mr. rosenstein and mr. wray? >> it's important to them for two reasons. one, just for the -- to protect the information that's contained in this fisa application to make sure it doesn't expose ongoing investigations, expose any sources and methods and send a message to future agents or operatives or others the u.s. might try to recruit. it's also important to the people that work in those buildings to know that the fbi director and the acting a.g., which is what rosenstein in this case, are going to go to bat for them. so ultimately, they may lose. the president can overrule them, can order everything in this fisa application released publicly, but they need to show that they're going to go to the white house and fight, that they're going to go to the hill and going to fight, and if the

president orders this information released, he can do it, but remember, they have already fought for this for a long time. this application has already been released publicly and the information that's been held back has been held back because the justice department and the fbi insisted that it couldn't be made public. the president is now basically overruling the conclusion that rod rosenstein and chris wray already came to. they're in a tough spot. i think they have to fight but ultimately it's the president's call and he is making clear he's not worried about the national security implications. >> and phil rucker, he's siding with or takeing the advice of devin nunes. i asked someone today why he would do that, why not listen to men like christopher wray and rod rosenstein who are republicans, hand-picked appointees to run the justice department and the fbi? this person said to me, because he doesn't like their answers. is this where we are? is there -- do we even pause anymore when the president of the united states obliterates a norm, one with national security implications or are they unashamed? sort of as the anonymous writer of the op-ped in "the new york

times" said, it's a two-track presidency, and where they can, they're going to try to save america from donald trump. >> yeah, nicolle, i think there are a couple things going on. one is, the president is rather conspiratorial by nature. so he has an inclination to believe that there's a hidden hand. it that there's some criminal activity going on here to sabotage him. so when devin nunes or other allies on capitol hill, you know, say we got to declassify these documents, got to get to the truth, we've got to find out who's sabotaging you, mr. president, he's inclined to want to do that and take their direction in terms of the steps to do so. but the other thing is he's rather isolated at the white house. he's looking for actions he can take. he's trying to figure out all the ways he, himself, can use his executive power to make change in a big situation he's not happy with. that is the russia investigation. he's bothered by it and looking for ways h s he can effect it.

>> frank, how does the fbi if they want to sort of act out what is written about in "the new york times" op-ped, how do they operationalize a two-track government if the president of the united states wants to declassify documents from a secret court that put at risk our national security secrets? >> oh, boy, i wish i had the answer to that, nicolle. >> will you call them and tell them? are they working on it? are people trying to figure out in the agencies how to protect our national security from donald trump? >> i've used the phrase, insider threat, before, on your show, nicolle, where i said the greatest threat to our nation is an insider threat and right now, it's the president, himself, and i truly believe that. but trying to operate with the notion, with sources, with allies, right, tremendous work is done with our allies and with human sources and technical sources and trying to think every moment of every day that this could be released because the white house wants it released and doesn't understand the concepts of national security is an extreme challenge. i can't imagine what the men and women are going through right

now as they try to convince allies, as they try to convince someone they're trying to recruit that their identity will be withheld, will be protected. it's an extremely grave time right now in the intelligence community. >> phil rucker who wins the reward for the understatement of the day that donald trump is conspiratorial by nature. thank you for that, my friend. >> thank you. when we come back, donald trump smears his own justice department and fbi at his own peril. how the president's zeal to attack the investigators could add up to obstruction of justice.

metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred.

talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. today, life-changing technology from abbott is helping hunt them down at their source. because the faster we can identify new viruses, the faster we can get to stopping them. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

i can tell you that there are people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and i thinking they should understand by now that the department of justice is not going to be extorted. we're going to do what's required by the rule of law and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job. >> the president's making

threats. the statement from the deputy attorney general didn't stop those threats fromle co coming. president's latest escalation in the war on justice demanding the release of classified documents and text messages related to the russia investigation could raise questions for robert mueller whose obstruction of justice investigation is looking into donald trump's alleged ongoing efforts to interfere with the probe. joining the conversation now, "new york times" reporter mike schmidt who has a new story out about the president's legal team. let me play for you something that adam schiff said last night and ask you about it on the other side. >> i think it's first and foremost a way of donald trump helping his own defense providing these materials to his own legal defense team. he's no doubt conferred with his lawyers what information from the investigation would be useful to you? he's conferred with his tv lawyer, rudy giuliani, what would be useful to you to be able to talk about on tv? and he's conferred with his allies in congress. >> sounds very strategic, mike schmidt. is this what the legal team is

doing? >> well, i'm not sure how much he did consult with them, but what this is is just yet another thing as he tries to sort of muddy the water here. the president's calculation on all of this is that it's all about public opinion and it's all about the house of representatives. the only place he can get into trouble, that's where he could get impeached if that went forward, in the democrats won. so his strategy is push the public dialogue as much as possible. that's why he has rudy giuliani out there and this plays right into muddying the waters and making things very confusing and hard to understand. who is bruce ohr, what type of conspiracy is this? they're trying to plant that seed. >> jeremy bash, what all of the individuals have in common is that they have all either investigated or prosecuted people with ties to russia. do you think that's a coincidence? >> no, i don't. and obviously the president is scared of what the investigators might find about ties between the trump organization and the russian federation ole oligarchs

around vladimir putin and see the reaction inside the intelligence agencies. i mean, ken dilanian reported earlier that the declassification order from the white house is being met by some inside the office of the director of national intelligence and the justice department is perhaps the suggestion, hey, maybe take a look at whether or not this should be declassified. i don't think that's what the white house means, but i have to commend the men and women of the intelligence community and the justice department for what appears to be a principled and patriotic rebellion and you see this time and time again and i don't know how many times the president is going to fall for it. like them giving a ball of yarn to a kitten and say go play with this while we actually do serious national security work. >> i don't want to get too excited about a rebellion, jeremy bash. how far do you think they're willing to take the rebellion? it's my impression the intelligence community usually tries to duck and bob and weave and serve their principal client, the president of the united states. are you predicting this rebellion will manifest in a --

>> i think they could make public the deep concern over the way the president is pursuing this in the same way dni coats stepped forward after the putin/trump summit and said, look, we believe the word of u.s. intelligence over the word of the kgb successor organizations as the president said in helsinki. and so there may be moments, nicolle, when i think the men and women of the intelligence community and justice department actually take a very firm stand against the president. >> matt miller, i talked to an outside adviser of the president's today. i said, what does he want in this fisa application? i'm told if the whole thing were out, it certainly withstands scrutiny, that this is one of the most incorruptible parts of the entire federal government. the fisa court and the fisa application would simply show that there was every reason to have carter page under surveillance. what do you think about the fact that the process may be sort of exploited and revealed? sources and methods may be burned. it wouldn't help the president, anyway. >> well, i mean, that would be

history repeating itself. we've seen that before when devin nunes released his memo which was about this underlying fisa application. that's what happened. when the redacted version of the fisa application was released in the summer, that's what happened. i'm sure that's likely that that's what would happen now, but the cost of that, of course, even if it might, you know, kind of expose the president -- expose more of the ties between the president's campaign and russia, the cost simply isn't worth that in terms of a tradeoff. i think -- i want to go back to one of the points jeremy made about people inside the justice department, intelligence community, pushing back. i think they will. i think the problem is, you know, there's been this theory for a while that people inside the government might try to constrain the president. i think they're trying very hard to. but the president is figuring out how to work around them. i think what's you saw him doing with this order. i think he does intend to order a full declassification. these people on the hill, the kind of crackpot caucus, devin nunes and mark meadows. it's clear he's decided he wants to take direction from them on these matters and not the national security community that

supposedly works for him. >> frank, i saw your eyes light up. go ahead. >> well, here's the interesting thing about this strategy, if the president has one, and that is that so cliche, be careful what you ask for. you might get it. he might get nfrinvest rinforma release d publicly that might hurt him. it might serve him better if the doj and fbi prolong and protract the process of declassifying and fight back and push back publicly because it feeds into the president's base that thinks there's a deep space and there's no transparency and there's a conspiracy to get the president. so either way, the president may win here. quite frankly, it may be to his benefit if there's a prolonged pushing back and the process takes forever and the president and gop just claim there's a lack of transparency, it's all part of the conspiracy and a deep state. >> mike schmidt, that seems to

be in line with your reporting that their whole strategy is a pr strategy. is that because there is no viable legal strategy at this point? that they don't know what they don't know and think the president may very well be in trouble? >> the legal team certainly finds themselves in the dark and mueller has done an enormous amount of work here. and the president's lawyers still don't appreciate how much mueller has and what the president's true exposure is. and what the justice department will actually do with any information they have about the president. will it be a report to congress that's widely aing accepted tht would happen? it's not the foregone conclusion that that would happen. there are unanswered questions in that part of it. in the meantime, you put giuliani out there, giuliani beats the drum about different conspiracies, about how the president was framed. and this is right into it. these declassification documents. >> donny? >> the interesting thing about the pr strategy, it clearly is, it's not working as well anymore. look at the recent --

>> got a ceiling. >> there's an exhaustion factor and, you know, if you look at the recent polls about how people feel about mueller, this includes republicans, about the investigation, about trump, it swung i think about 12 points in the last couple months. >> in mueller's favor. >> i think there's deaf ears at this point. i think frank brings up a brilliant point that if trump merely asks for it and doesn't get it, it's a win for him because he can stand and go, well, all i want is transparency. having said that, though, i still think the big issue here is none of it is working anymore. the american people, you know, it all starts to add up. when you start to add up, you know, the bob woodward book and the op-ped in the "times," even people who are not inside baseball people, this starts to seep out there. that's what the polls are starting to reflect. >> they show most people believe, as bob woodward reported extensively, that the president's a liar. he called him a bleeping liar. they have come to the same conclusion, the president's a liar. >> that's right. you know, i just think the most dangerous part about the presidency right now is that president trump is not just

attacking our democratic institutions but he's actually weaponizing them against democracy to strengthen -- >> against his own government. >> right. to consolidate his own power and to protect him, himself, and his self-interest. i think as comforting as it can be to sometimes hear about people who are standing up, it's great that there are people all across the government doing that, trying to do the right thing, put country first. i think the most important thing is for the rest of us and for voters to practice democracy in november. >> all right. when we come back, breaking news. the kavanaugh controversy over his supreme court nomination. stay with us. that's next. nation stay with us that's next.

yes, we are twins. when i went on to ancestry, i just put in the name of my parents and my grandparents. i was getting all these leaves and i was going back generation after generation. you start to see documents and you see signatures of people that you've never met. i mean, you don't know these people, but you feel like you do. you get connected to them. i wish that i could get into a time machine and go back 100 years, 200 years and just meet these people. being on ancestry just made me feel like i belonged somewhere. discover your story. start searching for free now at ancestry.com. where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan

helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! so call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance.

we are back with some breaking news in the growing controversy around the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh. the man named by professor ford as the eyewitness to what she alleged was a sexual assault has just released a letter. his lawyers released a letter on his behalf to the senate judiciary committee.

i'd read it to you. he says "i did not ask to be involved in this matter. nor did anyone ask me to be involved. the only reason i am involved because dr. christine blasey ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault. in fact, i have no memory of this alleged incident. brett kavanaugh and i were friends in high school, but i do not recall the party described in dr. ford's letter. more to the point, i never saw brett act in the manner dr. ford describes. i have no more information to offer the committee and i do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in dr. ford's letter." matt miller, this feels like a setback in the pursuit of the truth. the -- dr. ford will not have someone who may have witnessed who she experienced or said she experienced, and judge kavanaugh will not have his former friend there to say it didn't happen. >> you know, it's only a setback if the senate judiciary committee decides to let it be a setback. he says he doesn't want to

participate or speak publicly. they have subpoena power. if they decide he's an important witness, they can subpoena him, ask him to testify and subpoena him to give private testimony if they want to avoid the spectacle of a public hearing. it's a very interesting letter he wrote. using, "i don't recall" and "i have no memory" twice in the t letter is quite an unusual thing for an incident that's described in such vivid nature by dr. blasey ford. he is still the only, you know, corroborating witness that can speak to these events. if you take her account at its word. i -- if the senate judiciary committee really wanted to get to the bottom of this, they'd have a subpoena and have him in at least privately. >> here's a problem with a subpoena for him, as far as him saying i don't remember. his biography, he's written a book, i can't remember the exact name. that talks about him being a blackout drunk during high school and college. his experiences and defined him. so when he says "i don't remember," i'm going to take that as face value that i don't think he's in a position, frankly, to say whether it did

or didn't happen. it's just stunning. just irony that his book that he's written. >> frank, i saw you nodding to some of what matt miller was talking about. i want to ask you in witness or potential witness get to opt out and should the senate judiciary committee run this like an investigation and require his participation? >> let's back up a second. i think this is exactly why the white house should request the fbi to do what they do best. finish their investigation, their background inquiry. we're hearing mr. judge say he prefers not -- he has no desire to testify publicly. we're still needing to hear from the victim and whether she's going to be put through an agonizing process in a public display that none of us wants to see. the fbi does this best. they have victim witness specialists who can sit down with her one on one with regard to judge, they will sit down with him one on one. and if he lies to them, he's lying to the fbi, which is a federal offense.

we need the fbi to finish what they started. >> mara, this does seem to speak to really not an appetite for the one potential witness to get involved, that doesn't seem like an option with the stakes as high as they are. >> yet again the ownness is on the republicans in this case in the senate, and other members of the committee, that if they want to subpoena this individual, they should. to donny's point, this is not a court of law. if you get nominated to the supreme court seat, that's for life. you should be above suspicion and these are not accusations that come with no evidence. it may not hold up in a court of law at this point but she is a credible witness with everything we know so far. and, hopefully, we can see that process through. the process is important. everyone is entitled to tell his or her side of the story. i really do hope, as difficult as it would be for ms.

blasey-ford, that she does step forward. that would be a brave act. she is ultimately a credible witness. think about all the stuff she has taken to get to this point and also she has no ulterior motive, at least obviously, but to tell the truth and tell her own story. >> a lot of condemnation for the way senator feinstein's office handled the letter that came from professor ford's congresswoman. what do you make of sort of the politics around how and when this came to light and what's your best advice for democrats to keep this out of the political and really focused on what mara is talking about, the human stakes, the human story behind both of these players, behind judge kavanaugh and his family and the alleged victim here, professor ford? >> ultimately when you're dealing with someone, an alleged victim who makes an accusation like this you have to respect their wishes. that is the most important thing

to do. dr. blasey-ford's wishes, until she talked to the washington post on sunday, were that she remain anonymous. she didn't want to come forward or speak to the committee, even behind closed doors. she didn't want to speak to reporters and senator feinstein respected that. i think that's the right thing to do. lulty, it doesn't matter. republicans want to make it about senator feinstein because they don't want to focus on the accusations that have been made. it doesn't matter how she handled it, even if she had mishandled it. what matters is the search for the truth and that's what democrats have to focus on, the seven for the truth. and they have to treat both sides with dignity and respect. republican senators have talked about dr. ford the last few days with orrin hatch saying she might be mixed up with senator cornyn this morning, saying there are gaps in her story, appear to be gaps in her story, that's not the way to treat someone with respect who is coming forward in such a difficult circumstance. i'll say one last thing on this. there's a difference between the two sides of this committee.

there are 11 white male republican senators on the republican side. four of the ten democrats are women. and you will see a difference just because of that makeup. >> frank and jeremy, thank you both for spending time with us. one of the other potential threats to the president? a flipper in his inner circle. don't forget that the past can speak to the future. ♪ ♪ i'm going to be your substitute teacher. don't assume the substitute teacher has nothing to offer... same goes for a neighborhood. don't forget that friendships last longer than any broadway run. mr. president.

(laughing) don't settle for your first draft. or your 10th draft. ♪ ♪ you get to create the room where it happens. ♪ ♪ just don't think you have to do it alone. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it. when it comes to making bones stronger, are you headed in the right direction? we are. we have postmenopausal osteoporosis and a high risk for fracture. so with our doctors we chose prolia®. to help make our bones stronger. only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva® serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred.

prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. are you on the path to stronger bones? if you're not sure. ask your doctor about prolia®. billions of problems. sore gums? bleeding gums? painful flossing? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath healthy gums oral rinse fights gingivitis and plaque and prevents gum disease for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

[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] we recently learned that michael cohen is the latest former trump ally to have spoken to the special counsel's team. in "vanity fair" friday, he has bristled at the feeling that he took the fall for a man who has

refused to take any responsibility or face any consequences himself. he's making good on what he told abc this summer, that his loyalty to trump is no longer his load star. we haven't seen you since friday when michael cohen is likely talking to mueller. what do you know? >> i know that things shifted after helsinki. i need to do something not only to help myself but to save the country. >> from trump? >> from trump. he's very deep in mueller land right now. about a week and a half ago, his entire dynamic changed. we used to speak every day, in very in-depth fashion. in the last week or so, in a very respectful way, the conversations have gotten a bit more distant, which tells me that mueller says we're at the grown-ups table now. you're best friends, you're talking to nobody. i see a very different tenor in

the way michael is communicating with me the last week or so, which tells me -- it's just my prognostication that he's working with mueller. >> the one at the southern district of new york, the grand juries convened in washington, d.c. any sense he has traveled or been out of town? >> he said to me one week, i have a weird week coming up. i don't know what that meant. i can promise you in any way that michael can help, he will be helping for two reasons, to protect his family and he does feel a sense of country. not only does he feel betrayed but feels that trump betrayed all of us. >> you don't think he's getting leniency, that he's trying to help the country? >> of course he's trying to help himself, anybody would in that instance but he's in a unique position to save us from this lunatic. >> matt miller, you think that's what's happening? >> i do. look, there are a lot of cooperators in donald trump's

orbit, manafort, flynn, gates. cohen doesn't have a cooperation agreement and the only way to lessen the sentence for the crimes he pled guilty to, so that would make sense if he's in talking to mueller. >> making sense, that's what we all do here every day. i'm nicolle wallace. mtp daily starts right now. hi, chuck. >> hi, nicole. >> you always sigh in the handoff. is it me? >> it's only tuesday. >> you just started. >> i know and it's only tuesday! it's a long six days. >> don't sigh, my friend. it's a long four years. >> yes, it is. thank you. if it's tuesday, boom goes the dynamite.