my thanks to phil rucker. we love having you here in new york. thanks for joining us at the table. that does for your hour. and mtp daily starts right now. hi, chuck. no sighing. >> what's that? >> no sighing. >> okay, no sighing. it's no sighs for you. if it's thursday, we've got some brand new poll numbers. they don't look so good for judge kavanaugh. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to mtp daily, and we've got some late breaking developments in the negotiations to have brett kavanaugh accuser publicly testify next week. but we begin tonight with news that is breaking right now, and it could have some republicans rethinking their level of

support for brett kavanaugh. public opposition to his nomination is spiking. that's according to new numbers num our nbc news poll, from the allegation kavanaugh assaulted her back in high school, which kavanaugh vehemently denies. 34% support him, 38% oppose him. this is the first time in our poll dating back to john roberts nomination in 2005 that a supreme court nomhy has beinee under water. opposition against kavanaugh has spiked nine points since last month and spiked 12 points since his naming in july. and as you can see, his support hasn't budged at all. it is basically flat. kavanaugh's popularity is also under water. 27% view him positively, 30% view him negatively. the decline in support is being

driven in part by two groups that could be monumentally important in the mid-terms. folks, these numbers come as the white house today seemed to signal their concern that kavanaugh's nomination might be dying on the vine. a person involved in his confirmation process told nbc news that it is up to kavanaugh, aka, not the white house to determine how he's going to present himself in monday's scheduled testimony. that's what you call a bit of distance. here's what the source told nbc news about kavanaugh. quote, he has to make those decisions how he wants to tell his story. it's really the nominee's hands, in its his hands, its his reputation, and he knows all the facts. white house source peter alexander. and folks, how and when kavanaugh and ford are going to testify isitial own controversy. debracats has sent a letter to

the senate judiciary committee saying that her client is willing to testify under certain conditio condition. quote, she wishes to testify provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety. a hearing on monday is not possible, and the committee's insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event. her strong preference, and emphasis on strong preference, by the way, continues to be for the senate judiciary committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony. let me bring in our panel here. okay, carol, things are moving quickly here. i want to get to the public opinion issue in a minute, but let's go with these negotiations. felt like we were at a standstill all day until about

3:00. then we found out, okay, negotiations are happening. what more do we know? >> well, we know as you pointed out she still seems open to testifying. and we know that republicans are feeling -- you know, this seems to change almost hourly or every few hours. republicans are now feeling squeezed again. i think they felt good earlier, a little bit better. and now, you know, there's a lot of angst, a lot of concern about what any testimony would look like, about how this unfolds. and, you know, i think they are now put in a box on monday, and how they get out of it and how this unfolds -- i think the white house's position on this is so interesting. we're heading into the second weekend of a cloud over kavanaugh. and for them to put distance like that between them and that coupled with president trump's reaction while, you know, some are being critical of it is

still for him by his standards pretty measured. you know, that does not bode well. those are not good signs for kavanaugh. >> politically, matthew, this seems like a no-brainer for the white house to say i've got other people that could excite the base more. i think about judge amy cohen barrett. they've got their own reputation issues on the ballot. why add this? >> it was apparent on day one of the confirmation hearings was to delay the nominations past the election, and if you're able to defeat the nomination then the question becomes who next, and what is the time frame for confirming that judge to the supreme court? so they're trapped if the time frame goes beyond the election, in an election that's very possible the democrats win both the house and the senate. mazy hiroano basically raised this possibility in a news conference this week.

that's why republicans nationally are behind this nomination, at least want to see both sides sttell the story nex week. that's why you want to see what both sides have to say. and why i think it's interesting this latest statement from katz is clearly at this point the allegations are driving the conversation. you say, well, we're going to hold off until the fbi completes its investigation. now we see the fbi probably won't investigate this matter, but now we're not going to agree to appear on monday. what chuck grassly is doing right now is seeming to talk with katz is when do you want to talk on monday? >> if it looks like they're just playing games, that will backfire on them. and yet at the same time monday does feel arbitrary. it feels like on one hand you

could say senator grassly has been open to how he testifies, publicly, privately, lawyers, whatever. so he's been accommodating there. he hasn't been accommodating on the clock. clearly he needs to emove on the clock a little bit, but democrats need to be able to say okay, we need to move on the clock, too. >> they investigate anita hill in three days and they were able to turn that around. >> this is not a three day investigation. aneat ahill, we h anita hill you had workplace. >> and i think republicans are in a touchy situation. to your point, this is white woman presenting herself, that's a huge important voting block for the republican party. they cannot be seen as again as people perpetuating and allowing this frat boy culture or rape culture, some would call it. i also think it's a tricky space

for republicans as well because there could be more information. just a few hours ago we learned kavanaugh was part of this all-male athletic club. tnc, i'll say that. people can use their imaginations for it. >> or google it. >> yes, i don't want to be banned on msnbc going potty mouth. i think they're in a position to champion women's causes. they have the story line working in their favor at this point. to your point, carol, i think it's interesting how the president has reacted. he's stunned the people in the white house and his aides when he came out and said her story deserves to be told. which says something where we are politically. >> but they know the risk that if they don't like they're even willing to hear, that would be a huge risk. >> and there's risk on both sides of overdoing it.

and it goes for the democrats, too. and if you look at the white house, though, what they're saying and what they're doing to kavanaugh it's almost the way they spin -- you know, you'll hear sarah sanders say, well, the president said this. >> you know when they're distancing. >> and they're really leaning on him and his situation. the poll, you know, the angst among republicans, the way the white house is behaving. you know you feel like if anything else were to come out, he's really hanging out there. and, you know, for anything else to come out in the coming hours or days is really going to be damaging, and it's unclear he could survive that. >> so i looked up since 1975 because i thought what if they pull the nomination today, do they have time, if mitch mcconnell wants to jam it through election day, is there precedence? sandra day o'connor went from nomination to confirmation in 43 days, the next shortest is ruth

bader ginsberg at 42 days and everything else is in the 60s. so i guess you could say there's precedent, matthew. but who would it be, mike lee? i'm trying to think who could get done fast? >> the precedent as you mentioned there stops with the nomination of robert borke. and it was the defeat of the borke nominations that really set us on the course we are today where these confirmations are so politicized. what's striking to me is the support has remained basically level. it's the disproval that's spiked. and it's democrats and independents turning against him. >> and importantly they never had him. they didn't sell him, though, strong enough for now. >> for now, and i think the hearings played into it as well. what we see is this pattern of politicization, right? it's not just the supreme court,

the nfl, not just the emmy awards. now it's not just sexual assault allegations or even that. >> i think given the precedent, because given the way it went down when president obama had his supreme court nominee in the way republicans played that game, that democrats were going to do everything they can, even if they were to try to jam something through to try to stop it -- >> you made a fair point. garland is the democrat's borke. it's that same feeling, and i think the left looks at what happened with garland with that same anger that the right still has for borke. that's something i noticed. >> sure. the circumstances are a little bit different. i think the democrats take a much more oppositional attitude to these judicial nominations than the republicans do when

it's on the other side. >> i don't know. it's hard to sell that now. >> the underlying issue here is the life issue and the abortion issue. there's no question about that, and that is why you see just a political warfare breaking out. >> well, let me play the uncrass political game here. this feels like one of those things where it's a victory for whoever wins here. meaning if kavanaugh dies it unites the right, and if kavanaugh jams through it unites the left. you buy that? >> i do actually. and i think it's a huge issue around mid-terms to your point. i will dare make a political prediction, i'm not trying to give republicans a strategy here. but i think if republican did want to get someone through quickly my outside the box thinking is alex acosta. i think the labor secretary would be somebody that could get through quickly. he's gone through conifer haitian already. the d.c. scuttlebutt is he'd be

the nomination for kavanaugh, and he could get through -- >> speed it up. >> i think you're going to have to go with a woman nominee if this nomination collapses. >> you raised a great point, so now we suddenly a wild card in the mid-terms and, you know, no one really knows how it's going to shakeout. and i think it matters how this goes. but, you know, both sides could end up energized. >> look at this collection. the reaction is they've stepped it in a few times. this has been a drive-by shooting, i'll listen to the lady but we're going to bring this to a close. corker, heller, we've got a little hiccup here with the kavanaugh nomination. we'll get through this and we'll get off to the races. >> they just sound like --

>> it's scary because orin hatch said some of these same things during the anita hill hearing. >> it's the fear of what needs to happen. >> cheryl stolebering reported in "the times" there's questions to have outside counsel doing questions. >> is that worse? >> i don't think so if they find a female attorney and create some separation. the people you quote are really kind of irrelevant to this situation. there are three people relevant, murkowski -- and flake. she wants to hear from blasey ford and then will make up her mind. >> but those quotes you played it's like older white men using words like lady and hiccup and mixed up. >> sounds totally troublesome there.

we're going to take a quick break. senate judiciary committee member sheldon whitehouse joins me and he's got an idea how to go after this for later in the process. wait until you hear. s for latere process. wait until you hear.

♪

oh, and there's the closing bell. (sighs) i hate missing out missing out after hours. not anymore, td ameritrade lets you trade select securities 24 hours a day, five days a week. that's amazing. it's a pretty big deal. so i can trade all night long? ♪ ♪ all night long... is that lionel richie? let's reopen the market. mr. richie, would you ring the 24/5 bell? sure can, jim. ♪ trade 24/5, with td ameritrade. ♪ welcome back. joining me now is right-of-way senator sheldon whitehouse, of course a member of the senate judiciary committee. always good to have you on, sir. >> thanks, chuck. good to be with you. >> i know this a moving story and perhaps it's going to keep moving as the day and evening

wears on. but it's my understanding the commit e's committee's in negotiations with dr. ford. what more can you share with us? >> that's all i can share other than the really appalling wrongfulness of insisting putting somebody who claims they've been the victim of a sexual assault onto the stand without giving them the courtesy and the benefit of investigation of their claims, whether to exculpate or corroborate. it doesn't matter. every witness before they get put on the stand is entitled to that, and we have not given them that, and it is really a disgrace from a point of view of process. >> how would you do this? do you want the president -- it's my understanding it's the president that could ask the fbi to investigate here. is that what you'd like to see happen? >> i would like to see the fbi conclude its background investigation. people are saying that the president needs to direct them to do that. but i will bet you any amount of

money that if there were a senior position at the fbi were open and someone were coming in and their background investigation were being done and at the end of the background investigation an allegation like this came up, there is absolutely zero chance that the background investigation wouldn't be expanded to include the new evidence. there is no chance that the fbi would put somebody into a position of trust in their own organization without having completed the background investigation to very credible allegations like these. so the idea that that standard shouldn't apply to a supreme court nominee really just doesn't make any sense at all, and we shouldn't allow that to gain any credence. it's just nutsy. >> senator grassly has claimed the judiciary is doing some of its own investigation into dr. ford's allegations. first of all, what do you do as -- what are your investigative authorities when you investigate something like

this on the committee, and do you have confidence in that investigation? >> well, first of all you start with the fact that the fbi has a background investigation on kavanaugh that just needs to look at this. so why you would turn away from that requires some answers. second, i've never heard of any investigator being hired for this. i've never heard of any terms. i don't know if anybody's being put under oath. there's absolutely zero transparency into this so-called investigation that's taking place. and then when you look at all the mere would ways the republicans have trampled on basically every norm of prosecution and of witness treatment in this process. the idea they're doing something secretly but legitimately to investigate this, again, that just doesn't pass the test of credibility. it's almost a silly assertion. >> it may be too late to ask this question now because we're

thin this situation now. but in hindsight should senator feinstein have handled this differently? >> the sooner this kind of information gets to the fbi the better for all concerned. i don't care to second guess her determinations about -- >> i understand. >> -- about the privacy concerns of this individual because i was not in those conversations. but clearly the fbi has a responsibility to look into the background issues of somebody as to whom they're doing a background investigation. that's beyond obvious, and they should be looking into this on their own were it for a position on the fbi or as an assistant united states attorney or any regular background check. they would automatically as john you himself said, they would automatically do a background check. >> does it bother you you didn't have a chance to question judge

kavanaugh. >> what bothers the hell out of me is we have a witness who has come forward with very credible allegations, very detailed and specific, they corroborate with facts we know to be drew, and they were made long before this recent assertion in a very consistent way. so a lot of a tacks of credibility have been met by this witness. and instead of being fairly and every prosecutor, every victim organization, every victim coordinator knows to be the right way, she is being thrown on the witness stand without the benefit of any investigation. and that so appallingly wrong, it's hard to overstate it. if a prosecutor of mine in rhode island attorney general's office did what they did, you'd be fired. and the fact this whole committee of republicans has lined up behind this behavior is really stunning. >> let me ask you this, though. some of them believe that this

was held -- there's some thereat believe this was purposely held to the last minute. senator feinstein had it but didn't necessarily share it. do you understand why some republicans are skeptical of the timing? >> no, because if you understand the timing you understand that this woman was not willing to identify herself until recently. and it's one thing as the republicans criticized for this earlier to have a secret charge from an anonymous witness. that's one thing. when it's clear that she's willing to come forward, that's an entirely different thing. and that happened very recently, and it's really hard to hold democrats accountable for what a professor in california decided to when she felt it was appropriate to come forward and to identify herself and put herself into the mall of abuse that she's sustained since she came forward. >> let me ask you this. how are you going to determine

the validity of her story? if we don't have the investigation that i think we all would like to see, and it really does come down to a credibility check. >> there's no such thing as a fair credibility check without having done the investigation. and sooner or later, mark my words, there will be an investigation into this. it may be in a subsequent congress, but you can't get away with having something like this take place and then have a federal judge perhaps lie about it and then fail at the most basic task of investigation, not generate either corroborating or exculpatory evidence and assume that everybody's just going to move on. you can't do that. it's too wrong to it victim. it's too wrong to the process. it's too wrong to any sense of justice. >> can i read between the lines here, that essentially if republicans just decide they're

going to get this through on a party line vote and he gets confirmed as a justice a democratic senate judiciary committee is going to want to reopen this issue? >> i can't speak for a whole committee, but i don't think there's many people on the democratic side who would want to let this rest on the victim side. it sets such a horrible precedent, and frankly i think the fbi has got some explaining to do how uniquely in this particular circumstance while they were doing a background investigation they refused to pursue a new allegation that was very credible and where there was a live witness to walk them through it, and where two other eyewitnesses were identified. and they don't even know out and interview them? it just makes no sense at all. it's unbelievably bad practice from a legal or investigative point of view. and it's nothing the fbi would

do if it were its own employees involved. >> if there were a filibuster around for this my guess is kavanaugh wouldn't have 60 votes. he'd probably be withdrawn by now. we know that would be the political reality. if democrats get control of the senate again, do you think democrats should put the filibuster back for judges? >> i think that's probably long gone at this point. we tried to hold it for the supreme court knowing the sensitivity of the supreme court. at the time republicans expected senator clinton to be elected, and they were absolutely ballistic about including the supreme court. so we agreed to leave the supreme court out of it. and it took about one second of them once the cards went their way to blow that up and eliminate the filibuster. i don't think there's any way to go back to those good old days. i don't know that we could. >> fair enough. a major player of the judiciary

committee. as always, sir, thank you for coming on. up ahead, the secretary of state issues the final word on comments. period. final word on comments period and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy! but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown

to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. shouldn't drive us apart. but when you experience sudden, frequent, uncontrollable episodes of laughing or crying that are exaggerated or simply don't match how you feel, it can often lead to feeling misunderstood. this is called pseudobulbar affect, or pba. a condition that can occur from brain injury or certain neurologic conditions like stroke or dementia. nuedexta can make a difference by significantly reducing pseudobulbar affect episodes. tell you doctor about medicines you take. some can't be taken with nuedexta. nuedexta is not for people with certain heart conditions. serious side effects may occur. don't take with maois or if you are allergic to dextromethorphan or quinidine. tell your doctor if you have bleeding or bruising. stop if muscle twitching, confusion, fever, or shivering occurs with antidepressants. side effects may include diarrhea, dizziness, cough, vomiting, weakness or ankle swelling. ask your doctor about the only fda approved

treatment proven to reduce pba episodes. nuedexta. are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? treatment proven to reduce pba episodes. try zyrtec®. it's starts working hard at hour one. and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip.

only when you book with expedia. welcome back. tonight i'm obsessed about hacomma and about how alarmed secretary of state is. here's a joke. panda walk into a cafe, orders a

sandwich, eats it, shoots and walks out. and the owner asks him why he did it, and the panda responds i'm a panda, look it up. so the owner looks it up. panda, large black and white bear like animal, native to china, eats, shoots, and leaves. get it? eats, comma, shoots and leaves. the problem, of course, is that ill placed comma. lose it. and the panda magically becomes a peaceful cuddly bear who eats shoots and leaves and who isn't packing heat. so when we write many commas are used. and mike pompeo believes too many commas are being used. sore is that that mike pompeo believ believ believes too many commas are used. his office has sent out two e-mails to staff about how and

when to use commas. one suggests to the chicago adherence of style which says, quote, effective use of the comma involves good judgment, comma with the goal and ease of eating. they're debating the merits of the oxford comma. ah, the oxford comma, you ask. look it up yourself. k. look it up yourself.

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. ( ♪ )

welcome back. the president is once again both attacking and politicizing the department of justice these days. earlier this week mr. trump ordered the public release of documents and text messages he says are related to the investigation into whether he campaign conspired with the russians. politico reports today the democrats fear the move by the white house will result in a document dump by weeky leaks.

after all, the white house has tried to intervene in the news cycle before. back in july the white house announced the president was considering removing security clearances for obama era officials. that happened while president trump was still on the defensive about his helsinki summit with putin. we found otthere was a letter dated three weeks earlier and that's how they got caught in that timing. joining me now is mimi roca, and our panel is still here. carol lee, matthew, and tiffany cross. i want to start with what the president has done and the concern in the legal and intelligence communities of -- of inadvertent releases.

let me ask this. when you hand over a fisa document in a proceeding to a defense counsel because a judge said you have to, what kind of parameters are you given to not leak, say, the names of intelligence officials and things like that? >> well, chuck, you're under the requirements that are ordered that you cannot -- and it's not just in fisa cases. even in regular criminal cases, i think this is an important point, which are a lower standard in terms of the release of information. prosecutors get court orders all the time to say to defendants you cannot release this to anyone outside of, you know, you and your lawyer or you and your codefendants. and so i think what this sort of demonstrates, the question you're asking and this point is that there are two different concerns that are going on here.

one, with respect to the fisa issue is what, you know, many experts have been talking about like john brennen like the revelation of sources and methods. but the other one is a more common fear issue that comes up in cases, and the reason why even in criminal cases we would get these kind of orders. which is a release of a disclosure of evidence at the time when the investigation is still going on and you do not want other witnesses, other possible targets and subjects to have the details about the evidence against them. they're not entitled to that at this point. there is a process. it's called discovery, and that's after they're charged. they should not be able to get their stories straight now by a release of this kind of information. so it's two different concerns. >> so let me ask this.

look, this is an unusual situation. i'm sure you've never actually had a case -- there's only one person that could release this information and it's the president of the united states. what do you think bob mueller is thinking? like, what am i supposed to do? he's releasing raw intelligence report and selectively doing so for obvious reasons. is it obstructive of justice, witness tampering? is it abuse of power? what is it? >> i think it's potentially all of those things. you know, it's always hard to know what mueller is thinking of, especially because i think mueller is particularly good at staying focused on what he needs to be thinking about. so this may end up going in the bucket of there are so many things that this president has done to try to interfere in the investigation. this is in many ways the most dangerous one with the most lasting big consequences. and in terms of our overall

justice system, our overall national security. it may not end up being the most damaging to this investigation. in other words, i think there are things that he's done that have interfered and could do in terms of firing mueller, firing rosenstein, you know, trying to pardon witnesses to get them to cooperate, things like that, that could have more significant impact on this investigation. i think this one has the most global consequences. >> i think after this is all done these are the laws that get changed the most here. matthew, let me ask you this, though, i just don't understand why the president is potentially making it easier for a house judiciary committee to bring charges against him. he's asked this question on hill tv, have you reviewed the memos yourself, what do you expect them to show. and the president said i've watched commentators, basically saying, yeah, i'm doing this for politics. you're just making it easier a

democratic house judiciary committee to make a case you're abusing power. >> one thing we can say about pr president trump, he's not necessarily a long-term planner. he's very fixated on the decisions he has to make now to get out of the situation or get to the place where he would like to be in the immediate future. the same criticisms we just heard are the exact reasons why donald trump is doing this. he does want to expose the methods behind carter page and he is interested in the actual witnesses that led to this use of the dossier in the investigation. >> i think democrats are sort of overpanicking here. i don't think the -- and this has been true of left and right, that anybody outside cares about this investigation right now. >> i was thinking the same thing. listen, all of us political nerds at this table, all of us

we consume this minutia every single day. just to remind everybody what the justice department and robert mueller's investigation is investigating is russia interfering with our election cycle. like what happened to republicans being the party of law and order. and we know based on the local government coming out and saying something they're actively doing this now. and he is doing all three of these things. >> as we've all joked if these twitter feeds were on secret tapes, right, they would be much more damning as far as the republicans are concerned. carol, the other thing i know when the president speaks it's not surprising some of the things he said, but even i was a taken aback by what he said. >> and he believes that. and the thing that i'm looking for in this is whether the

president has been at war with the intelligence community since before he took office and it's escalated and peaked here and there throughout his presidency so far. is this the time when that clash actually, when the intelligence community stands up and pushes back on him on trying to do this? and i do agree that obviously the voters in the country -- the russia investigation is not their top priority, and in some ways there's a check on the president in terms of whether the mueller investigation and congress have a check on the president whether he's abusing his power and obstructing justice. but the points mimi is making is this has massive consequences in terms of sources and methods and just a chilling effect in terms of how the government gathers intelligence. >> and the president of the united states calls the law enforcement and fbi right now there's a cancer in our country.

tries to say the fbi is good but there are bad people in it that's causing a cancer. what's that do for morale? >> you know i used to think, chuck, at the beginning i tried to say i thought everybody kept their heads down and kept going. and i'd like to think that that's true. but i think over time it really does have an effect. you know, these people, agents, prosecutors, and agents from all agencies, not just the fbi will keep doing their jobs because they're people committed and passionate about their jobs. but it has an effect. it does. i hear that more and more and i understand it because over time it just -- you know, hearing the president of the united states whether you voted for him, whether you're of his political persuasion or not say that is demoralizing. >> yeah, i think the post. trump era a lot of people will be passing laws trying to deal with justice department and presidential interference, whether their constitutional will be the big debate in 20

years. up next, why a candidate is spending time in a place where he has no constituents, but it is critical to his election effort. his election effort sometimes bipolar i disorder can really get you going. but mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on shaky ground. help take control by asking your healthcare provider about vraylar. vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder.

vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms,... and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. you're more than just your bipolar i. ask about vraylar. welcome back. on meet the mid-terms we go to puerto rico where we find rick scott. scott is visiting today for the one year anniversary of

hurricane maria's landfall. key in the upcoming mid-term elections in the state of florida. so it isn't surprising this is scott's aieight visit to the island this year. remember last week president trump trumpeted his administration's response and disputed the death toll. and also on twitter the white house sent out secretary ben carson to puerto rico today to mark the occasion and to talk about rebuilding efforts. in a different administration on a different planet this may have been a task for the president. we'll be back of mtp daily right after this. back of mtp daily rt after this

you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. what if numbers tell onat t. rowe pricey? our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like e-commerce spurring cardboard demand. the pursuit of allergy-free peanuts. and mobile payment reaching new markets. this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t.rowe price. invest with confidence.

if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. time for the lid. tonight the importance of leadership skills with a country so divide. it's a subject doris good win addresses in her new book.

recently i spoke with her about the book and five decades of studying the white house and its residence. >> could you write about somebody you department like? >> it took me longer to write about franklin and eleanor than world war ii. i would not want the to have to think about the person i didn't like all day long. so i would never choose a hitler or stalin. i so respect fellow colleagues that can do pa that. i have to like the person. >> i get that sense. you have to fall in like at least with the person. i'm not going to say love, but you have to fall in like. you have to believe that -- i guess, what if you got through the point and thought they never should have been president, would you not write about them? >> probably. if i studied the person for awhile and i didn't think i was going to feel that basic

respect, i'd say i'll go to another guy. there's a bunch i can choose from. i have chosen the people who are the most interesting in some ways. they lived in the the most challenging times. that's why the book has a relevance because we feel sometimes people say as an historian r we living in the worst of times? >> what do you say to that? i get this question myself. and i've only got a 25-year professional life span. what moment do you point to? >> i can say, listen, what do you think it would be like if you were lincoln coming into the presidency and the country has split in two and he says i wouldn't have thought after he gotten through the first eight months i could have lived through it. what do you think teddy roosevelt coming in when the industrial revolution shook up the economy. workers were out in the strike and were violent. there was a feeling that there was a revolution coming. much more difficult than today. franklin roosevelt says the

house of cards might collapse before i become president. the banks have collapsed. even lbj comes in with the assassination of kennedy right before he's there. those times are are more difficult than ours. that's what history does. it provides perspective. if we know we got through those times, we can keep that vision in front of us. in order to believe things are going to be better, we have to remember other times that were better. history is so important now. >> i don't know how you teach somebody patience. what you're saying is your advice to president trump would be you need a little bit of patience here. you need some patience. you have some opportunities, but you got to pick your spots. you need to realize it's all the now. >> and you have to realize that you can't go over your own story line.

instead he's talking about how many people are dead. he couldn't help himself. he was angry when he saw the scenes on the television that went back to he hadn't done well enough and people were upset with him. you have to control those impulses. this were able to write drafts. and not let that be the final draft. he has to figure out ways to control those impulses. you can't be a president if you're not able to be what you want to be at that moment in time. >> what do you make of -- there's some conservatives who defend some of the criticism of president trump by saying, you know what, the same criticism was made of reagan. andover time, people realized and with hindsight reagan was a better president than he got credit for. or he was more on toch of things

than he got credit for. or he would be criticized for not having enough thu. what do you make of that revisionist comparisons? >> i think it's true when you look back in time, you can find more positive things in the people. especially when they die, i suppose that's the moment. but with reagan, i'm not sure his temperament was criticized. you might criticize his policy or felt he was not being careful about bha he was doing and some people were being heard if you're a liberal rather than conservative, but he was stable. his temperament was optimistic and confident. he emoted that. >> i was a kid. i always felt as if he cared about the country. it was clear. i viewed him as the country's grandfather because he was the same age as my grandfather. >> the most important thing a president has to really project to the people is that his ambition is for the country, for the team he's building, not for himself. one of the things fdr said is he goes to sleep at night and

doesn't worry about a decision he's made as long as he believes he's going to have the best batting average for his team and his country. so he may not do well all the time. he may not hitten .500, but he's going to believe he's doing it for the country. that's what you have to inject in your team. the sense of self has to be muted and here it seems to be right out front. >> it's always a treat to have more time with doris goodwin. trust me, some of the best parts of lincoln, teddy, franklin and lbj. we'll be right back. lin and lbj. we'll be right back.

i'm ken jacobus, i'm the owner of good start packaging. we distribute environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet?

when the guy in frontd down the highway slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges... how mature of them. for drivers with accident forgiveness liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ i'm 85 years old in a job where. i have to wear a giant hot dog suit. what? where's that coming from? i don't know. i started my 401k early, i diversified... i'm not a big spender. sounds like you're doing a lot. but i still feel like i'm not gonna have enough for retirement. like there's something else i should be doing. with the right conversation, you might find you're doing okay. so, no hot dog suit? not unless you want to.

no. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade®. i'm ready to crush ap english. i'm ready to do what no one on my block has done before. forget that. what no one in the world has done before. all i need access, tools, connections. high-speed connections. is the world ready for me? through internet essentials, comcast has connected more than six-million low-income people to low-cost, high-speed internet at home. i'm trying to do some homework here. so they're ready for anything.

that's all we have for tonight. we'll be back tomorrow with a lot more. "the beat" starts right now. >> good evening, thank you very much. new developments in the negotiations over brett kavanaugh facing his accuser as early as next week. we have that reporting later in the show. but we begin with breaking news in the mueller probe. former trump lawyer michael cohen is now talking to bob mueller. he spent hours doing it and he talked about collusion, about russia and about their business and even about b pardons. that may sound like donald trump's worst nightmare and if his nominee were not in peril, it would be the largest legal worry. although it's fair to say the white house legal team is basically being rocked in both of these directions. pressure on the man that trump may