"am joy" starts right now. well, i think they've been very respectful of dr. ford, extremely respectful. i think they're doing the right thing. they want to give her a voice if she want to take it. they're talking about timing. it's been delayed a week. that's a long time. this is the u.s. senate we're talking about. i can only say this, let her speak. brett kavanaugh is one of the finest people you'll ever meet. >> good morning. welcome to "am joy." the brett kavanaugh supreme court confirmation fight gets another strange twist overnight. senate judiciary committee republican chuck grassley sent a bizarre tweet directed toward kavanaugh reading, quote, judge

kavanaugh, i just granted another extension to dr. ford to decide if she wants to proceed with the statement she made lasts week to testify to the senate. she should decide so we can move on. i want to hear her. i hope you understand. it's not my normal approach to be decisive. are they giving him a head's up, friends? a dm. the tweet was sent before midnight and in its own awkward way granted dr. christine blasey ford, the woman accusing kavanaugh of sexual assault when both were teenagers, one more day to decide if she will testify before the senate committee. according to the "new york times" she has until 2:30 today to decide, a deadline completely made up by chairman grassley and the republican majority. another tweet last night grassley addressed dr. ford writing five times now, we have granted extension for dr. ford to decide if she wants to proceed with her desire stated one week ago that she wants to

tell senate her story. dr. ford if you changed your mind, say so, so we can move on. i want to hear your testimony. come to us or we to you. joining me now, ellie, maya wiley, senior vice president for social justice, paul butler, msnbc legal analyst and georgetown law school professor from the terradell group. i'm going to the person who might have been doing the most vigorous nodding. you win that prize because you were as i was reading that. >> all week long. >> what is the deadline? there seems to be a continually rolling but hard deadline when dr. blasey ford has to decide whether she's going to testify. is that normal? >> there is no deadline. it is not normal because what we should be doing at any time we have a nominee for the highest court in the land, the court

that has the power to tell the president or congress yes or no, you can or can't, we need to know everything we can not just about the educational or work experience resume for the promotion that brett kavanaugh is seeking, because that's what we're talking about, an employment step that takes him from a district court to the supreme court, a promotion. not a criminal case, that we would also be testing his voracity, truthfulness, the likelihood that he will protect the laws of the land, not violate them. the only deadline here is the desire for the republicans to ensure that they can ram through a candidate that will protect their interests, not the interests of the nation, because it's the midterm elections that are their deadline. >> yeah. okay. so much here. paul, you've got dr. ford's attorney, first of all they told her she had to come monday which seemed unreasonable, you better get her monday or you will not

be heard, she comes back to them and says here are the conditions, can't happen before thursday. her lawyer actually physically be there before thursday. she wants to work -- they want to work to ensure her safety. she's gotten death threats, she's been impersonated on-line. kavanaugh wants to testify first -- she wants kavanaugh to testify first and she goes second. she doesn't want to be in the same room with him and doesn't want questions from outside counsel. no time limit on her opening statements. a public hearing with limited cameras and wants the other potential witness mark judge who she says was in the room subpoenaed. does this seem reasonable to you and would you expect it to be granted? >> any reasonable request from a survivor who went through an experience that was so traumatic that 30 years later it came up in her counseling and she has now agreed in the interest of the nation to disclose what happened with the whole world watching. she's making very reasonable

demands. the senate is making this up as they go along, which might be okay, except that they're not interested in the truth. if they wanted the truth, what they would do is have the fbi, which for all its current problems and bad history remains the world's best law enforcement agency, they would send the fbi in to find out what happened. >> right. and they have done that before. let's go back to the very point. 1991, october 8, 1991, here is chuck grassley of iowa and senator orrin hatch, both of whom have said we have to get this man seated now, like they've said it's emergency, it's almost an emergency to seat this kavanaugh immediately, as fast as possible and we don't need the fbi involved is what senator grassley has said, the chairman of the judiciary committee. here they are in 1991. >> when the chairman of the judiciary committee and when the ranking member of the judiciary committee learned of these

allegations, the fbi was immediately ordered to conduct an investigation. >> chairman and the ranking member thurman when they heard about this the first time, they immediately ordered the fbi investigation, which was a very right thing to do, appropriate thing to do. they did what every other chairman and ranking member have done in the past. >> we're going to come back to the optics but i want to come to you on this, tara, seems like republicans are maybe they don't see that anything that seems hypocritical will hurt them. maybe they think their base doesn't care about anything that looks like hypocrisy or bad optics but they must know there are tapes of their past comments that they used to think you have to investigate. now they're saying, no, you don't. how politically can that be feasible for the republicans to say? >> it is perfectly feasible for them to say it for their base. where it is problematic for them is with independent voters,

women who might be more moderate republicans who voted for democrats in the past, for some of those voters who voted for obama and went and voted for trump later, those are the people that obviously a lot of democrats want to go after. for those people they're going to be more open to hearing both sides and to looking at this from a more objective perspective, particularly in independents. i will say it's not lost on women that the judiciary committee is made up of all men. >> yeah. >> there was also breaking news this morning that a gop aide has been removed from working on the judiciary committee because of sexual harassment allegations against him. i should be clear the judiciary committee is all men on the republican side. i want to make sure i'm very clear about that. >> right. >> so i think all of these things together are terrible for the republicans going into the midterms. i think what they're thinking is if they can maximize their base by giving them -- giving the base kavanaugh and i think

for -- i think what they're not looking at if the turnout is higher because what democrats -- when democrats lose is when turnout is low. if the turnout is higher, then that means that all of this had an impact and i think that's the direction we're moving. >> i don't it here but if my producers get it to me, just with the breaking news, right, to your point, tara, i believe an aide, i want to say to kavanaugh has stepped down -- >> i think it was grassley. >> an aide to grassley. >> on senate judiciary committee. >> they stepped down because they had past issues of the same nature and they don't want to be a distraction. i will read that to the audience in a little bit. i want to come back to you, it's been very strange, probably the strangest part of this whole saga has been the decision of allies of brett kavanaugh to defend him by essentially trying to frame someone else. >> yes. >> ed weiland who is a i guess

long-time conservative judicial activist. >> the troll person. >> okay. >> he released a tweet storm and this was after -- i want to say it was orrin hatch, watch the tweets. >> she might be mixed up. >> might be mixed up. then he releases this tweet where he says to be clear, where he said another guy did it. >> yes. >> and put a picture of the guy's house, floor plans. >> they look alike and that this other person who is now a middle schoolteacher may have been the one. have you ever seen anything like that? >> yeah. like "law and order" and "the practice" this was a strategy on "the practice" called plan b. if you have a client you say my client didn't do it, this other guy who is not in the courtroom did it. it's a common strategy they execute it like keystone cops here. >> aren't they stipulating they know what happened? >> yes. what they want to be able to say

and what they desperately want to be able to say is that christine blasey ford is not lying, but brett kavanaugh didn't do it. like that's their actual strategy. the problem with ed whelen it's not like he was acting alone. evidence that he was in consultation with the pr firm that did the swift boat campaign. there's evidence that hatch knew it was happening and i refuse to believe that brett kavanaugh didn't know that this was happening either because kavanaugh is the one that apparently said to hatch in the first place it might be mistaken identity. there's no way to believe it -- sorry. >> before you read that i want to read the final tweet because i believe ed tried to protect himself from any liable issues to be clear i have no idea what if anything did or did not happen in that bedroom and do not state or imply this person or anyone else committed the sexual assault although i did a speech with his name and town. >> that's what you say when you defend somebody, i don't want to be sued for defamation. >> trying to fix it. >> she's not believable because she doesn't know what party it

was. can we just go back to the facts here. >> yeah. >> so this to me is an admission. >> hold on. >> can i ask you a question, if their argument is you can't believe dr. ford because she doesn't remember the specific party, the date or the location, then how can brett kavanaugh say, i wasn't at that party. >> this is my point. you cannot honestly -- if you're brett kavanaugh and telling the truth, what you say is, i don't even know what we're talking about here. >> right. >> i -- i don't -- i don't -- i didn't do anything to her. i will say that -- i don't know where this happened, i don't know what -- i need more information in order to respond. and if you did not do it, you want an fbi investigation. you want one. >> that information, i as a prosecutor try cases with sexual assault abuse, you have something in this case that you never have, you have an eyewitness. >> eyewitness. >> right. >> it's not he said/she said. there is a man who -- a survivor

says was in the room. >> yes. >> who refuses to testify. >> that's not his choice. the senate has the power now. >> they don't want to subpoena him. >> they don't want the truth. the senate like we have to understand, democrats i think are falling for this. senate republicans want to make this he said/she said because they are confident that their base and the white women who already voted for donald trump, if you put him versus her in a one-on-one situation, their people will say, he's lying. >> tarzan more truth than jane, right. jane just talking -- like that's what they think their base will say. it's not like that. it's not just about mark judge who should be subpoenaed, mark judge the friend that -- >> the friend yeah. >> kavanaugh's credibility should be impeached. kavanaugh has not been truthful about what he knows about sexual harassment that happened during his -- when he was clerking for

his mentor. his answers have been untruthful about that. brett kavanaugh has not been truthful about what yale knows about him. there's a whole story going on about how yale law school, professors at yale law school were warned of a student two judges you should avoid, alex kaczynski and brett kavanaugh. why should we avoid brett kavanaugh. yale won't say. another yale professor says she was feeding clerks to kavanaugh who had a certain look, who looked like models. his entire credibility about his own recollection of sexual harassment is off. that's not he said/she said, that is an investigation into the truth that the senate judiciary committee refuses to do. >> yeah. >> so -- and to build off of this, we also know that there are class -- school mates of trchdr. ford who said everybody was talking about this. if nothing happened why were people talking about this. we want the fbi to go be able to ask those questions and

potentially find out a lot more information, but i also want to -- douglas ginsburg, douglas ginsburg was the person that was nominated by reagan. >> right. >> within a matter of days, he was honest about marijuana use. >> and had to stand down. >> and stepped down. a claim of sexual assault. >> right. >> is not sufficient? >> can i tell you the why of it, we will get into this later in the show, this is, you know, the topic people want to know, this is a lifetime potential appointment. mitch mcconnell, essentially at the value voters summit, explained why it doesn't matter what elle or says or maya or paul and what's in his past, whether he lied. it doesn't matter to them and this is why. here's mitch mcconnell. >> the most consequential decision i've made in my career is a decision not to do something, not to fill the vacancy created by the death of justice scalia. the single most consequential thing we can do is these

lifetime apartments in a near future, judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court. >> so a, he said the outcome is not in doubt because he's mad at what has turned up about this guy and b, we own the supreme court. only republicans may nominate. if hillary clinton had been elected we would have held it open four years. only we may nominate to the court. it doesn't matter who he is. as long as he will do what we want in terms of roe v. wade, women's liberties, we don't care. mitch mcconnell has made that clear. >> this is how brazen the republican party has become because i know i say this a lot, but i must say it again. the only check that really exists on both parties is their base. and the republicans have realized that for their party, there is basically nothing that they can do that will tether, that will untether the base of that party from supporting it.

that is why the republican party is essentially unrestrained and become immoral. >> they're untetherble because they want the court, we're going to keep you all sticking around. they want the court. the base is like give us the court. we don't care what you do. >> we're keeping it right. the latest twists and turns on the rod rosenstein saga. that's the other big story. we had to decide which two to lead with. so much news. so much news. "the new york times" bombshell next. -♪ he's got legs of lumber and arms of steel ♪

♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help. don't forget that the past can speak to the future.

♪ ♪ i'm going to be your substitute teacher. don't assume the substitute teacher has nothing to offer... same goes for a neighborhood. don't forget that friendships last longer than any broadway run. mr. president. (laughing) don't settle for your first draft. or your 10th draft. ♪ ♪ you get to create the room where it happens. ♪ ♪ just don't think you have to do it alone. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it.

i have a message for the president tonight. under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody. these actors tonight, and i have multiple sources confirming this and more information coming, they are hoping and praying that the president does just that, that he gets mad and sick and tired of it and they can turn this politically into their equivalent of a friday night massacre. the president needs to know it is all a setup and needs to know that regardless of whether he steps in or not, i would argue he should definitely not, the deep state tonight is crumbling from within at this very hour. >> okay. that is some oddly sound advice, sound advice, last night for presidential pal sean hannity,

whose former friend ousted producer bill shine is running communications inside the white house. you cannot make this up. no hollywood studio would buy your script because they would think it's a lie. a piece by "the new york times" about deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, the "times" reports after trump fired james comey, rosenstein suggested that he secretly record the president omarosa style inside the white house and he also discussed with cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove mr. trump from office for being unfit. the "times" cited people briefed on the events themselves or on memos written by fbi officials, not anyone who was in the room. but nbc news reports that among those who were in the room with rosenstein when he made his comments about the wire, there's disagreements about whether his comments were sarcastic or serious and whether he brought up the 25th amendment at all. rosenstein has issued not one

but two denials while the "times" stands by its reporting. they are back with me now. let's start with the fact that the calls are coming from inside the house. when sean hannity says that the deep state is trying to trigger donald trump to fire rod rosenstein, he might mean inside the building where he works across the street at fox news. here's laura engram last night saying that donald trump should fire rod rosenstein. >> the president tonight should seriously consider whether rod rosenstein should remain on the job. the white house should be devoting every resource it can to determining the voracity of this report. >> "the washington post" has a source in the room saying it was a joke. our reporting at nbc news saying it was sarcastic. fox news is the one that sean hannity is is speaking of saying fire him. is the deep state now inside rockefeller plaza?

>> look, prosecutors, fbi types, sometimes they mix humor. sometimes they miss a little bit of the subtext. i tend to believe that rosenstein was probably joking and being sarcastic. what do you want me to do wear a wire. my problem, why was he joking some he should be wearing a wire. they all should be wearing a wire. they're working for a crazy person who lies all the time. everything that trump says should be recorded by people who want to protect themselves. it's a hilarious story from the perspective this is a chaotic time and nobody knows what they're doing, but a sad story in so far as this is another example of official washington, the institutions that are supposed to protect us, being cowardly and being by this president and not knowing what to do. we need heros, not keystone cops talking about like wire taps. >> yeah. and the thing and rachel maddow, watched her, brilliant rachel

maddow, she walked through, maya, the timeline that makes it sound like whoever it was, because they weren't in the room who leaked this information to the "new york times," may have, we don't know their motive, one motivation possibility is that it would trigger donald trump in the paper he's most obsessed with, to then have a pretext to fire rosenstein, which they want him to do, a lot of the folks at fox want him to do. trump tweeted about the idea he would release these unredacted wire taps from carter page, the wire taps that led to carter pain being surveilled. he tweets i met with the doj concerning the declassification, he was going to declassify and talked out of it. i meant with the declassification. they agreed to release them but doing so may have a perceived negative impact on the russia probe and key allies called to ask not to release and the inspect inspector general has asked to

review documents. he was talked out of it by rod rosenstein. >> we're doing a lot of laughing because there's so much be absurdity to this, but it's not funny. the part for reasons that ellie stated but what we're talking about right now is whether or not we are going to have a credible law enforcement agency that is neutral and independent, it is not the deep state because by definition -- this is an important point -- by definition deep state means people not appointed by the president, rod rosenstein was appointed by the president. >> right. >> confirmed by congress for his position. to suggest somehow some conspiracy in this case is actually to undermine the credibility of law enforcement in the context of one of the most important investigations we have had since richard nixon and watergate in terms of the integrity of our presidency. >> i wonder, paul, if -- should we begin thinking about rod rosenstein as a potential witness? i mean rod rosenstein is in the

middle of a lot of stuff. he wrote the memo that was a pretext used to fire comey, he then got upset that the memo was released according to the "new york times" and decided to turn i guess on the president he was upset. isn't he a witness? >> he is. there's always been a question at some point rosenstein himself will have to recuse and he's talked to the ethics officers at the department of justice and mueller and that time isn't now. if there does come a time where he has a conflict he will step down. i have known rod rosenstein for 20 years. he does have a sense of humor. maybe this was a joke. the 25th amendment stuff on the other hand, remember this was a time where this even degrees of incompetence with president trump and this was a time when he was extremely incompetent and weird, so he fires comey and then goes on tv and tells lester holt i fired him because of the russian investigation. >> right. >> he invites russians into the

oval office, russian journalists, excludes american journalists, and then reveals confidential information. at the same time rosenstein is vexed because the president has had him make this memo about firing comey without telling him the real reason why. finally, when the "times" asked rosenstein, did this actually happen, did you say that we need to invoke the 25th amendment in order to get rid of president trump, rosenstein has this weird nondenial denial. he says, well, i just saw the president a couple days ago and he looked okay to me then. >> here's one of his dis putts, rod rosenstein, from "the new york times" is inaccurate and i will not further comment on a story based on anonymous stories who are obviously bias against the department in advancing their own personal agenda. let me be clear based on my personal dealings with the president there is no basis to

invoke the 25th amendment. >> is, right. >> not at this moment. >> if you wanted to read "the new york times" piece and the sourcing of it as an attempt really to go after rod rosenstein, part of this piece where the idea of sort of baker act, for lack of a better term, the president with the 25th amendment wept nowhere, but according to the "new york times" the people who heard him saying this more than one time called mr. rosenstein's comments an example of how erratically he was behaving while he was taking part in the interviews for replacing the fbi director considering the appointment of a special counsel and otherwise running the day-to-day operations of the justice department. sounds like whoever is retelling the story is not just saying that trump's behavior was erratic, but is going after rosenstein. >> this is the problem with anonymous sources. i use anonymous sources, there are stories you can only get out via anonymous sources, but your problem with that is that now

you are kind of tied to their narrative and the independent public cannot check the narrative of the sources you're using. it's a tricky journalism ethics 101 thing, which would be a real issue if the overarching story wasn't that the president is crazy and probably should be removed because he's unfit for law. in a normal timeline this is a really good example of like why people go to journalism school and what they think about. but we can't really get to that point because overall, we're in a situation where this is not -- rosenstein even if he didn't think it, we know from the other anonymous source thing that the "times" did with mr. deep pen, that the 25th amendment seems to be coming up with shocking regularity within the trump white house. >> rosenstein sathey had a hash >> we do have a governmental institution that has been torn apart by politics and that really is coming up in all of

this. starting with comey's handling of the hillary clinton e-mails which definitely had an impact on the 2016 presidential election, but also had an impact inside the justice department in terms of people's very strong feelings about that departure from long-established and well-reasoned protocol and then moving into them this new administration's leadership including rod rosenstein and then andrew mccabe and the tension between them as they have the relationship. i think there's a lot going on in here about people's trust of one another within the department. we know that there were a lot of moral issues. the way this wraps back is right. right. which is you have folks who are careerists for the most part, you know, long-time prosecutors, trying to figure out how best to be the independent agency they are in a responsible way. >> yeah. in this environment. >> real quickly, constitutional remedy is impeachment. 25th amendment very difficult. >> this congress. that's not going to happen.

depends on the midterms. ellie thank you. >> sorry. you don't have a weekend anymore. may ya and paul will join us later. donald trump and brett kavanaugh have something in common. they both are making the republican party more and more unpalatable to women who don't vote republican. we'll discuss coming up.

with 2x more geographic detail... ...ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... ...and the paths they took, to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com. you wouldn't accept from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? flonase relieves your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. flonase. that's confident. but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flights for us. so i'm more than confident. kayak. search one and done.

♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪ all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

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.

okay. i have seen plenty of attack ads in my day. have you never seen one quite like this one against arizona republican congressman paul gosar. >> if he actually cared about people in rural arizona, i bet he would be fighting for social security, for better access to health care. i bet he would be researching what is the most inciteful water policy to help the environment of arizona sustain itself and be successful. >> if he's not listening to you and he doesn't have your interest at heart, my name is tim gosar. >> david gosar. >> grace gosar. >> joan gosar. >> gaston gosar. >> jennifer gosar. >> paul is my brother and i endorse dr. brill who heartedly dr. david brill for congress.

>> i'm dr. david brill and i approve this message. >> nobody knows you more like family. more "am joy" after the break. take your razor, yup. up and down, never side to side, shaquem, you got it? come on stay focused. hard work baby, it gonna pay off.

this is a story about mail and packages. 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

♪ kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and done. start with 100% cleancheese? ingredients. like vermont white cheddar. then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be. ♪ ♪ no matter when you retire, your income doesn't have to. see how lincoln can help ensure you still have income every month of your retirement,

guaranteed, at lincolnfinancial.com. niethese are lifetime appointments. if you want to have a long-time impact on what kind of country we're going to have for the next generation, the single most consequential thing we can do is

these lifetime appointments and if we can hold on to the senate majority for two more years we're going to transform the federal judiciary with men and women who believe in this america. the kavanaugh confirmation no matter how it plays out is taking place in the shadow of the crucial midterm elections in which democrats could take over the house and senate leaving donald trump without the shield of a compliant and protective republican congress. needless to say the stakes could not be higher. tara is back and joining is charlie sikhs, contributing editor at "the weekly standard." charlie, i will start with you, we had the news come out this morning that a spokesperson for the gop kavanaugh -- the gop kavanaugh nomination has resigned, accused of harassment in a pass, a top press adviser helping to lead the senate jushry's committee response to a response against brett kavanaugh has stepped down amid evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation

against him. the cumulative effect, charlie, of roy moore, who donald trump supported, donald trump who has 19 accusers of sexual harassment et cetera and now nominating kavanaugh and not seeming to care whether or not he did what he is accused to have done because all that matters is control of the court. long-term is that an effective political strategy for the gop? >> it's a very dangerous political strategy for the gop. this is a volatile and explosive situation and the optics that you're describing are potentially deadly for the republican party, which is why, you know, what happens next week, you know, the stakes are so high. they should be leaning over backwards to make it clear that they actually want to find out what is the truth and women need to be listened to, but again, you have this incredible impulse, the incredible pressure from the base that they must confirm kavanaugh, that he must push ahead on all of these judicial nominations. i'm not sure that they fully

understand the long-term damage or danger of what could take place over the next seven to ten days. >> you have the polling is not good, needless to say, i think kavanaugh might be the first underwater supreme court nominee in at least a generation. support of his nomination 34%, oppose 38%, according to our nbc news/"wall street journal" poll. opposition has gone up. his support has stayed the same. opposition has gone up. when you break it down, republican women in august were at 58, there are now more, republican women has gone up, but everyone else has gone down, e independent women down 13, he's under water by 13 among independents, under water by 62 among democrats. it's not helping there. and then if you go through and look at the previous nominees hae under water more than anyone. >> right. >> republicans are increasing their support, arguably, among

republican women, they love it, most voted for roy moore. this isn't bothering them. it feels like a republican party that's isolating itself more and more toward a white hard core evangelical base is a party that can't get bigger. >> that's true, but we have to be careful, democrats have to be careful specifically, thinking that demographics are destiny. i hear that said a lot and yes, if the democratic party does all the right things and manages and strategizes correctly, then yes, demographics are destiny. but we shouldn't take it for granted. a party should never take anything for granted. when i worken campaigns you run as if you are losing all the time. that's how you win elections. the second you take anything for granted then you make yourself much more vulnerable. i want to point something out in the polling, the opposition increased after dr. ford came

forward with her allegations. >> right. >> and that opposition increased amongst independent women. >> yeah. >> so -- and other groups too. independent men as well. i think where the opportunities are for democrats are with independent women. you know, i say this a lot, i don't think that conversion works. i don't think it's an effective strategy. i think what democrats need to focus on is making sure people fully understand and many are, but double down, triple down on making sure people fully understand the implications of allowing the republicans to radically change the courts, not just the supreme court, the lower courts, which see much more cases. what does that mean for equality and for issues of justice for african-americans in the criminal justice system. what does that mean for a woman's right to make her own choices over her own body. what does that mean for poor people in this country. it is important to show people and tell people specifically what happens when you change the courts and what ha means.

that means that we have judges who have things in their past like kavanaugh that are deciding, despite having their own criminal issues, sdoodecidi about other people's issues. >> the thing about the republican party that i think has not been true of the democratic party, republicans vote on the court. that message that tara talked about has been engrained in republican voters, that ignore everything else and vote for the courts. keep the senate for the courts. keep trump for the courts. it's all abe the courts. at the end of the day it's all about abortion. but wherever you fall on the issue of abortion, there's something a lot more visceral about the idea of a guy putting his hand over a girl's mouth and turning up the music so she can't be heard screaming. that's a different thing than an awkward guy trying to get a kiss. this is something visceral. bill cosby lost his entire catalog off tv over old allegations that were sexual in nature of him being sexually assaulting women. that's visceral.

you've seen that hash tag why i didn't report. this is not about abortion, this is about a second clarence thomas person but a person that involves putting a hand over a woman's mouth allegedly so she couldn't scream. >> that's what makes this dramatic and high stakes because as you point out, you're absolutely right, the conservative voters have been focused on the court and will do almost anything to get control of the court. on the other hand, you know, this takes place during the metoo moment of the details of the allegation, if they abelievd are graphic. that's why almost everything that has been happening this week, right now, is like the pregame warmup. this will be determined, this whole thing is going to be playing out on a national stage. i mean think about this in the era of trump when you think it can't get any more dramatic or reality tv show, when those cameras go on and brett kavanaugh makes his case and dr. ford makes her case, you know, that is when the american people are going to come to grips with all of these issues.

everything that happens up until then is going to be i think forgotten. there are so -- there is so much at stake in the substance of the court, but also in the issues that the senate will have to litigate here. >> it's not hard. you have clarence thomas and kavanaugh, that's two. it's interesting optics. we will talk about the optics in the next hour. tara, thank you very much. always appreciate you. in the next hour the reason the senate judiciary committee is so afraid of christine blasey ford. ♪ come to my window. ohhh.

♪ crawl inside, wait by the light of the moon. ♪ applebee's to go. add a fountain drink to your next order for just 99 cents. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ...most people.

but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from moderate to even severe fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain i can do more with my family. talk to your doctor today. see if lyrica can help.

we are the tv doctors of america, and we may not know much about medicine, but we know a lot about drama. from scandalous romance, to ridiculous plot twists. (gasping) son? dad! we also know you can avoid drama by getting an annual check-up. so we're partnering with cigna to remind you to go see a real doctor. go, know, and take control of your health. it could save your life. doctor poses! dad! cigna. together, all the way.

. you testified this morning in response to senator biden that the most embarrassing question involved, this not too bad, women's large breasts, that's a word we use all of the time, that is the most embarrassing aspect of what judge thomas had said to you. >> no. the most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of the these individuals, these women that the acts that those particular people would engage

in. >> the prospect of a capitol hill showdown between brett kavanaugh and christine blasey ford has sparked comparison to the anita hill and the treatment by an all white male was attacked by david brock and he's now changed sides, founding progressive organizations like media matters for america but he sees a similar pattern developing now. in an op-ed he writes, kavanaugh's accuser should expect the anita hill treatment from republicans and david brock founder of media matters joins me now. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> so let's go through this. in the anita hill hearings, it was partly the optics, all white males questioning this black woman. and then the dismissal of her claims, those aren't things that are that big of a deal. here is orrin hatch back in 1991 talking about anita hill.

take a listen. >> it bothers me because -- because she appears to believe everything that she said. and i myself don't want to call her a liar. but as an old trial lawyer, i have seen witnesses just like that who believe every word they say and every word is absolutely wrong and we've proven it wrong and they still believe it. >> and here is orrin hatch this week. >> do you think that any of these claims are legitimate? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think this woman, whoever she is, is mixed up. and i can't speak for her. all i can say is, no, i don't. i know the -- i know the judge very, very well. i know how honest he is and how straightforward he is.

i know how he stands up for what he believes and what is right and frankly if you were going to believe anybody, you'd believe him. >> so we start with the premise that the republicans don't believe here and the "wall street journal" echoing, she's mistaken. and then what happens to her on the stand if she does appear. >> i think people are misreading this. times have changed and there is the me-too movement and there is window dressing around the republicans and she needs to be heard and we want to hear her story so it is more gentle than the prosecutorial -- around anita hill but there are a number of things dr. ford will challenge is there is no fbi investigation and there was with anita hill and there were witnesses even though we didn't hear about them on the record to the fbi who substantiate her comments and we have a more -- president than h.w. bush and we have a right wing media and

we've seen conspiracy theories coming out, the "wall street journal" saying she misremembered. that is point one. point two, the republicans had the same problem in anita hill they need a theory and because there is a categorical deny from judge kavanaugh, he is not saying i blacked out and maybe things went too far or any of that. to so -- so it can't be dismissed as something that happens when you were 17. and not even saying i have remorse or different character. he's saying it did not happen. so that forces them into the position you just saw orrin hatch take that she believes what she's saying but it is a wrong or false memory and that is the same thing they did to anita hill. he didn't say largely that anita hill was flat out lying because there you need a motive and there is no motive. why put yourself through shame and retaliation. >> through death threats. >> for professional and personal harm as we see for threats

toward dr. ford now and when you look at motive, the motive to lies on the other side, a supreme court position -- >> for life. >> right. so you'll get into she's a little crazy and a theory floated about anita hill called eroto-mania and it is bubbling up on social media and that is very different in the climate of social media. so you'll see all kinds of things -- >> they tried to name other guy. >> absolutely. so she'll face a tough environment and i think people are not expecting that because they think it is 25 years later and times have changed. it will be ugly. >> so stay with me because at top of the hour we're going to talk about that and the optics and how this could play out. so dr. brock, stay with us. more "am joy" after the break.

oscar mayer deli fresh ham has no added nitrates, nitrites or artificial preservatives. now deli fresh flavor is for everyone. like those who like... sweet. those who prefer heat. and those who just love meat. oscar mayer deli fresh. a fresh way to deli.

so shark invented duo clean. while deep cleaning carpets, the added soft brush roll picks up large particles, gives floors a polished look, and fearlessly devours piles. duo clean technology, corded and cord-free. ♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪ it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪

all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪

to see what is going on is just very, very sad. you say why didn't somebody call the fbi 36 years ago, you could also say when did this all happen? what is going on? to take a man like this and besmirch, with that being said, let her have her say and let's see how it all works out but i don't think you can delay it any longer. they've delayed it a week already. >> welcome back to "am joy." well if dr. christine blasey ford does testify before the senate judiciary committee the biggest problem could be the

optics and it just so happens every member on the committee is a white man invoking anita hill and being questioned by an all white male panel back in 1991 during the clarence thomas confirmation hearings and raising the stakes for republicans based on how they treat dr. ford and it looks like they are aware of the problem. nbc news reports republicans have started searching for an outside lawyer to hire to handle questioning of kavanaugh and ford. i deally a qualified woman litigator but ford doesn't want that. she prefers to be questioned by members of the committee who, after all, were elected to do the job. hanging over all of this, the midterms weeks away. republican strategists are worried how ford telling her story to the nation while facing a give diverse panel with people of men and women and people of color on the democratic side and the white guys on the other could impact the election. "the washington post" spoke to

those involved with campaign planning and one republican said, several top gop lawmakers have told colleagues that they hope ford declines to show up for the hearing even as they issue statements urging her to do so. helping the gop to avoid a risky televised drama and making it easier for senate leaders to hold a vote next week. joining me now david brock, founder of media matters and mia wylie of the new school. and charlie sykes, treatist sarah rump and jason johnson. thank you very much. i'm going to my friends at the disadvantage in the remote location there. and sarah, i will start with you, as a young republican woman, the optics of seeing a panel of all white men questioning this woman's account of a very painful experience for her versus a very diverse panel including kamala harris and cory booker on the other side, do you find that problematic as a young republican woman? >> i really don't.

if we were suggesting that a female senator couldn't do this questioning because she would be too emotional or involved, we would call that sexist and the idea that a republican senator cannot treat this woman with respect and dignity just because he's a man, i find that problematic as well. now kellyanne conway, i have disagreed with her on a lot of things in the past year, so when she said this woman needed to be treated seriously and with respect, those were good comments. and i do believe that even though their men, they are capable of being professional and asking these questions with respect. even though they've already -- >> they've said they've already made up their minds. they already don't believe her. >> well, here is the thing. we have a long tradition in this country of having testimony in an adversarial context and being able to be handled professionally and even the most contentious court cases in civil

and criminal and being able to confront your accuser and senator collins had a very good suggestion that we have professor ford testify. we also allow professor ford's attorney to question judge kavanaugh. i think that is a good balancing of allowing both of them to have their stories told. at this point, we have several decades passed and there is no physical evidence or photographs or video, we have two people telling stories that cannot both be accurate. so let's have them both tell their stories and let them both be questioned and let the senators who are on the committee decide what makes sense to them. >> jason -- >> the fairest way to move forward. >> this isn't a trial so they don't get to cross-examine each other like attorneys. and we have the justice system not working out so well for people marginalized and women of color and women in the situation are facing -- the men on the panel have decided she's not telling the truth and she lost

her mind and doesn't remember or doesn't remember what happened. what do you make of the optics. the way this will look next week if it happens? >> it is going to look terrible, joy. look, first and foers mo-- for most, for these 11 men they are not even polite to kamala harris -- >> can somebody turn the lights back on -- >> if there is -- if they are not able to be polite and responsible to somebody on the committee with them they won't be polite to somebody they are trying to question and the problem is -- and you've mentioned this, this is a job interview. it is not a trial. and if they treat it like a trial, they'll look worse and the fact that this is a white woman, if they were questioning a woman of color, this might play off differently, but they are attacking a white woman for six to seven hours on national television. it is not a good look for the republican party. because they have white women who are currently running for senate seats and if this ends up being a question they have to

face in arizona debates and in tennessee debates, that is not going be a good look for this party. so optically, this could not go any worse for them and the longer they wait, the bigger impact on the midterms. >> and charlie, you've had a guy that -- called ralph norman in south carolina make a joke about this. do we have that? we can play that. let's listen to ralph norman. >> do you think that any of these claims are legitimate? >> no, i don't. i think -- i think this woman -- >> he said, i thought i -- i was going to be late. he said in a joke. did y'all hear the latest breaking news from the kavanaugh hearings, ruth bader ginsburg came out that she was groped by abraham lincoln and so you don't have the most sensitivity in the republican party and now they are on display and they want to get a woman lawyer to do it

because they don't want to do it themselves so they'll sit there mute. >> there is no question there is an optics problem. sarah is right that the real variable is not necessarily gender, it is stupidity. and it is insensitivity and those comments -- i think they have a high potential of having a backlash. but both parties, i think, have to be aware of the optics here. and the way that they handle the -- the questioning. if, in fact, republicans beat up on dr. ford, i think that would be a political disaster. but i also think that democrats need to understand that if they go over the top in their questioning of kavanaugh, if in fact they become histrionic, there is a potential that there could be a backlash. what everybody has to do is approach this as soberly as fairly as possible and that is so difficult to do with all of the emotions around it. so what could possibly go wrong? a lot can go wrong. with orrin hatch and chuck

grassley, these guys who i think are really tone devon a lot of the issues, i think the potential for -- for missteps is rather considerable. >> tone deaf is putting it mildly. they've said they don't believe her and the most important thing is to get him seated asap to make it happen now and that is -- this is what mazy her onno said, i think a cape might be delivered to her because she's doing -- making statements that are mike drop statements in the hearings. here is her message to men on tuesday. >> guess who is perpetuating these actions. it is the men in this country and i want to say to the men of the country, just shut up and step up. do the right thing for a change. >> is that what would count as going too far? we were talking about -- before camera came on that among the base of the republican party

there is a perception that these kind of things don't matter. that people look at roy moore and say will he vote my way on abortion and i don't care and look at kavanaugh, well will he get rid of abortion and other than that i don't care. you were inside of the party and you doing this, did you believe deep down that it didn't matter what anita hill said and that clarence thomas was right or was this just politics for you? >> well it starts with belief in thomas. so i wrote a book called the real anita hill and defended clarence thomas. i thought that was right. what happened to me in the two years subsequent and that could happen in this case, more evidence came out that was quite couldn't diktsory that was damning to thomas. i didn't know about it. two years later a book came out called strange justice and the women who didn't have their voice heard were in this book. and went back to the people who sold me the bill on clarence thomas, they knew it was all politics.

so that is what it is. there is a mindset here which i grew up in that the end justifies the means. and i compare the conservative movement and i'm not saying all conservatives but elite conservative circles in washington, d.c., there is a mindset where you can lie to outsiders. so when they're doing all of the coaching what people are losing sight of, what happened during anita hill is horrible and what will happen to dr. ford is horrible and the real issue is perjury and clarence thomas is on the court and perjured himself to get there and brett kavanaugh is heading down the road if he's confirmed and that is something that will administer and interpret the law of the land. the standard has to be much higher. >> and i guess that is the point. is that you have -- we have republicans saying that when people make a statement like ma mazy her onno and to who? because the prospect here is somebody -- members of the senate have said he lied about

other stuff too and that he could get on this court and potentially having not told the truth in the hearings and also potentially being this kind of man, if you believe dr. ford. but then he gets to decide what is just is and what is law for the rest of us. >> for a lifetime. >> for the rest of his life. >> for a lifetime. >> what are we co-signing here. >> i think we are co-signing a sexist form of politics that ignores that more than half of the country is female and by the way, men are also subject to sexual violence and we shouldn't forget that. >> we've seen men in that hashtag, why i didn't report as well. >> that is exactly right. >> absolutely. >> and we know people underreport. but the point about the highest court in the land, the point about the credibility and the importance of who sits in that seat from the standpoint of what kind of character they have is as important as the other aspects. and if at some point our leaders don't recognize that the primary job here of leadership is making

sure we are one country, that we are united people and that we protect each other, i don't know what we have left. >> i'll come back to you on that, sarah. because it doesn't bother you at all -- as a woman, as a young woman, that the sort of -- the message that the party is sending writ large with a roy moore 234078ination or defending kavanaugh to the hilt and immediately dismissing what judge ford -- what ford said and another person that has taken it back and apologized for it, does this not bother you as a young woman in the republican party? that this is the message that being sent to you. >> right. i think we need to draw a very important distinction. i've criticized and in fact on your program some of the things that donald trump has said and done when the "access hollywood" came out i said the republicans that were continuing to support him were endorsing sexual assault. >> but that is a majority of women in your party. but the majority of women in your party -- they didn't vote

for him. >> what donald trump said and did is abhorrent. roy moore -- we had multiple examples of abhorrent behavior from him. i'm glad he lost the senate race in alabama. here with judge kavanaugh is one person's story that he adamantly denies and the other person -- >> do you believe her -- >> in the room at time also denies it. >> but do you believe her? >> i -- i believe that something traumatic happened to her. i believe that that -- that i don't think that she's lying. i don't think that she is intentionally trying to mislead anybody. but i haven't heard her speak. we've seen written -- written letter from her. >> but she'll say whataz in the letter. do you believe something traumatic happened to her at the hands of brett kavanaugh. >> i -- i want to hear from her. there is something to be said for being able to hear someone speak in their own words. >> let's say she said exactly what is in the letter. will you believe -- if she

repeated exactly what is in her letter? >> until i see her and until i see her speak, being willing to speak under oath in front of the senate judiciary committee -- a i think there is a reason we set our court system up this way -- >> it is not a court. >> it is not a court. >> but this is similar kind of stuff. i want to hear from someone in their own words. i don't think that we have enough -- i would not derail kavanaugh's nomination if she's not willing to come and speak, just on a letter alone i don't think is enough. and in a lot of other cases, bill o'reilly, anthony wiener, business cosby. >> and they didn't do it -- >> and we didn't have -- >> and there were multiple accusations. >> and there were investigations. >> do you support there is a reopening of the background check to talk to the witnesses who say that for instance everyone was talking about after the incident? >> right. right. >> the woman who said that, i think on facebook or twitter, has already retracted that. and just -- the idea that we're

going to convict somebody because there was gossip at a high school 30 years ago that he drank -- >> no -- >> again, this is a lot. this is a lot. >> let me -- i think jason was trying to jump in. >> yeah. i got to say this. i'm offended as a man. it is -- he is accused of sexual assault and a man will be the judge. and this is not just what he was doing in high school because he was drinking underage which is against the law and he's soon to be one of the most important judges of the land and also look at what he did when he was in college. and the organizations he was in. and there are no means yes and yes means whatever. it is not like this is a one-time incident. and i'm so sick and tired of the arguments, well there is other people. so -- so you're not a murderer if you killed one person and you have to kill five before being considered a murderer. >> that is wasn't what i was arguing. >> if you grab a woman and turn up the music that is a problem. so this notion this will be derailed or problematic or wait for a public performance to

believe this person could be solved if there was an fbi investigation which this president and the republicans on the committee refuse to do. and i remember a time, crazy as it may seem, where a man like this who brings this much trouble and this much problems and this -- and this sort of attack on integrity to the supreme court would just withdraw and i think eventually if he cares about this country, and he cares about the institution, that is what he should end up doing. >> sarah? >> well, look, there is just so much to unpack here. there is a very real possibility that brett kavanaugh did nothing wrong. i think it is entirely -- again, i think that something traumatic happened to her but it is entirely possible there is a case of mistaken identity and again, i -- the fact that we're -- you know that we're going to make these accusations that he's some kind of horrible person without having his accuser come forward, i think that is too far. >> let me -- >> could i weigh in on this.

>> yes, please, charlie. >> a couple of things. number one, we do have to hear from these individuals in order to make up our minds. i think that is legitimate. number two, look, there is no such thing as collective guilt. you asked before about the senator who said that men should shut up. i'm sorry, that is going too far. because a lot of men i think do need to be heard as well. and again, this is not collective guilt, it is brett kavanaugh. either he did this or he did not do this. this is a factual situation which is why it is a good idea to reopen the fbi background check. that is why it is a good idea to bring in the alleged eyewitness in this case and put him under oath, mark judge, in order to determine that. so the part of the problem is -- is you get head of the evidence that we actually had, if this was -- this was not a one-off, i would like to hear the evidence of that. so this is -- again where i'm trying to say, can we -- at least stick to the facts as we

know it. and that is why i think it is very important to hear what dr. ford has to say and she needs to be treated very, very seriously. and i don't understand how republicans who claim to take this seriously do not support asking the fbi to open up the background check and this is what they do and they do it well. >> and i want to add one more person to this panel and keep everybody here if you could. and i'll add religious reform actor frank schaefer. you've been listening to the discussion. do you understand or can you explain for those who don't understand why it is that people even if -- even if they think something bad happened to this woman would still want kavanaugh on the court no matter what? because a lot of people -- i think that is what is bothering people. they don't understand why part of the base of the party is so determined to have this seat -- they held it open for almost a year to get -- to get all of the seats. why? >> well, the fact of the matter

is you have to go back a little bit and look at the history of this. my father francis schaefer in the 1970s and '80s and me with his nep tiftic side started the pro-life movement with the series called whatever happened to the human race and to the present time i think the evangelical voter has become two things, first of all, driven mad by the issue of abortion and so much of an obsession, that they would do anything, including sanctifying a guy like roy moore, an alleged pedophile and an alleged attempted rapist, so that is point one. point two, the evangelical group itself has moved so far to the right that it literally is more like a trump cult now that you would find something in north korea or whatever supporting their leader, than a political movement in the sense of the word and i don't think people understand and i want to add as a foot note, former evangelicals

like me, kicked out not because we've lost faith in jesus but lost faith in the republican party who formed a group called vote common good and we're going on a bus tour to 35 cities to flip the congress, not because we are republicaning, trying to save this country from going any further down this path of this cult. this abortion obsessed cult that will take anyone and even bad mouth someone like dr. ford before even hearing her who has been sexually assaulted rather than vote for a supreme court justice who might not do everything in the litmus test the republicans want. it makes no sense unless you understand this trump cult is no longer really an american political party in the classic sense we mean it. and that is the point i would like to make. >> and to that point, david, just talking about it, you use the word, something cultish about the affinity. but republicans have an entire

long list from the federalist society of people who would vote the exact same way on roe and say the magic word, terri deseiss is and get on the court -- but they are hanging on to this and it feels like there is something more -- there is abortion and also the idea that this man may not be denigrated that we must not allow him to be den grated. is that familiar to you. >> you're right and you've seen in the polls that he's the most unpopular nominee in history. but he's popular among the republicans. and so what you're going to see here is they want to stick with this and they want to get it jammed through. but what will happen is if they don't, it will depress the turnout and demoralized because the trump brand is winning. if he gets a black eye, you'll see it will depress -- >> even if he withdraw him or put a different evangelical person who would overturn rowe

on, it won't matter. >> a loss is a loss and it will depress the base. you see stories about the evangelical right thinking about sitting out the midterms if this doesn't go through. so they are very invested in this and they don't want to see democrats bring him down. >> and do you feel that way, sarah, this is partly about not allowing democrats to take this man down? >> i do think that in some way, but if -- you know, if -- just -- we've got to admit objectively with the evidence that we have right now one statement from her, a statement from mark judge, a statement from judge kavanaugh, these are in conflict. the guys say it didn't happen, she said it did. there is a possibility that judge kavanaugh is absolutely innocent. and if we're going to be moving forward with confirmation hearings regardless of whether it is democrats or republicans in charge, whoever is up for nomination, i would hope that

one accusation if someone is not willing to come forward, that one accusation for a witness that won't come forward would not be enough to derail somebody's career. she should come forward and be treated with respect, she should tell her side of the story and they could question judge kavanaugh again and the senate can make a judgment. that is fair. >> mia is trying to jump in. >> so, sarah, where i absolutely agree with you is that there should be a fair process. and that all parties to the process should get the full fairness of a neutral investigation. problem with this is it is a setup. dr. ford has already said she wanted to come before the committee. and the issue isn't her willingness, the issue is the fact that it is a set-up and by virtue of not providing a neutral -- which is what the fbi would do, a politically neutral investigation to determine whether or not there are additional facts that would shed

light -- >> or witnesses. >> and well that is part of the fact pattern, witnesses. and it is essentially to say, we're going to say that we're giving you an opportunity but we're actually setting you up. and all that we're setting you up for is our ability to have plausible deniability about whether we were just trying to ram through our political nominee, rather than giving full fair hearing to whether or not something awful happened here. >> and jason, it does feel like the rush is the other story here. that there seems to be the urgency that it has to be done asap and the deadline doesn't have to be wednesday. what do you make on the speed with which the republicans are trying to do this. >> my thoughts have evolved through the week. we've seen this rush and it is because of the russians. they -- they want kavanaugh on the court andn case this investigation goes further and they want someone who will say the president can pardon himself. that is where this rush comes from but we've seen all along they had the documents and now they don't want to do this or

that. the problem republicans face is this, the longer they wait to vote and determine as to whether or not kavanaugh can be confirmed, the closer it becomes an impact on senate races that are happening across the country. that is what they're so terrified of and that is why they want to rush this through but the problem is this, the longer they wait and the more conflicts the more people pay attention. and quiet is kept. it doesn't matter that mitch mcconnell said we have the votes. i don't think they have the votes. at the end of the day, the republicans have the lead in the senate right now. they could have a vote next thursday. the only reason they're even having these delays is because they're worried about jeff flake, worried about murkowski and corker. they don't have the votes and they're hoping if they could take this woman down publicly and make her look foolish or make her look less credible, this will give color for republicans to actually vote for her. so that is the danger. and honestly, if this doesn't end up being done by the first of october, i think he's going to drop out and i think you'll have people asking him to drop out and won't have the vote because pushing him through this

late will be dangerous. >> and frank schaefer -- >> she has to show up, though. >> we'll see what happens. and she's not -- we should -- she's not said she won't but trying to negotiate when she won't get there. but i want to go to frank. that is the other issue. if, for instance, republicans were to succeed in jamming him on to the court and whatever -- to deal with the optics and get him on to the court and then more information came out, the way that david described happening with clarence thomas with three more women had turned out were backing up the story and now when people think about clarence thomas in -- if you are not a hard core republican, there is an asterisk on him that stays on him and doesn't go away. no one has forgotten about the testimony of anita hill. what happens with evangelicals if you have two -- two out of nine members of the supreme court, two out of the five men have this kind of cloud over them and they are both conservative and both republicans. does the base feel uncomfortable with that?

>> there are evangelical white women voters who voted for trump who will not vote for a democrat under any circumstances except one. when they really get the idea they are being abused wholesale as women and you have to understand something, the republican party is starting to look like the party of misogyny and abuse and fondling, groping, that is what the president is and we know that. and so this -- this illness of denying all your morality, the so-called family values base that the evangelicals said they represented and wholesale defending people like kavanaugh, roy moore, donald trump himself will peel people away and i say again, that is why someone like myself is hopeful going on the road with vote common good that we could appeal to this and just say, i -- listen, there has to be somebody left trying to follow jesus and not donald trump. someone left in this christian group who is interested in the integrity and the morality and the character of these

individuals and if we can't appeal to that, then it is not just america that is in trouble, any visitage of so-called evangelical christian witness is going to be finished. that is what is on the line. >> and charlie, you wrote a book about this, your peel ago way from t -- peeling away from the party because it is something larger than power. and do wonder long-term will the party look back on this period and mitch mcconnell said his proudest achievement was zen -- denying the president of doing his justice and they will hold this court to the far right even if they are character was in doubt and do you see a time when republicans will look back and see this wasn't worth it. >> that is the real dangerous for republicans. they are focused short-term on getting the win before the midterm elections and the long-term fallout is very, very dramatic. but again this is a political party that decided back in 2016 that donald trump's behavior and his character were not

disqualifying and they were willing to put him in the presidency so you shouldn't be surprised they would have different standards for supreme court. i will say it is important for dr. ford to show up. but this is why -- when chuck grassley keeps imposing these artificial deadlines, it is somewhat ludicrous because she has tremendous leverage. the worst case scenario for the republicans is for them to appear to ram this through without waiting to hear from her because -- again, then you are stuck and with the vote and he's on the court and an asterisk on his name. but there is also republicans now who will own this and won't be able to do anything about it. so she has tremendous leverage and this hearing has to take place. >> and we'll all see -- wait and see. thank you for staying and for this extended panel. mia will join us later. charlie sykes, david brock, sarah, johnson and schaefer, thank you for the great discussion into and coming up, there is another big story of the day. and this is the one about donald

trump and the 25th amendment. stay tuned. [phone ringing] need a change of scenery? the kayak price forecast tool tells you

whether to wait or book your flight now. so you can be confident you're getting the best price. giddyup! kayak. search one and done. when mit rocked our world.ailed we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease, i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems,

serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. ♪ one look at you and i can't disguise♪ ♪i've got hungry eyes ♪i feel the magic between you and i♪ ♪i've got hungry eyes ♪now i've got you in my sights applebee's new 3-course meals starting at $11.99. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

up next, the latest on

deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in a stunning claim that he discussed trying to remove donald trump from office. stay with us. ♪ take us downtown, waze. waze integration- seamlessly connecting the world inside... with the world outside... making life a little... easier. introducing the well-connected lincoln mkc. so why not bundle them with esurance and save up to 10%? which you can spend on things you really want to buy, like... well, i don't know what you'd wanna buy because i'm just a guy on your tv. esurance. it's surprisingly painless. that's confident.

but it's not kayak confident. kayak searches hundreds of travel and airline sites to find the best flights for us. so i'm more than confident. kayak. search one and done.

your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one. introducing ore-ida potato pay. where ore-ida golden crinkles are your crispy currency to pay for bites of this... ...with this. when kids won't eat dinner, potato pay them to. ore-ida. win at mealtime. ♪ the new capital one savor card.

earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet? just look at what is now being exposed in our department of justice and the fbi. look at what is going on. >> we have great people. these are people i really

believe you take a poll, i have to be at 95%. but you have? sm real bad ones and seeing what happened at fbi. they're all gone. they're all gone. but there is a lingering stench and we're going to get rid of that, too. >> donald trump didn't say who he was referring to when he mentioned a lingering stench at the fbi. but his comments came just hours after "the new york times" dropped their report that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein suggested wiretapping trump and invoking the 25th amendment. the times cited several people who were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by fbi officials but not actually in the room when the suggestions were made. but nbc news and "the washington post" have their own reporting from sources inside of the room who characterize the comments as joking or sarcastic. mia reilly and paul butler are back with me and joining me is counter-terrorism analyst malcolm nance.

you have leaking by people who weren't there to make it appear that rod rosenstein was trying to 25th amendment donald trump and suggested wearing a wire which is countered by people in the room. what do you make of this whole mish-mash of information. >> well, i know "the new york times" in the last 24 hours has been furiously out on twitter trying to defend this story, calling it solid reporting, saying it is corroborated by other sources. but it is the characteristic of the reporting and the nature that it was done that makes that article the very tool donald trump will use to take a hammer to american justice and quite possibly critically damage democracy in this nation. donald trump has now spoken about this in authoritarian tones as if he could do away with u.s. law enforcement. and i think that is what his plan is. this is a damaging article and i -- i'm -- the journalists, that is their job. we're going to have to deal with

the aftermath of it. but i think the repercussions of this are going to be historic. >> and it has seemingly given a pretext if donald trump wanted to fire rod rosenstein. stay with me. the nbc version of the story said as following -- rod rosenstein was arguing with andrew mccabe about the president according to a senior justice department official, what do you want me to do, andy, wear a wire and which also includes lawyer lisa page and four career doj officials. one of the senior civil servants was scott cools who would sign off on the firing of mccabe and the official and a source in the room characterized the remark as sarcastic. so you are saying, malom, you believe that a joking sarcastic -- and sarcastic remark is being used by someone who wanted to characterize it to the new york times to give donald trump the pretext to fire

him. >> the "times" is defending their characterization is serious and not a off-hand remark or a joke. it doesn't matter how it was written. this is the anvil upon which the hammer of trump's base is going to destroy the justice department. just -- and i know i'm an intelligence guy but my job is to predict patterns and activities as they appear in history and this is just going to damage us. i don't know how badly things are going to -- are going to turn out here. we could get to monday and find rod rosenstein fired and then find hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets and this nation turned on its head on the basis of this one little piece of reporting. fascinating. >> and you know, paul, politico has a dire characterization saying that rosenstein's wire talk has become his noose to quote the semantic mousing around all but confirms that the "times" story, even a good

number of trump's enemies would concede he should -- he shouldn't have to harbor a coupe plat on a staff, when you strike at a king, you must kill him, his conduct has made -- has made him his own executioner. so let's say donald trump went ahead and did if a-- did it and said "the new york times" -- and he's obsessed with them and think he does believe them and believes what is in the paper, this is my pretext. he's out and then what happens. >> say we're look at a saturday massacre or sunday or monday. so typically the -- the supervision of the investigation would go to the next person in line. the associate attorney general, she was rachel breean and -- she's like i'm out in february. she quit. next in time is the solicitor general and that is noel francisco and super conservative and political and believes in a strong executive power.

>> and he's tied to florida governor rick scott. >> no. >> that is someone else. >> but this is an ideologue who believes in a strong president and would put restraints on mueller because his role is to supervision the investigation. >> could he file mueller. >> in theory, he could. and there is a scarier possibility this ad call -- the act called the vacancy act to allowing the president to put in place anyone confirmed by the senate. so in theory, the president could put ben carson -- there is a question about whether the executive act applies which -- when someone is fired as opposed to when they leave voluntarily. >> so then in theory you could have a situation where donald trump could orchestrate the end of the mueller probe. say he fires bob mueller, and then what happens? >> this is -- this is the moment we have to pause. because number one, we're talking about whether the

president gets to be the fox guarding the hen house into an investigation of whether his campaign including himself was engaged in colluding with a foreign government. so those are the stakes. i think malcolm is absolutely right in terms of the implications of this news story, particularly if it was about a -- literally a fight and attention between andrew mccabe and rod rosenstein. rod rosenstein who is demonstrated that he will be an independent arbiter in this case despite being a trump appointee. so what happens if mueller is gone is at the republicans get to drive the end of the investigation and that will create a significant public outcry and something rightfully so given the number of indictments that robert mueller has gotten, including cooperation from both the president's former personal attorney and the chairman of his political campaign. >> and so you have axios reporting, malcolm, that a former administration official is telling them it is a deep state he created. whether it existed before or not, it does now. be start, the leak is a tiny

indication of just how much special counsel robert mueller knows and has known for months and so one working theory of why the white house won't let go of brett kavanaugh is that of all of the people on that list that -- they're all conservative and likely to vote the same way on roe but kavanaugh expressed support for presidential power and who might vote to let donald trump do things like pardon himself, et cetera. >> they're absolutely right. but this deep state that they're worried about has one function as far as donald trump is concerned. and that is to make sure that justice does not apply to donald trump, his staff, or this white house. he is -- he is desperately -- desperately paddling below the water here to try to stay out of criminal indictment. look, no matter what you think about the mueller probe, this started as a hunt for spies. for people -- american citizens working with a foreign intelligence agency. and those people who lied to the

fbi have been indicted. and we have found there is an entire branch of government led by the president who is willing to destroy the system of government designed to protect us in order to cover for whatever crimes may lead up to him. this literally is a fundamental break down of the united states government. if he goes and takes that step, i don't know what will happen after that. civil war? but certainly the united states will come apart, period. done. >> and i wonder if it falls to because the most influential party on donald trump is fox news and so there is an argument within fox news about whether or not donald trump should take the step of getting rid of rod rosenstein. here is a little -- a bit of that debate. >> the president tonight should seriously consider whether rod rosenstein should remain on the job. >> i have a message for the president tonight. under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody.

and i have multiple sources confirming this. and more information coming. they are hoping and praying that the president does just that. the president needs to know it is all a set-up. >> is the nation turning its lonely eyes to sean hannity to hope he could prevent him from firing rod rosenstein. >> and they are. and the question is what if i do. what if i do fire rosenstein and get mueller fired, what will you do? and the answer is the republicans probably aren't going to do anything. >> do nothing. paul butler and mia wildly and malcolm nance. at the top of the hour, a letter to support kavanaugh's accuser dr. christine blasey ford. but up next the founder of the me-too movement. agent beekman was one step ahead of them. because he hid his customers' gold in a different box. and the bandits, well, they got rocks. we protected your money then and we're dedicated to helping protect it today.

like alerting you to certain card activity we find suspicious. if it's not your purchase, we'll help you resolve it. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

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. kayak compares hundreds of travel and airline sites so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. cheers! kayak. search one and done. ♪ ok here we go guys, you ready? hi! cinturones por favor. gracias. opportunity is everywhere. ♪ it's gonna be fine. it's a door... ♪

it's doing a lot of kicking down there. waiting to be opened. ♪ whatever your ambition... ♪ whatever your drive... ♪ whatever you're chasing... driver, are we almost there? we're gonna have a baby! ♪ daddy! daddy! opportunity is everywhere. ♪ all you have to do to find it is get out... here. ♪ wat t. rowe price, hundreds of our experts go beyond the numbers to examine investment opportunities firsthand. like a biotech firm that engineers a patient's own cells to fight cancer.

this is strategic investing. because your investments deserve the full story. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. we applaud your courage in coming forward for the public good, and we will be with you as you face the back labor. >> the inevitable backlash. >> the inevitable backlash. >> you are strong. >> and you are not alone. >> you are a survivor. >> a survivor firms and millions of us have your back. survivors of sexual assault

have come out in force to support doctor christine bla blasey-ford. in response, survivors launched #whyididn'treport. joining me now is the founder of the #metoo movement. thank you for being here. this is an incident depressing and inspiring at the same time, depressing in the sense of discarding this experience of this woman, but heartening that so many people have come forward to support. as the found , i'm interested i having your own take. >> i feel the same way. you wake up in the morning and get a news alert that this

arbitrary deadline, they have given her an extra day, and it feels disheartening, but then you have thousands of people responding on social media saying, we believe you and we support you, doctor kavanaugh, and it's a shame now for america. >> when the president of the united states said i have no doubt that the attack was as bad as she says, charge would have been immediately been filed by either her or loving parents, and then he asks to bring the filings forward. is that the way it works? that a 15-year-old girl who has been attempted to have been attacked, goes to law enforcement? >> that's not the way it works at all.

that's why the hashtag took off the way it did. millions hashtaged me too, if you compare that to the number of people who report sexual violence, you can see the deep disparity. there's so many reasons that people don't report. what we are seeing with this backlash is one of the reasons. >> is it people feel humiliated or wanting to move on, or worrying that people won't believe you and you will be attacked? >> it's all of those things. there's so many reasons. dr. ford was 15 years old, in a situation with multiple people in a room. i can imagine the shame she felt. so many of us feel that shame. i've been talking to survivors of sexual violence, all week, really all year, all the time. you hear so many stories, the fear they have, whether it's retaliation or being ostracized.

there's so many different reasons. what we know to be true is survivors don't often record right away, and this environment that's been created around dr. ford and this kavanaugh case, is really the reason why. >> what do you make of it when people say she doesn't remember who did it, she's just remembering the wrong person. >> impossible. let me tell you something. i'm a three-time survivor of sexual violence. although i can't give you it was this date and this time, i can give you every detail of every perpetrators's face, i can tell you what i smelled, what i felt, all those things. there's so many that say the same thing. she wouldn't have been in therapy about confusion around this. i'm sure she's quite clear, like so many of us are clear. >> do you think she should testify publicly? >> i think she should testify

publicly, but i think it should be done in her time. i think there should be an investigation. we have to follow the leadership of what the survivors need. this is why we are supporting her in the way we are. people are really discouraged by what they're saying, but what's happening, we called for a national walkout to show the senate judiciary committee in particular that we support her, we believe her and we stand up for her and she's not alone. >> to ron berg, founder of the #metoo movement, thank you for this. and thank you for being here on this morning. have a wonderful day. more "a.m." after the break. 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 ] where we're changing withs?e contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. carla is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause

serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. carla calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. at ally, we offer low-cost trades and high-yield savings. but if that's not enough, we offer innovative investing tools to prepare you for the future. looks like you hooked it. and if that's not enough, we'll help your kid prepare for the future. don't hook it kid. and if that's still not enough, we'll help your kid's kid prepare for the future. looks like he hooked it.

we'll do anything... takes after his grandad. seriously anything, to help you invest for the future. ally. do it right.

that's it for our show today. we'll be back tomorrow. alex witt is here with the latest. welcome back, my friend. i've been here marking up. there's so much to get to. good morning. it's high noon here in the east. 9:00 a.m. out west. two big story to discuss. first up, the deadline looming. the final negotiation of . >> her allegations are serious. they need to be heard. >> he was born for the u.s. supreme court. he was born for it, and it's going to happen. so