this wednesday night. thank you very much for being with us, good night from nbc headquarters in new york from msnbc. thanks for joining us at this hour. happy to have you with us. ronald reagan, the very end of his presidency, he lost one. everybody had thought he was going to put anthony kennedy on his court and he believed himself he was picked for the court. the last minute conservatives staff staffers in the reagan's white house intervened. no, we have a different guy and better choice and somebody we like more. so this man you see here with reagan, this man douglas jumped to the front of the line and he got the nomination. reagan did not get him onto the

court. and everybody started to trying to figure out who they're going to blame in the reagan's white house for the political disaster. >> president reagan suffered his second defeat in trying to fill a seat in the u.s. supreme court when the man he dominated asked that his name to be withdrawn. it was an embarrassing admission of marijuana use. officials knew he could never win confirmation. the front runner to become the new nominee considers to be judge anthony kennedy of california. with or nbc news correspondent robert lloyd. >> reporter: it happened quickly for ginsburg, less than 48 hours from the time he disclosed that he had smoked marijuana and at the white house calling it quit. >> i asked president reagan to not forward my nomination to the supreme court. >> reporter: the president

commended him for his clear thinking. late this afternoon, the attorney general pushed hard for the ginsburg's nomination and dodging any blame. >> together we provided the information to him and he ultimately made the selection. >> reporter: nobody in the white house is blaming anyone for the ginsburg's fiasco. ginsburg was never asked if he ever used drugs or whether he had an addiction problem. former white house says - >> in this case the president must look at the justice department, why didn't you do this right? >> reporter: the next nominee is likely to be california, federal appeals court judge, anthony kennedy, a moderate conservative. kennedy has been the choice of chief of staff howard baker who felt he would be easy to confirm

than ginsburg. >> reporter: the white house hopes to announce a new nominee by next week. they say there will be a preliminary fbi check before anyone is nominated and the candidate will be asked if he ever used drugs. robin lloyd, nbc news at the white house. that was the saturday night newscast on november 7th, 1987. the day that the supreme court nominee, douglas ginsburg had to withdraw as a supreme court nomin nominee. as i mentioned before they picked ginsburg for that seat on the court, they had previously thinking of nominating a judge named anthony kennedy instead. by the next day though, after this newscast about ginsburg withdrawing on november 8th, by then we knew that kennedy was back at the white house by sunday that weekend. anthony kennedy was at the white house being subjected by a

three-hour long interview by a whole panel of officials including the attorney general and republican leaders in the senate. we know that. we know that kennedy was at the white house being interviewed the day after ginsburg withdrew because of notes filed by reagan's white house counsel which you can get from the ronald reagan's presidential library. the time line was on saturday. ginsburg dropped out. on sunday, three hours interview of judge kennedy at the white house, quote, "the interview focused on personal backgrounds and all conceivable and no holds barred questions were asked." that was on sunday and on monday and tuesday, quote "in excess of ten hours of fbi interviews of judge kennedy." they were not going let the

douglas ginsburg happening again. they never asked him if they had done drugs. these are some of the questions, personal background, subsection one, childhood through high school. did you ever use alcohol and if so, how old and how often? at parties? alone? did you ever use drugs? >> did you ever use your parent's prescription drugs? that typo was in the letter. they misspelled parties. later on they asked again when kennedy was in college of questions about alcohol. in college, did you ever use drugs? >> also, marijuana, cocaine and

etcetera, did you attend parties, again, misspelled and were drugs used? then they asked him about law school. they thought glue sniffing would not be an option. did you ever use drugged? when ronald reagan's nominee ginsburg had flamed out right before kennedy, it was an embarrassme embarrassment. it was a big political failure and a big embarrassment for the white house and the president. they decided they would blame the fbi and blame the justice department for not having to adequately explore ginsburg's background before the nomination was announced. when they replaced douglas ginsburg with a new nominee, they made sure there would be no similar surprises that arose out of kennedy's background.

the question got very, very, very detailed. ultimately, anthony kennedy, gets confirmed. that was reagan's last nominee. george h.w. bush was elected as president. in 1991, president bush nominated collnominat nominated clarence thomas. by the time thomas was nominated, there was a well expectations that the fbi had to be thorough when it comes to background check for supreme court nominees. we are not going to have another douglas ginsburg situation here. what the fbi does with these nominees, it is not a criminal investigation like they would do if they are planning to prosecute someone. it is a review of every little thing and the life history of that nominee. to see if there is any derogatory information that may reflect badly on the character or the experience of this

nominee and honestly remembering that douglas ginsburg's fiasco. the fbi is also supposed to turn up information of confirming that nominee to the court. that's why the fbi background check on a potential nominee is handed over to the white house. so the white house can then make a decision based and part on that background check whether or not they should nominate that person pfor the court. when clarence thomas was nominated by george h.w. bush, his former assistant, anita hill, notified the senate judicial committee which confirmed her nomination that when he worked for thomas, he sexually harassed her. whether or not that considered to be in the statue of limitations or conceivable

crimes weulated related to char. it was relevant to the judge as a potential supreme court nominee. when the judiciary committee receives that information from anita hill, that information got sent to the fbi. the judiciary committee sent that information to the white house on september 23rd, 1991. . a man named boyden gray asked the fbi to reopen of judge coll clarence thomas to look into this sexual harassment case made by anita hill. the white house tells the fbi hey look into this. that was not the stop the presses moment in the anita

hill/clarence controversy. there was not any big fight about this. the white house learned there were new allegations of derogatory information about coll clarence thomas since the fbi looked antonio the nominee and documenting derogatory information about him. the white house asked the fbi to look into this new information, too. we actually spoke with boyden gray today about that moment of the clarence thomas nomination. mr. gray confirmed the understanding that we have from looking at the historical record that this was -- it was not a pivotal moment in this controversy. the fbi did reopen its background investigation to thomas to add this matter when the white house asked them to. the fbi when they receive the request, they interviewed anita hill and thomas about it.

gray told us by phone today what they interviewed hill about was the basic facts. the fbi inquiry such as it was were basic and quick. if there were any controversies about it at all is it is too unimportant. the very same day, to go look into the investigation of thomas, it is when the fbi conducted their interview, september 23rd. two days later, they were done. they did not produce a conclusive report that tries to assert whether or not the sexual harassment happened? the fbi gave that info. back to the white house. the white house gave it back to the committee and most senators

did not know that had happened. most senators were not moved by the edition of the body of information if they knew about it at all. >> thomas' confirmation hearing were done. two day afrs the fs after the f over. the committee voted on clarence thomas' nomination. they voted 7-7. what actually broke the story open, the whole reason any of us know about these allegations and the controversy that ensued is because nothing to do with the fbi. it has to do with nin nina totenburg. he's she's been the one that broke the news that douglas ginsburg had smoked pot and

she's the one that glue up the ginsburg's nomination. four years later who reported that professor anita hill has made this serious and detailed allegations against judge clarence thomas and whether or not most senators knew about it. when any that totenberg broke the story, that's when the story truly broke. before the week was up, the committee decided okay, i guess we better reopen the conference for thomas. >> that hearing of course is still seen today as one of the worse examples of how not to treat a person who's coming forward with serious sexual harassment allegations. for all of the controversy, all

of the drama and the cultural significance and pain and precedent of that unbelievably supreme court nomination in that process, the idea that the fbi would take a look, the fbi would interview the principles or maybe talk to other witnesses once the new allegation came to light. that was an absolute mundane part of the process. the fbi had to look into that. they had done a background check in this nominee. it is not a criminal investigation. it was to find out everything you can about a nominee and see if there is any allegations and standing out there about a nominee that the white house taught to know about and st senate ought to know about when considering the person as a potential supreme court justice. when there is a new allegation to add to the universe of information about the nominee, the background check should clearly cover that new allegation, too. that was not a controversial part of the clarence thomas/e

thomas/anita hill drama. that was too mundane apart of the process. but for some reason with this nomination of brett kavanaugh to fill anthony kennedy's vacated seat in the court, republicans in the senate and the white house as well they have decided they'll fight tooth and nail to stop that mundane part of the process from happening this time. i mean of course this allegation against brett kavanaugh is going to be controversial. this supreme court nomination was controversial before we got to this allegation against him. so, of course with an allegation like this, he's being accused of attempted rape when he was 17 years old. with an allegation of this nature at a time like this with stakes this high, of course you expect there to be drama and chest pounding and self-serving arguments and theatrics and all

of it. fighting to make sure that the fbi does not look into this of his background history, tait is strange thing to say. >> orrin hatch says quote "the fbi does not do investigations like this." >> that's 100% completely wrong. here is senator hatch in 1991 in the hearing of anita hill's hearing expressing his delight that the fbi was investing those claims on clarence thomas. they immediately ordered this fbi investigation which was the very right thing to do, it is the appropriate thing to do. it is not just right but very right. which is why it was done then. so when orrin hatch today says the fbi does not do investigations like this. what was he praising back in

1991? what was he so excited back then if the nfbi does not do this. being a hypocrite, i understand that's like breathing in politics these days, i get it. flat out of asserting this is not done, it would be crazy or a departure unprecedent. when these guys themselves have been through the process before, it strikes me as odd. it is a weird place to have a sticking point. it is not a normal kind of fight. chuck grassley was there on the committee for the fbi reopening its background check to look at anita hill's case. he was there and he did not have any problems with that process. it was a mundane mart part of h this part of thing were handled. senator grassley insist that it

can't happen here. your senator grassley today. "committee investigators are following up on the leads from dr. ford's allegations and news stories. no other outside investigation is necessary for the committee to do its investigation" och." why not have the fbi look into it since that's what they do for the supreme court nominees and all nominees for which they do background check. why are you trying so hard to stop the fbi looking into this which would be the normal process here. what's the problem of them looking into it? this is also perhaps a good point to remember when senator grassley talks about how he only wants his staff to look into these things and instead of anybody outside or the fbi. there is no need for anybody else other than his staff to look into this. one of his chairman staff members who works with him is

named barbara ladean. if the name is familiar to you in the context of brett kavanaugh's nomination. you may remember from his confirmation hearing of whether or not brett kavanaugh ever reviar received do you means that had been stolen. it was a smoken gun produced during the confirmation hearing where brett kavanaugh had in fact received information. he had to have known they were stolen and despite to the assertion of the contrary under oath, in part of what we could see in the document which was sent to him and brett kavanaugh forwarded from his white house e-mail account in 2003. this was the document where the subject line was literally quote, "spying." the first line was i have a friend who was a mold for us. that e-mails contain a bunch of

that was stolen from democratic senators. the person that wrote that e-mail was barbara ladeedeen. so when grassley says listen, it is very important that the fbi not look into this. my staff will handle it. i got all the best people in this. nobody else other than my staff will need to look at it. one of the people that work for him is the same person who had the mole. who send brett kavanaugh the information which became a matter of serious contention of his confirmation hearing. we actually asked the committee today whether chuck grassley has

barbara ledeen himself. what did he say? following up leads on dr. ford's allegations. barbara ledeen is not assigned to be one of these investigators into this allegation against kavanaugh. but, the committee also would not tell us who any of the investigators are. so, nobody knows why this is the hang up. again, the fbi looking into new alleged derogatory information about a nominee. that's the bread and butter of what the fbi does with background checks on nominees. stop ping the fbi from looking into this is a big break. it remains unclear as to whether or not professor christine blasey ford will be testifying and since republicans are digging into their hills that there could be no fbi

investigation of their claims. when it comes to predicting what's going to happen here, we got these two very interesting things playing out side by side and neither who have what you would expect but both are happening. we are waiting for credible explanation from the republicans and the white house as to why this case sois speci special an invested in making sure the fbi does not look into this. the argument of this is what the fbi does is factually incorrect. it is absolutely not true. that can't be the reason. if that's not the reason then what's the reason? they're so desperate to not have the fbi look at this. parallel to that. when it comes to assessing the credibility of accusations, we are in a remarkable situation when a woman is brought forth this allegation, she's begging

for the fbi's scrutiny of her claims. he has made a claim against brett kavanaugh. brett kavanaugh's supporters do not want any agencies to look into it. she on the other hand is begging for others to look into it. she's doing everything she can to try to get independent federal law enforcement scrutiny of her claims. i don't know anything more of her claims other than what's reported in the press. if you were going to make something up, if you are going to take a high stake lie because you want to take somebody out for whatever reason, would you beg the fbi to look into it? it is not a crime to lie to the washington post or a lie or a letter to your member congress, it is definitely a crime to lie to the fbi. it is a serious crime, a crime that people go to prison for. why would you ask for fbi scrutiny if you had any doubt of your story?

and if republicans in the senate and the white house had no doubt of brett kavanaugh's denials of this allegation, why would they worry of the fbi looking into it? apparently there is a memorandum of understanding between the white house and the justice department which governmes the rules. we are trying to get that memorandum of understanding. we don't have it but we'll get it at some point soon. in the action of seeing how these things go and what we understand is it has to be a request from the white house if the fbi is going to look into this matter for whatever reason, the white house is refusing to give that directive to the fbi. the white house should be governed by precedent on this. that's apparently what they are trying to hold onto without explaining themselves about it.

as to who else may be investigating this matter? it was reported today when feinstein was considered what to do with this allegation that she received from her constituent in california, she inquired the judiciary committee could hire an outside independent counsel. the senator would have some sort of factual investigative bases to proceed if they want to hold a hearing. senator feinstein was reported told that there is a process of arranging something like that but it would require going through the rules and committee and signing off of multipl multiple -- now, professor ford has allowed her name to be used. so, could that process obtaining some sort of outside investigation, some sort of outside counsel be put in place

now in the white house and the republicans in the senate refused the fbi to look into this, is there a way that somebody else could? that's next.

if your adventure... ...keeps turning into unexpected bathroom trips... ...you may have overactive bladder, or oab. ohhhh...enough already! we need to see a doctor. ask your doctor about myrbetriq® (mirabegron). it treats oab symptoms of urgency, frequency, and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions... ...like swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or trouble breathing. if experienced, stop taking and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may interact with other medicines. tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold or flu symptoms,... ...sinus irritation, dry mouth, urinary tract infection, bladder inflammation,...

...back or joint pain, constipation, dizziness, and headache. need some help managing your oab symptoms along the way? ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you, and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more. uhp. i didn't believe it. again. ♪ ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth? ♪ i want to believe it. [ claps hands ] ♪ ooh i'm not hearing the confidence. okay, hold the name your price tool. power of options based on your budget! and! ♪ we'll make heaven a place on earth ♪ yeah! oh, my angels! ♪ ooh, heaven is a place on earth ♪ [ sobs quietly ]

i when senator feinstein received a letter from her constituent conveying an allegation of attempted rape of brett kavanaugh had attempted to rape this woman when he was a 17 years old in high school. diane feinstein tried to figure out how she could have those allegations looked into and investigated while still protecting this woman's desire to keep her name confidential. >> once they received the letter containing allegations against brett kavanaugh, senatoor feinstein approached the ethnics committee to evaluate the allegations. they were told the rules committee would have to approve

such a request if the republican of the chairman rules of the committee and judiciary committee would have to sign off on the request. that was an action. senator feinstein decided that would violate dr. ford remaining anonymous. she could not pursue that while preserving her constituent's desire for an an nemty. >> they'll not allow the fbi to investigate this allegation as apart of brett kavanaugh's background check as a nominee even though that's standard procedure in a case like this. if they won't let the fbi to look into this for whatever reason, maybe they hate the fbi now so don't want the fbi to do anything. if they don't let the fbi do it, well, how about other paths?

what about having an independent white house counsel to look into it if the republicans of the white house are so scared of the prospect of the fbi doing it. joining me now the senator of hawaii, she supported the idea that the fbi should have investigated the manner, senator hurono. >> thank you, good evening. >> how do you understand your committee to proceed? >> there is no negotiations as chuck grassley and the community going forward and what i can consider in the past of an apoa approa approach. you laid out clearly why the fbi investigation should occur and the reason they don't want this to occur or anything for this to happen is that is anything that get in the way of fast tracking brett kavanaugh's confirmation

in the supreme court is fwhot whe fwhot -- not where the republicans are. there are some important cases coming before the supreme court. they need brett kavanaugh's fifth vote and they don't want any 4-4 ties anymore. >> the president that we see here with new allegations raised during the confirmation process with judge colllarence thomas. the criticism of that fbi investigation of the time is that it is too cursory and too quick and took them all but two and a half days to complete the assessment there. ic given how quickly the fbi looked into it and on that matter back then. tlis is there an expectation that the fbi would take a delay of this or any sense of the extent of

the investigation would be if they look into it? >> they are meeting more eyes and looking at the fbi and doing the kind of cursory investigation they did regarding anita hill's allegation would not be deemed acceptable. the democrats will say what is this, some kind of whitewash? if you are going to do an invasi invasi investigati investigation, do your job. this is not something the republicans want to contemplate at all. they're in a rush to get this man on the court. for one thing the president is a coke conspirator and he would like to have somebody on the court who's going to protect him from criminal and and civil proceedings while he's there sitting as president. that's major in wilhelmsen tice. >> one of the things senator feinstein looked at was a prospect of outside investigator

counsel to look at the investigation to see if there is corroboration for it and as a factual manner that the negotiator may look into the credibility and denial from brett kavanaugh. senator feinstein did not go that route. given things of how it is going, -- >> well, that's going to require the consent of the rules committee republican chair and chuck grassley so. that's a non starter. the fbi is supposed to be doing this investigation and for chuck grassley to say there is nothing that the fbi can do that will have any relevance to dr. ford's testimony defies all logic in my view. we all know that she's being threatened and is that crime? why does the fbi have to wait around for the president to say go do your jobs?

why don't they do their job? >> i think there is a crime occurring right now. she's afraid to testify and she's not getting a fair deal. the force and power of the presidency and the administration and all of their supporters in the senate, raid for kavanaugh and what does she have? i think when she said that she will testify and she will participate, i think she expects fairness, that's not what she's getting. why the heck should she participate in a situation that's so disanvantagious today. >> you are suggesting that the efforts have been made to threaten dr. blasey ford since she came out. her lawyer says he had to leave her home and there is threats. you are saying that should be investigated federally as a law

enforcement or witness tampering. >> that sounds like witness tampering to me. why don't the fbi go in and investigate that. they do not need to have the president to tell them to do it. there are so many reasons that this unseemingly rush to get brett kavanaugh on the court is just - it is explainable but it is not acceptable. >> senator hirono of hawaii, thank you, i really appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. much more to get to tonight. stay with us. opportunity is everywhere. like here. and here. see? opportunity. hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. ev-er-y-where. about to be parents. it's doing a lot of kicking down there. meeting the parents. it's gonna be fine. and this driver, logging out to watch his kid hit one out of the... go dani, go! opportunity is everywhere.

all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ there's nothing small about your business. with dell small business technology advisors, you get the one-on-one partnership to grow your business. the dell vostro 14 laptop. get up to 40% off on select pcs. call 877-buy-dell today. ( ♪ )

call 877-buy-dell today. walking a dog can add thouswalking this many?our day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. dr. scholl's. born to move.

monitor their blood glucose every day. which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

being an attorney general in the trump administration is not an easy job. >> i can tell you other people who have been making threats privately and publicly against me for quite some time. i think they should understand by now that the department of justice is not ex torted. >> the department of justice is not going to be extorted. deputy general rosenstein speaking there. at the time he was demanded of classified documents that were being made of protrump. they want released documents of ongoing investigation of the president and the campaign.

well, now those kinds of demands are coming through the department of justice again from the same cast of characters. this time we are getting all sorts of red flags that the justice department is more than just being extorted. the department of justice may be set up and that story is still ahead tonight. stay with us. alright, i brought in new max protein

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

but let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance. which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds.

so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. hurricane florence, north carolina river are continuing to cress and now in addition to the human misery and loss of life. we know large scale flooding means large scale serious pollution problems. in north carolina, one of the factors is that stage has a bunch of hog farms. there are roughly 9 million hogs

all around north carolina. back during hurricane floyd, dozens of hog lagoons ended up swamped by flood. they said toxic waste downstream killed wildlife and now in this new storm that's happening again. fir officials estimated of 77 hog lagoons of pig waste are over flowing after florence. today the number of hog lagoons that have been releasing toxic waste or at imminent risk at doing so, that number jumped again. we got 34 to 77 as of yesterday to 110 as of today. those are just estimates based on hog farmers self-reporting.

in the current condition, a lot of farmers can't even get to their farms to assess the damage. it could go up dramatically. tonight we have reason to believe that it will. it is not just the farmers who can't get back to see how much damage there is. there is also inspector from the state. flooding is so bad, they have been unable to visit the sites and hog lagoons or the ones they know they breach or they can test the water and see what sort of damage is being done. investigators have been relying on things like photographs of these hog lagoons, widespread devastation and tell-tale trails of rainbow-colored sheen indicating potential contamination. here is one of those areal photos.

look at this. you can see the rainbow color slick. that's the danger. what's in that slick? misery of whatever that's in there, that's potentially scary stuff here. joining us is our investigator reporter for the associated press. thanks very much for your time, i appreciate you being here. >> good to be with you. >> you broke the story of inspectors from the state not being able to get to the sites and test for themselves whether there is breaches or toxic contamination, how important is it that they get in there to assess the damage? >> having water sample can show us what's in the water before it is diluted or washing downstreadownstream to people's homes. >> as just a human being, the idea of gigantic pits full of hog wastes is a gross seeming

thing and even in the best of times. in this case, thinking of those things being in floodwaters and spread, it is viscerally uncomfortable because of what we can imagine those things are like. what's the real danger in terms of toxicity and pollution? >> well, hog lagoons can have bacteria and other things that were not great if you were to come in contact with them or drink them, it can contain sources of drinking water of contamination. one of the pictures you showed was the municipal plant that's affected with floodwaters and chicken farms and turkeys and about 5500 hogs. that and industrial sites, you know it makes this sort of toxic soup that's floating around and people have no choice but to

make contact with if they are trying to get back to their home and when they get to their homes, they may find that con tam mitigation contamination are being washed in. >> are steps taken to protect residents and advising people of contamination and floodwaters. not only people near industrial sites, near the large scale concentrated and agricultural site that you are talking about. >> i would think that people in eastern north carolina are intimately familiar with hog way in the threat opposes. in 1999, we suffered from hurricane floyd and a lot of lagoons ruptured and 2016, it was hurricane matthews. this is something that people dealt with before. i think coal ash was something

that flew in the radar until there was a big spill of 2014 of the energy ash pit there that really raised awareness within the state and resulted in a pretty record criminal find against over $100 million and cleaning out their ash pit which they were in the process of doing when this landfill ruptured. they were digging it out and trying to put in a new line landfill. michael, appreciate your time tonight. you are one of the national reporters out there who i got a google alert on and i read every single article that you publish. thank you for being here. >> thank you, rachel. >> we'll be right back. stay with us.

( ♪ ) it's the details that make the difference. only botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet and forehead lines look better. it's a quick 10 minute treatment given by a doctor

to reduce those lines. ask your doctor about botox® cosmetic by name. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyelid and eyebrow drooping and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. the details make a difference. the man makes them matter. see real results at botoxcosmetic.com/men.

extraordinary material of the special counsel still ongoing investigation into the president's campaign. the president wants fbi interview that was used of the onset of the investigation and from the justice department and the fbi officials involved in the investigation and declassified and released. he wants all these materials and still ongoing investigation of him and campaign released publicly. while the investigation is still happening. when the news of this order from the president broke, the top democratic in the house suggested there could be trouble

ahead about handing over super sensitive documents. adam schiff quote "i have been previously informed by the fbi and justice department that they would consider their release a red line that must not be crossed." the justice department refused to carry out the president's order to declassify the materials. >> if mr. trump in the white house does not relent, i think they have some decisions to make whether or not they're not going to follow the direction and be fired or to resign. >> which may well be the point. acting cia director, john mclaughlin, called this, probably qualifies as the

president's most serious assault on the justice system yet. maybe trump's intention? this is issue here. the president is asking for stuff that's part of an ongoing investigation according to congressman schiff, he's asking stuff that's seen by law enforcement as a red line. stuff that can't be publicly released. is that why he is asking for this information? is he doing it so that fbi and justice department officials will say no, that's creating a pretense for them to fire those people. alternative alternatively, is he pushing those people resign in protests so he can put in more. bloomberg reports that they're currently planning redactions and looking for a path that would keep information secrets despite the president's order to let it all out. watch this space. -computer, order pizza.

-of course, daniel. -fridge, weather. -clear skies and 75. -trash can, turn on the tv. -my pleasure. -ice dispenser, find me a dog sitter. -okay. -and make ice. -pizza delivered. -what's happened to my son? -i think that's just what people are like now. i mean, with progressive, you can quote your insurance on just about any device. even on social media. he'll be fine. -[ laughs ] -will he? -i don't know.

highest ranking while he's been talking with prosecutors. maybe those talks are close to done. as of now, as of tonight the judge in his case has finally set a date for michael flynn to be sentenced. we've got a firm date now. december 18th, 11:00 a.m., courtroom 24a. mark your calendar. that does it for us tonight. time for lawrence o'donnell. >> december 18th was going to be a christmas shopping night for me, but i'll be here. i will be here december 18th. rachel, you know what, i've got to say i was taking some notes here. and when you said the highest ranking member of the trump administration to plead guilty, i was so deep in kavanaugh i