information about trump and also perhaps to influence them. >> we'll find out more details of what exactly they were up to as the investigation proceeds and your reporting proceeds. scott shane, thank you so much for joining me that. is "all in" to for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. thanks for joining us this hour. right up until moments ago, i thought we were going to be joined tonight live right about now on this program by within of the lawyers who is representing christine blasey ford, the california woman who has come forward with this very serious allegation that supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh attempted to rape her when he was 17 years old and going to a prep school in suburban maryland. it is still unclear as to how the senate is going to handle that allegation and if there is going to be any impartial investigation whatsoever of dr. ford's claims. at the time we booked dr. ford's attorney to be on the show

tonight, it really looked like dr. ford's lawyers and the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee might be on about track to negotiate some sort of mutually agreeable terms under which dr. ford would appear in some way before that committee to discuss her allegation. the fact that those negotiations were under way tonight is publicly known. the written communication from dr. ford's lawyers to the committee which sort of started off those negotiations today, that statement is also publicly known. i'll share that with you in just a second. as of tonight, heading into air time tonight, we thought those negotiations were far enough along that dr. ford's lawyer would be able to join us live to tell us tonight right here what was going to happen, but no. it sort of fell apart at the last moment. now they're very nice about it. i'm not mad. my feelings are not hurt. but the reason they gave us for cancelling sort of at the last minute tonight may itself be news. dr. ford's legal team telling us

tonight that they couldn't be on the show, and they cited, quote, active efforts to reach the committee as their reason why dr. ford's lawyer couldn't appear with us live. so we infer from that that these negotiations were continuing into this evening, and for some reason, dr. ford's lawyers believed it might have impeded the prospects with them coming to some sort of negotiated conclusion for them to do any live interviews at this moment while these negotiations are under way. so here's basically the status as far as we know it. justice anthony kennedy announced his retirement months ago. the vacancy on the supreme court created by his retirement has been there for more than 70 days. the supreme court is not in session at this point. we know there is no special freshness date after which a supreme court vacancy goes bad and starts to stink up the fridge. we know that because republicans held open a vacancy on the supreme court for nearly a year

rather than allow president barack obama to have his nominee considered to fill the seat that was vacated by justice antonin scalia after scalia died in winter of 2016. given that, we know there is no external constraint here. there is no ticking time bomb that is going to go off if the brett kavanaugh nomination process is slowed down to allow for the consideration of this new serious allegation against him. we know that in part because of the antonin scalia/merrick garland example where they held that seat open forever. but we also know that because today there was no vote on brett kavanaugh in the senate judiciary committee. they were planning on voting today. they didn't vote today. so the kavanaugh nomination process is already delayed as of today. today there was no vote, right? the kavanaugh nomination process is already delayed. how long it will be delayed while this allegation is

considered is something for which there is no external rules. there is no set time frame. they can take as much time or as little time as they want to make sure they have thoroughly considered this nominee and what it would mean to put him on the supreme court for the rest of his natural life. but despite that fact, despite the fact that they really can take all the time they want, the committee chairman, republican senator chuck grassley has informed the lawyers for christine blasey ford that she has a deadline. shh has a deadline of 10:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow by which time she must inform the committee whether or not she intends to testify on monday. and the republicans thus far have been saying that's it. that's her only chance. it's monday or nothing, and she has to commit by tomorrow morning whether or not wl she is going to be there on monday, and that's her only chance. time's it. because of this imaginary imperative they have newly imagined this week, that's what they've been demanding of her.

that's it. that's your only chance. deadline's tomorrow morning. as we reported last night, the main sticking point appears to be whether or not republicans in the senate and the white house will allow the normal procedure that is usually followed in cases like this to apply to this case too. i mean, brett kavanaugh is not the first nominee for the supreme court or the first nominee for any other high-ranking senate confirmed position who has gone through the process of confirmation hearings only to see a serious allegation of some personal nature raised against him by a member of the public late in the process that has happened to other nominees before. there is a system for dealing with this. that is of course what happened to judge clarence thomas after his confirmation hearing were concluded in 1991, and then law professor anita hill came forward with serious allegations of sexual harassment against him. our steve schmidt from the george w. bush white house and the john mccain campaign reminded us today that a similar dynamic was at play when george

h.w. bush nominated senator john tower to be secretary of defense. deep into john tower's nominating process, serious allegations came forward about tower's personal life, including infidelity and particularly allegations about excessive drinking. in both the clarence thomas case and the john tower case, it was an absolutely mundane noncontroversial part of those controversies that went late allegations emerged about those nominees, as part of the fbi standard role in doing background investigations on nominees, in both of those case, the fbi reopened those background investigations and looked into these new allegations, when those new allegations arose during the confirmation process. the fbi part of it is not a high profile part of the history of those controversies. if you ever take a class where you study the controversial nomination of larens thomas, or the controversial and ultimately

failed nomination of john tower, if you ever study those matters, the fbi looking into the allegations won't come up in class because it's such a mundane, normal part of the process. it's not even remarked upon in those controversies. but when the history of the brett kavanaugh nomination is some day told, the thing that will stand out on this one like a ten-foot-tall hat on a knee-high horse is that for some reason with this one republicans in the senate and the trump white house couldn't even explain the reasons why they absolutely insisted the fbi must not be allowed to do that in this case. the fbi must not be allowed to reopen and complete their background investigation on brett kavanaugh to account for this new allegation. that would be regular order. that's the way that it always goes whenever there is a controversy that arises during the confirmation process. fbi reopens its background investigation process, accounts

for these new allegations, reports on what they find. it's factored into the confirmation process that is a normal part of the process. republicans in the white house insist that that cannot be part of the process this time. why not? well, tonight christine blasey ford's legal team is apparently negotiating with the senate judiciary committee about the terms under which dr. ford might testify about this allegation. in her legal team's letter to the judiciary committee, her attorneys told chairman grassley today that there really ought to be an investigation of her claims before she sit downs with senators. quote, her strong preference continues to be for the senate judiciary committee to allow for a full investigation prior to her testimony. now as a statement released moments ago by senator chuck grassley confirms that discussions have been taking place, but so far no announcement as to what they have decided. i have to say, just as an observer of this process, i would like to hear a reason from

the republican-controlled senate judiciary committee as to why they are insisting the fbi shouldn't look into this, why they are insisting that the normal procedure for dealing with this shouldn't apply in this case. they really haven't even made an argument why they want this departure from normal order for kavanaugh specifically, but here is what else dr. ford's lawyer said to senator grassley tonight, quote, as you are aware, she has been receiving death threats which have been reported to the federal bureau of investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home. 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. so we don't know how these negotiations are ultimately going to land. if we get a call while we're on the air this hour, he will let you know as soon as we know. but as far as we can tell, the bottom line here is that her

attorneys are saying monday is impossible. some other day next week might be possible. they want terms that they believe are fair and that, quote, ensure her safety. we're not exactly sure what that might mean, what kind of assurances they might be looking for there, but also, again, dr. ford is expressing her, quote, strong preference that there be a full investigation prior to her testimony. now, how could that full investigation happen? they don't want the fbi to do it for some reason. they won't say why they don't want the fbi to do it, but they won't let the fbi do it, even though that's what would normally happen. i don't know if that's still tennell, if that's still going to hold, but that still seems to be what they're sin assisting on. chairman grassly, chairman of the committee has insisted that his own staff can do the whole investigation, and that will be fine. that's good enough. a couple of problems have emerged with that approach over the past day or so. number one, it's clear from the letter from dr. ford's attorneys that dr. ford and her attorneys

don't consider chuck grassley's own staff looking into it to necessarily count as a full and impartial investigation. also, members of chuck grassley's committee seem to have a problem with this idea from their chairman. you might remember how -- you might tlaeb this is how chairman grassley announced that his own staff was taking care of it. he said online, quote, no other outside investigation is necessary for the committee to do its investigation. committee investigators are following up on leads from dr. ford's allegations and news stories. committee investigators are following up on leads. democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island is on that committee. he responded to that from chuck grassley, quote, really? when? who will locate and interview witnesses? has the judiciary committee hired independent investigators that we don't know about? when will the witness statements be taken? when will they be shared? will the minority get to call

the witnesses or will that just be the republicans who get to call witnesses? senator grassley has also run into a problem in the form of his top staffer on the committee, the person who he has apparently tasked with investigating this attempted rape allegation. the investigator is named mike davis. he says that he is the chief counsel for nominations working for chairman chuck grassley on the judiciary committee. last night mr. davis decided for some reason to get on twitter and let it all hang out in terms of how the supposed investigation is going. he said online, quote, i personally questioned judge kavanaugh under penalty of felony and five years of imprisonment if he lies. i'm still waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys. which means by his own description, he's the guy who is personally conducting the investigation of this matter when chuck grassley says that the committee investigators are following up on leads and doing these -- apparently who he is talking about is mike davis.

i personally requested judge kavanaugh. i am waiting to hear back from the accuser's attorneys. the very next tweet in mike davis' timeline, also from last night, is this one. unfazed and determined, period, we will confirm judge kavanaugh, #confirmkavanaugh, # scotus. okay. so you can see the problem. if this is the lead investigator that chuck grassley has put on this matter, this guy who is #confirmkavanaugh all the way. already proclaiming himselffunf problem that has arisen in this confirmation process. and there is chuck grassley saying no outsiding investigation is necessary and nobody should have any reason to doubt their impartiality and whether they have an open mind on these matters. #confirm kavanaugh. after posting his unfazed and

undetermined #confirm kavanaugh last night, mike davis deleted those tweets and he locked his twitter account. so there is no explanation still from the white house or from republicans in the senate as to why they will not let the fbi include this matter, this serious allegation against judge kavanaugh in their kavanaugh background check, which would be standard procedure. obviously now there are seemingly untenable problems with chuck grassley insisting that he and his staff can look into this himself. it would be a totally unbiased. look, why would you think they're biased, #confi biased, #confirmkavanaugh. unfazed, determined. we believe that negotiations continued into this evening. as to whether or not there will be any investigation of this matter and the question of whether there will be testimony by dr. ford on this issue, this is a totally live concern.

this is unsettled. we really do not know how this is going to go, either in terms of whether or not kavanaugh is going to be withdrawn from consideration, whether he will be confirmed if indeed they go forward with it. we don't even know what's going to happen in terms of the next steps of how this element of his confirmation process is going to be handled. it is totally open. anything could happen here. given that, i want to leave you with three little points that you might not have seen in the news today, even if you were following this closely, but you should know if you are trying to figure out where this is going to go next. i should also tell you that in just a moment we're going to be live with senator pat leahy, who is one of the senior democrats on this committee. he was there during the anita hill/thomas clarence controversy. he is helping to lead the democratic side of this fight right now. i'm going to put three little pins on this map, and then we're going bring in senator leahy. so number one, first thing you should know is that "the new york times" reports tonight and

nbc news later reported tonight that on the republican side, they have apparently decided they're going to hire an outside lawyer, an outside counsel not to investigate this allegation, but rather to perform the questioning of dr. ford if she does ever end up testifying on this matter before their committee. this means republican senators themselves don't want to be seen on tv asking questions of this witness. they are apparently engaging and they are apparently going to pay an outside lawyer to question her for them. even as they are unwilling to allow the fbi to investigate this matter or to appoint an outside counsel to investigate this matter as a factual basis, they are still going to appoint an outside counsel just to do their questioning so they don't have to do it. that's one thing you should know. the second thing you should know, and this is not directly materially relevant to how this controversy is going to unfold, but i think it's very politically relevant. nbc news has just published new

polling data on kavanaugh's nomination. the first time they polled on kavanaugh was in july, and in july kavanaugh had historically low levels of support in the nbc poll. the raw numbers were 32% of americans wanted to confirm him. 26% did not. it's sort of easiest just to look at the total -- the right column there, right? 32% in support. 26% not supporting him. that means he was plus 6 in terms of the difference between the number of people who wanted him on the court and the number of people who did not want him on the court. plus 6 is really, really low for a supreme court nominee that was july. then the next month in august, nbc did the exact same poll, and his support actually dropped a little bit. he went from plus 6 in july down to plus 4 in august. well, now nbc tonight has just unveiled new polling that's been in the field since this serious allegation was made against brett kavanaugh by dr. christine

blasey ford and support for him already historically low by just plus 6, plus 4, support for him now has fallen off the cliff. the support now sat minus 4 by a 4-point margin, more americans want him not on the court than want him confirmed. every polsa little different. you want the make sure you compare apples to apples when you're comparing polls and seeing the way they change over time. but this is an apples to apples comparison. he has gone from plus 6 to plus 4 to minus 4. and in the history of the nbc poll on supreme court nominee, no nominee has ever had negative support before, ever. but brett kavanaugh does by a good margin. so if the white house is deciding whether or not they're going to abandon this nomination, if republican senators are deciding whether or not they really want the go go out on a limb for this particular nominee at this particular moment, those kinds

of terrible, in fact unprecedentedly terrible polling numbers for kavanaugh suggest that that kind of calculation might not work in his favor. so you should know that too. and i just want to make one last point here. the allegation that dr. christine blasey ford has made against brett kavanaugh is a serious allegation. she is alleging that he attempted to rape her. attempted rape is a explain. and even though we are in this weird twilight zone where republicans and the white house insist that the fbi should not be allowed to look into this as part of brett kavanaugh's background investigation, without even explaining why they are insisting on that, there is also a live question as to whether or not this could be pursued as a criminal matter. there's no statute of limitations for a felony like this in maryland. this alleged assault is said to have happened in montgomery county, maryland. local authorities in montgomery county, maryland now say that while this allegation does pertain to their jurisdiction, the reason they have not yet

opened a criminal investigation of this matter is because they have not received a criminal complaint from the alleged victim in this case. i don't know if it will always be that way. whether or not the white house and senate republicans ever get it together to allow the fbi doh look into this matter before they try to vote on kavanaugh as a supreme court nominee, even if they did vote on him, even if they did vote on him and confirm him to the court and he became a sitting supreme court justice, there would remain the possibility indefinitely if dr. ford ever wanted to pursue hit the way that she could at any point make that criminal complaint to the police in maryland who would not be bound by some expiration of the statute of limitations here. such a complaint could start a criminal investigation conceivably of a sitting supreme court justice for felony attempted rape. if law enforcement found that

allegation to be substantiated and they found sufficient evidence to bring charges, there is no rule against indicting a supreme court justice. there is not even justice department policy against indicting a supreme court justice the way there is for, say, a president of the united states. wouldn't that be great for the court? senator patrick leahy joins us live next. stay with us. h us -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.

she then went to a university where she is a law professor and has done well enough to become tenured. holding not only the law degree, be the license to practice law is something she has worked extremely hard for years, protected and nurtured all this way through, added to her experience and all. why would she come here and perjure herself, throw away all of that, for what? >> why would she throw away all of that, for what? 27 years ago in the judiciary committee, patrick leahy of vermont questioning judge

clarence thomas about serious sexual harassment allegations that were made against him late in his confirmation process by law professor anita hill. tonight another very accomplished professional woman, ph.d research psychologist with degrees from unc-chapel hill, pepperdine university, usc and stanford, who was authored or co-authored more than scientific books and publications. tonight dr. christine blasey ford's legal team is negotiating the terms under which she might testify to that same committee about her allegation of attempted rape against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. joining us now is senator patrick leahy of vermont. senator, really appreciate you being here tonight, sir. thank you so much for your time. >> happy. to i -- it's interesting. i was watching as you were laying out what's happened here and seeing all back to anita hill here. i thought over 40 plus years, i thought i'd seen everything you could in the senate, but not this. i mean this -- this whole thing

had become a deterioration of what the senate should be. and anita hill, i stated at the time, as you recall, that i believed her. but the system still failed her. but we did so much more than we've done here. there the republican president said okay, we'll send the fbi out to do an independent investigation of everything involved in all the allegations. now when you talk about dr. ford, it makes no sense for somebody to come forward and say this terrible thing happened. would you please have the fbi talk to me and everybody else involved, knowing that they are lying, they face problems. you don't lie about a thing like that. you don't go to the fbi and lie about something like that. it's hard enough for her to come forward in the first place. and the treatment she is getting

from the -- at least from the republicans in the senate judiciary committee is wrong. it does not reflect what the senate should be, would not be in the conscience of the nation. we're trying to slam the conscience behind a closed door. >> senator leahy, we've heard from senator grassley tonight that there have been discussions between him and the legal team that represents dr. ford in this case. senator grassley just told "the washington post" that he would be consulting with colleagues on how to proceed after having those discussions tonight, i wonder if you are one of those colleagues, if he is talking to any democrats at all in terms of how to put together this process? >> i expect he'll go first to senator feinstein as the ranking member on the judiciary committee among the democrats. but it's very -- you don't have to consult to just say okay, we want the fbi to check this.

you've got dr. ford. you've got judge kavanaugh, be you also have a third person who said was there and mr. judge. go and talk to each one of them, and that wouldn't take very long. but have people who are trained in this kind of investigation who will be totally immarble. listen to senator grassley, who is a friend of mine, but i just can't k not believe the way he handled this. look what he did. he sends his political counsel to say i'm investigating and i'm asking all these questions. and then immediately afterwards sends out a tweet saying confirm kavanaugh. well, it's not even a semblance, not even a pretense of doing this in a nonpartial way. just do what we have always

done. i did it as chairman. i did it as ranking member of that committee. when a question came up, whether it was a democrat or a republican about a nominee, questions came up, here, this is what the fbi is for. let them give us an impartial report. what is so difficult to do that? stop the playing games. this is a lifetime appointment. if it takes a few days longer, so what? what are they trying to hide? >> senator, we've learned tonight that the republicans on your committee have planned to hire an outside counsel not to -- not to do an investigation. there had been some question as to maybe they were so uncomfortable with the fbi there would be an independent outside counsel that might be brought in to do the investigation. in this case it appears they're hiring outside counsel to do their questioning of witnesses of in any hearing that may eventually happen in this matter. i just wanted to get your reaction to that.

>> i cannot think of a time it's ever been done. i would think they would have the courage to stand up and ask the questions themselves. many of them have denigrated dr. ford. some have been very forthcoming in saying she should be heard. whichever way, if you want to sit on that committee, have the courage to ask the questions yourself. are they afraid of the answers? i'm not. i'm willing to ask the questions myself. i was a prosecutor for eight years. i'm used to questioning people. but i've also when i was a prosecutor, you had an independent, nonbiased investigator go out and get you the facts. that's not been done here. i've not seen this bypass once in over 40 years. >> senator patrick -- excuse me, sorry. >> and let me ask you the question. why are they bypassing it?

what are they trying to hide? >> have you actually heard an argument from them about why they aren't going the fbi? we've heard spurious arguments that oh, the fbi doesn't do this or the fbi didn't want the do this. we know factually that those are untrue assertions have. you heard a substantive argument from them about why the fbi shouldn't look at this? >> not a one. they were told by their leader you got to hurry up and this person on the supreme court. it's a lifetime appointment. a month from now, nobody is going to talk about the hurry-up. they're only going if facts come out that we didn't do the job right, that's all you're going to hear about. take an extra month. what difference does it make? >> senator patrick leahy of vermont. sir, i really appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we've got much more ahead tonight. stay with us. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada,

the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

with pg&e in the sierras. and i'm an arborist since the onset of the drought, more than 129 million trees have died in california. pg&e prunes and removes over a million trees every year to ensure that hazardous trees

can't impact power lines. and since the onset of the drought we've doubled our efforts. i grew up in the forests out in this area and honestly it's heartbreaking to see all these trees dying. what guides me is ensuring that the public is going to be safer and that these forests can be sustained and enjoyed by the community in the future. supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh spent just over three hours at the white house today. throughout this week, he has reportedly been drilled for hours by a group of senior white house staff in preparation for a possible hearing on the attempted rape allegation that's been levied against him by a california ph.d research psychologist that says that kavanaugh attacked her when he was 17 years old. on monday alone, kavanaugh was at the white house for more than nine hours. he was then back at the white house on tuesday. he was reportedly back again today, again for more than three hours. kavanaugh does have an office,

right? he does have another place to be. he is a sitting federal judge in the d.c. court of appeal-- dist appeals. maybe it's not surprising he is spending all this time at the trump white house as the trump administration fights with everything they've got to save his nomination. but if kavanaugh is confirmed, will there be consequences for his supreme court tenure? given that he and his this president, he and this president's administration have now sort of gone into war room mode together to try the save this nomination? supreme court justices obviously are supposed to be separate and independent from other branches of government. they're not supposed to owe any president or anybody outside the court anything. is it possible that justice kavanaugh is going to feel some sort of unusual obligation to this administration? or is this kind of par for the course? how has this played out for past supreme court justices? it got me wondering, which gatt me calling nbc presidential historian michael beschloss.

mr. beschloss, thank you for your time tonight. it's nice to have you here. >> pleasure, rachel. >> i've been thinking about this dynamic. obviously there are questions how brett kavanaugh was pickford this nomination in the first place given that president trump has been named as an unindicted cocon spore or the in multiple felonies, given the fact that is the subject of a very serious ongoing investigation. that raised questions anyway in terms of whether there might be some implicit arrangement in his own liability choosing this nominee. now we've got this whole new element, similar dynamic where this nominee is really holing up in the white house, crying to save this nomination while they're really going to the mattresses for him. are there historical parallels here? is there anything we should look for in history in order to understand the importance of this? >> well, i think we should look to the founders, rachel, and what they wanted was a big distance between the justices of the supreme court and the american president. and the problem with this is

that if he gets confirmed, kavanaugh is going to be way too indebted to donald trump. i mean, i think that trump to begin with chose kavanaugh because kavanaugh has these extremely permissive views of presidential power that maybe presidents should not be subpoena order investigated or indicted or they could use pardons in a big way. and trump knew that. and trump knows that he might be in trouble with supreme court one day. he wants someone who is going to be unlikely to do something that's against him. so kavanaugh now, just as you were saying, has been for hours and days closeted at the white house with trump circle and maybe trump himself, and one of the things they do in these meetings is they say what other damaging secrets might there be that could be dangerous to your nomination or your presence on the supreme court? and we know that donald trump is not exactly shy about making you you've feel indebted. when neil gorsuch, as you

remember, was talking to senators, he was faintly critical of the president, and trump said i'm going pull your nomination if you say anything more like that. most residents don't talk that way. so the result is that if at the end of all this, kneneil kavanaugh -- excuse me, brett kavanaugh does go to the supreme court, he has a relationship with the president that sent him there which i think is much too close. donald trump is notorious for making people feel as if they should be grate to feel him. and with all this history and with the trump people knowing his secrets, is this someone who is going to have the independence if something comes to the supreme court concerning donald trump, will kavanaugh recuse himself? will he dare to vote against donald trump? i'm not sure he's going to have that kind of independence. >> michael, senator sheldon whitehouse today suggested if democrats win control of the senate this november, one of the things they might look into is opening this investigation if

the republicans are successful and sort of preventing this from being investigated and they push through his nomination anyway, white house suggested -- senator whitehouse, i should be clear suggested that the democrats in the senate might essentially open this investigation. there were very serious charges levied against kavanaugh during the confirmation thus far that he might have lied to the senate during his confirmation proceedings. no supreme court justice has faced the threat of impeachment since abe fortis. but going back to abe fortis, wasn't part of the controversy about him what was seen as his unseemly closeness with the president at the time? >> you're exactly right. abe fortis is a negative role model. linda johnson put abe fortis on the supreme court in 1965. he was his extremely close friend and crony. and even though fortis was on the court, johnson used him almost as a staff aide. he would have fortis come down

to the oval office and write the president's speeches. he would also sometimes help lbj choose bombing targets. that's exactly the kind of intimacy that you should not have between a president and a justice. and you certainly should not have a justice on the supreme court feeling such a sense of indebtedness to the president who send him there that he is not going the rule against the president if one day that should be required. >> michael beschloss, nbc news presidential historian. thank you, my friend. it's good to have you here. much appreciated. >> thank you. thank you. >> all right. it's a busy night. stay with us. stay with us this is an insurance commercial.

but let's be honest, nobody likes dealing with insurance. which is why esurance hired me, dennis quaid, as their spokesperson because apparently, i'm highly likable. see, they know it's confusing. i literally have no idea what i'm getting, dennis quaid. that's why they're making it simple, man in cafe. and more affordable. thank you, dennis quaid. you're welcome. that's a prop apple. i'd tell you more, but i only have 30 seconds. so here's a dramatic shot of their tagline so you'll remember it. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. so you'll remember it. money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not, fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management.

the developing news about the kavanaugh confirmation or lack thereof has been sort of overwhelming today that story has continued to develop into tonight. i actually should tell you is that we just got in a brand-new piece of news on that. that's sort of a weird little curveball from the kavanaugh side. we are teeing that up. i will have that for you in just a minute. but before we get to that story, there is another important story that was just broken by abc news that i really

don't want to get lost in the sauce here. here's that story. you might remember that before the president's personal attorney michael cohen was brought into federal court last month where he plead guilty to eight felonies, before that happened, cohen did an interview with george stephanopoulos from abc news. it was sort of weird logistically, right? we never saw it on tv. we saw these still images. the interview took place over the course of a weekend in a hotel room where cohen had been living. remember that? a lot has happened. he did plead guilty to eight charges. he said in court that he committed two of those felonies, quote, in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office. that statement was under oath in front of a judge. michael cohen essentially naming president trump as his co-conspirator in two of the felonies to which he was pleading guilty. now when cohen plead guilty, there was a lot of speculation about whether or not he was also starting to cooperate with prosecutors, starting to tell them what he knows.

i mean, he did say those literally incriminating things about the president in open court, but there were questions about whether there was a bigger cooperation deal there was no formal cooperation agreement that was filed with the court at the time he plead guilty to all those felonies. now his lawyers told us he was eager to cooperate, to tell all he know, including to the special counsel's office. honestly, though, we had no way of knowing if that was really true or if that was just pr. then "vanity fair" last week reported that it was understood by people in cohen's circle that he had started some kind of talks with the special counsel's office, but we didn't know anymore than that. well, now george stephanopoulos and abc news have a follow-up to that strange exclusive interview they got with michael cohen back in the day before he plead guilty, and their scoop tonight is that not only is cohen willing to tell prosecutors all he knows, he is now doing so at length, including to the special counsel's office. and if this reporting is

accurate, he's not talking to them only about campaign finance violations and the other stuff he has already plead guilty to. what they're talking to him -- with what the special counsel's office is reportedly talking about is russia, trump and russia, and trump and russia and money. from the abc report tonight, quote, president donald trump's former personal attorney michael cohen has participated over the past month in multiple interview sessions lasting for hours with investigators from the office of special counsel robert mueller. the special counsel's questioning of cohen is focused primarily on all aspects of trump's dealings with russia, including financial and business dealings, and the investigation into alleged kohl collusion with russia by the trump campaign and its surrogates to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. the abc report goes on the say that the special counsel's office has also asked cohen about what president trump offered to pardon him, and they say cohen is also cooperating in

addition to the federal cooperation he is offering, he is also cooperating with new york state authorities in their activity investigations into the trump foundation, the president's purported charity which has come under serious legal scrutiny in new york already, and the trump organization, the president's business. even just that last part would be a bit of a bombshell, right? michael cohen was an executive vice president at the trump organization for years. we already know that the chief financial officer of the trump organization is also cooperating with prosecutors in a deal under which he has been granted immunity from prosecution himself in exchange for his testimony. so if there is anything to worry about in terms of the trump organization and its business practices, eek. just the new york part of this story is a big deal. but there is also this specificity in this reporting about what mueller is talking about when it comes to trump. you know, whether or not you are persuaded about the accuracy of

what's in the christopher steele dossier, former high-ranking intelligence officials have told us on the record that there is nothing in the steele dossier that they know who have been disproven. and michael cohen is cohen is a the christopher steele dossier. as someone who's prortedurporte aware of and helping to cover-up. cohen was definitely deeply involved in the secret trump moskow plan with a sanctioned russian bank controlled by the kremlin even while he was pledging publicly that he had no deals with russia. right after the election cohen was definitely involved in efforts to try to get russian sanctions canceled. also cohen mysteriously ended up on the payrollf a financial firm that handles the money of a russian oligarch. to do what work, exactly, it wasn't toltally clear.

but if russia is what he's testifying about to the special counsel's office, that could pose more directly. lots going on right now, i know. but this michael cohen news, if it's accurate. and i should tell you "the wall street journal" tonight broke a similar story after abc news broke it. if what's being reported by abc and "the wall street journal" is accurate, this news about michael cohen, this is the news the white house had to be most worried about when it comes to people flipping on the president. somebody's inside his political operation from the very start, and somebody who's been a point person inside trump's-russia business dealings from well before his run for the presidency and continuing with those right through the campaign including the secret ones. and now that's the guy who's telling all he knows.

that guy. gulp. that guy gulp keep those shrimp comin'! endless shrimp is back at red lobster. with all the shrimp you want, any way you want them. try delicious creations like new crunchy fiesta shrimp tortilla chip crusted then topped with a creamy blend of three cheeses and finished with pico de gallo. and there's new sesame-ginger shrimp. grilled and drizzled with savory soy-ginger sauce and sprinkled with asian seasoning. and don't forget the favorites you love, like garlic shrimp scampi! but endless shrimp won't last endlessly, so hurry in.

♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b.

our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪

all right, here's the curve ball, maybe more like a boom rang. this did not work out well for the kavanaugh folks. a couple of days ago a conservative columnist published this "the washington post," quote is there a kavanaugh doppelganger. okay, maybe she was assaulted,

but maybe not by brett kavanaugh, rather what he said was, quote -- sorry, what he said would, quote, make the most sense to him is that somebody else who looks exactly like brett kavanaugh might have done it and that brett kavanaugh is being unfairly blamed. it's kind of a weird argument but today that theory exploded online thanks to a man named ed wealen. he's quote, he's been involved in helping advise kavanaugh's confirmation efforts and he's close friends with both kavanaugh and leonard leo, the head of the federalist society, which is the head of the organization that basically chose trump's nominee list. today in a series of tweets ed wheelin' floated a very detailed theory that yes, someone other than brett kavanaugh attempted to rape christine blasey ford when they were in high school. mr. wheelin' even included

blueprints of a house he seems to think the sexual assault could have occurred in. and ed wheelin' then went onto name the person who he thinks might have done it. and he posted a picture of him. it's a high school classmate of brett kavanaugh who kind of vaguely looks like brett kavanaugh sort of. dr. blasy ford released a statement which has gone viral. i knew them both and socialized with, the man's name which he was redacted here, i even visited the man's name when he was in the hospital. there is zero chance that i would confuse them. so for all those people who like senator orin hatch think that kris teen blasy ford is just a mixed up lady dr. ford is saying tonight she definitively is not just mixed up about this. she didn't just confuse these two guys. and now some random middle

schoolteacher who went to high school with brett kavanaugh is being blamed by the right for what she says brett kavanaugh did. stay with us. she says brett ka did. stay with us -trash can, turn on. -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.

-will he? with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were very saggy. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with new sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. introducing more sizes for better comfort.

new depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. that does it for our show tonight. this is one of those nights, though, where the news started breaking when you got up this morning and kept breaking all day and into this evening. this is one of those nights if you have the chance you may want to keep an eye on the news. we have a sense things are going to continue to develop over the late evening hours this evening. that said, we'll see you again tomorrow. now it's time for in"last word" with lawrence o'donnell. >> donald trump will be speaking in nevada. and in the unlikely event he says anything worth reporting we will report that. but at this hour tomorrow night, rachel, when you and i are having this chat it is very hard to say where we're going to be. clearly that 10:00 a.m. friday deadline that chuck grassly was trying to force on dr. for