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. also, the president's tweets

about christine blasey-ford. what this could mean for the mid terms. plus new concerns about the president's next move following the bombshell report about the deputy attorney general. >> you couldn't engineer a story in a lab more likely to enrage the president. >> i believe this is going to eventually result in rosenstein's removal, sessions' removal, perhaps faster than we realized. we are beginning with the justice department pushing back, with the allegation that rosenstein one floated the idea of taping the president to expos the white house. it was shortly after the president fired comey. in the same meeting, he's also said to discuss recruiting cabinet members to invoke the thatth amendment.

the justice department is disputing part of this, saying that rosenstein did not even know john kelly at the time. he was the dolt 1/2 s secretary, and at the statement last night, rosenstein did not address the part about the 25th amendment, but says -- i never pursued or authorized recording the president, and any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. well, the president last night continuing his attacks on the justice department, though not mentioning "new york times" report or rosenstein. >> we have great people in the department of justice. we have great people. these are people i really believe, you take a poll, i've got to be at 95%. but we have some real bad ones. you have seen what happened at the fbi. they're all gone. they're all gone, but there's a lingering stench, and we're going to get rid of that, too. jennifer reuben, msnbc

contributor and major garrett, chief white house correspondent with cbs news. he's here to talk about his new book "mr. trump's wild ride." with a welcome to you both. major, given that you're in the white house every day, how shocked are you by this rosenstein news? we're book fits right into that. >> and on page had 2 -- trump breeds distemper. people close to him have vengeful agendas. does that not describe what we have seen play out? what did rod rosenstein mean? how seriously did he mean it? is it being used by those who have an agenda, either sympathetic to or hostile to the president to create some jarring moment that could be damaging not only to rosenstein but the president? all of the above are possible,

because the rivalries continue, the vengeance within the white house plays itself out, and it's very hard to make sense of it all. this rosenstein story arises out of something i gave an entire chapter to in my book, ten days in may much the first day of that ten days in may, james comey's firing. believe me, that was not the most shocking event its do you think this gives license for the president to fire rosenstein, does it add fuel to the already incredible fire here? if it does, what is the po templeal political fallout? does he even care? under the circumstances we >> those are all speculative questions. i'm not going to speculate on what his state of mind is or isn't. i have learn hout that shifts a lot. i also talk about how the president feels at times he's being set up, somewhat cagey,

somewhat explosive sense of what is happening around her, or if he's being given good advice. all of that is possible. >> no speculation here, but to your point about how the president feels he's being set up, does what we have learned from "new york times," does that add more fuel to that premise that he always seems to consistently feel? >> it could, but this question, rosenstein's fate, jeff sessions' fate, is for the a new topic. i'm a bit skeptical about it axis with the rod rosenstein story. jeff sessions would be the least likely person at that moment to get on the 25th amendment train, which is also something, in all my report fog this book, i never came across of any serious conversation. i'm not saying it didn't happen,

god knows i wasn't everywhere, but i didn't come across it. john kelly strikes me as also an unlikely ally in that. >> what do you think of this this. >> i think the interpretation we initially got from the "new york times" was this was some serious cabal that was forming, and that this was made as a sarcastic statement. rod rosenstein knows exactly how difficult it is to operate the 25th, much harder than impeaching the president, so it doesn't make sense that he would in all seriousness suggest this, and the real interpretation is that he was being sarcastic.

maybe we should talk to the fox news evening hosts, they are the ones he appears to license to, and they are divided. this is how this president operates, which i think major and others have captured so clearly. they do not operate in the world of reasoned, sensible advice. he talks to whoever he thinkless soothe his ego, whatever they say, regardless of how nutty it is, how unqualified they are to render that advice, he will follow them. so it is a very irrational situation. and i think us treating it as if these are rational people making rational decisions probably isn't the best way to look at it. i think if he goes forward, all hell will break loose, whether it's before or after the mid terms. understanding he is probably in the final days of a house majority that is friendly to him, from all we see and massive

polling, national polling, local polls, the how is going to flip. so in a manner of a few months, by next january, he will have a hostile democratic congress that has subpoena power, so i think he and others around him have to seriously consider whether they want to do this. it's not simply going to be events going forward that the house democrats will have the power to investigate, but events back into the past. so i think they should be wary of taking moves that will fuel friendly impeachment process. back to the book, major, you point this ute that all this happened in the wake of james comey's firing, about you this happened with andy mccabe and also lisa page in the room. how you does that play into the narrative? >> he's certainly suspicious of lisa page, and he has come to be more suspicious of andrew

mccabe. he is working on a book himself. there will be his side of the administration that will come out. initially, when this white house spoke about rod rosenstein and andrew mccabe, initially it heaped praise on both of them. it has gone against its own rhetoric in taking the agenda of the president, this newly hostile agenda through parts of the department of justice, even against its own public -- let me do this, alex, from page 28 -- the dichotomy between cannot be possible and it just happened defined trump's first year. it very well may define his second year as well. >> this is the name of the book "mr. trump's wild ride." i have read a lot of it, and we'll talk during the commercial break about that.

sfroo i want to get to the other blockbuster story. there's a development the judiciary committee is extending a deadline for brett kavanaugh's accuser whether she will testify. so just a couple hours from now for that decision. moments ago at a conservative gathering, vice president pence made no mention of these negotiations nor dr. ford, rather vowing that the judge will be the next supreme court justice. >> honestly, the way some democrat versus conducted themselves during this process is a disgrace. i believe that judge bre it. t kavanaugh will sob be justice kavanaugh and take his seat on the supreme court. and we have this breaking. this is an nbc news exclusive, a development in the confirmation process, as a top adviser to the senate judiciary committee has

resigned this morning following questions from nbc about a previous sexual harassment heidi, what can you tell husband garrett ventry. >> right, garrett ventry has resigned after inquiries by nbc news about his past employment history, specifically with the north carolina gop caucus and the general assembly there in 2017. he was employed by the majority leader john bell. we determined he was in fact fired based on allegations that he had embellished his re may and amid a sexual harassment allegation. he said, for instance, that he had been a full-time employees for the rubio campaign. john bell's office found out that was not true. he had merely been a volunteer,

and that there was also this sexual harassment allegation form it's important to say he strongly denies they allegations, and senator grassley's office says they were totally unaware of the allegations, but it's notable how quickly the committee moved amid this information surfacing. >> can you give me an indication of how critical this guy was in the process? under the circumstances there were three main gentlemen crafting the messaging after the kavanaugh message, and it's been such a powder keg over this issue. garrett ventry was out front in helping to craft that message on twitter, interacting with reporters. he even appeared on fox news and said the committee was tries to

create a safe space, and considered sending staff to california to try to delicately question the doctor. he did also speak about the possibility they would send this team up to california. so he, by all intents and purposes, even as an outside adviser working temporarily for the staff, he was specifically brought in to hand questioning around the not name, very unclear how he ended up in being such an important role, and amid such sensitive allegations. it just is part of the broader narrative of the committee struggling in this moment to find women who can step in and be the public face. they're looking right now for an outside counsel as you know to come in and do the questions

when dr. ford come forward. so not a helpful development. >> something she doesn't want, i should add. do you think it ultimately affects how senate reps question her, if they are the ones to do the questioning. all this drip drip drip. does it change the tenor of things if she gets to capitol hill. >> it's already been a very delicate issue the that's why there's so much focus, the fact that the committee has they ten or 11 republican men questioning her. i can't say this one development will be the game changer, but i think it certainly feeds into this feeling by committee staff, they do need some women in more public positions here as the time comes closer and closer that dr. ford might testify. i'm sure democrats will, of course, seize on this development. but it is just part of the broader narrative right now that the committee is facing in

trying to push back here, that it is an all-male staff and all-male committee now that's handling these allegations, which are, you know, very sensitive and also coming from dreamt for dr. ford, a woman. >> heidi przybyla, thank you. major, back to your book, you dissecond, translate.-speak. when the president tweeted the words "if the attack was as bad as she says" can you interpret what she means? do you know if the president himself met with kavanaugh? >> i don't know. in this particular crisis face, i don't know. i suspect not. i'm not going to try to

translate the president. i don't know what his impulse was. that tweet is in direct contrast to the more quiet, disciplined approach he took all week. i'm sure from counsel to just back away appeared let the process be worked out in the larger senate republican conference. i'm sure jennifer will back me up. right now what you are seeing is tremendous pressure applied on the process. mitch mcconnell knows if the process does not meet the standard by susan collins, also lisa murkowski, their votes are not guaranteed. so each delay and more time given to dr. ford is reflective of the internal pressure to keep a process that will keep all republicans on board. why every republican on board? because these -- at this accusation, has given license to

red state democrats not to vote. there's no slack in the line. republicans have got to link arms, and they are so far stayed linked arms over kavanaugh's fate. what's debated internally is a process to get to that moment. that's why the process keeps moving, because republicans have to move it to keep the ranks together. >> jennifer, you wrote a column that addresses this as well in "the washington post," that the president reminded women voters why they are so enraged, and their rage at republicans president can the president's strategy to go on the offensive and senate strategy to plow through this nomination, can that backfire? >> it already hat. we heard susan collins say yesterday she was appalled by the remarks. major is exactly right. chuck grassley has no leverage.

that's because you have heard from lisa murkowski, from jeff flake, that's already three, probably more, who have said we're not prepared to vote for this guy until we hear her. he can lay down all the deadlines, but he doesn't have any ability to enforce them. if they take the vote, think about this, they will lose, because those republicans will not be with them. i want to point out something else about the mr. ventry who was fired. he was on leave from crc, which is the right-leaning public relations firm that was involved in the controversy over the so-called investigation and the attempt to prove that the attacker of dr. ford was not in fact judge kavanaugh. remember during the week ed wheelen, who had been a respected conservative lawyer, had made this wild accusation it

was really someone else. he was working in concert with crc, the employer of mr. ventry. he was simply on leave to the senate judiciary committee. that in and of itself has become a controversy. was judge kavanaugh involved in this cockamamie scheme? did he know out of the blue to defame a classmate simply because they were so desperate to turn this around? that in and of itself has become a controversy that some people will want tube investigating. this is not going well with republicans, in part because they have 11 men and they have handled it poorly. they're now seeing their surefire slam dunk nominee begin to wilt before our eyes. >> such intelligent discussion and so many questions remain, but that i you both.

jennifer rubin, and major garrett, a hell of a book. thank you so much to both of you. one supporter is calling what's happening to her bullies. that's next. alright, i brought in new max protein

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb,

hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

you talk about central casting. he was born -- they were saying it ten years ago about him. he was born for the u.s. supreme court. he was born for it.

it's going to happen. it's going to happen. president trump speaking at a campaign rally in missouri last night, one against praising brett kavanaugh at a time of intention negotiation of lawmakers. joining me now alexis goldstein of holton-arms school. alex us, with a welcome to you, i can't help but notice the clock. we are a couple hours away from this very latest deadline. are you satisfied with this extension? >> the extension, the deadline, all of that is pretty arbitrary. the folks that signed the letter did so to say we supported dr. christine blass blasey ford.

>> what if dr. blasey ford gets questioned by -- >> we put this letter together because we're trying to support dr. placie ford. my understanding from the reporting i have seen, i'm not in touch with her in any way, but my understanding is she has asked that the senators be the ones who question her. i am disappointed to see that, but i'm following the reporting just like everyone else. >> i'm going to have you listen and react to what majority leader mcconnell said yesterday. >> you have watched the fight, you have watched the tactics, but here's what i want to tell you, in the very near future, judge kavanaugh will be on the united states supreme court.

so, my friends, keep the faith. don't get rattled by all of this. we're going to plowright through it and do our job. >> so i know that you were on capitol hill this weeks with senators gillibrand and hirona. you were say don't some es with dr. ford and all survivors. how do you want to see this play out next week? >> we want to see her respected, seeing them acquiesce to her wishes president she had nothing to game by coming forward, and a lot of members of the community who signed the letter, we want to stand with her. she's so brave, appeared she was so young. that's a shirt from when i was that young, when i was 15 years old. so we really want dr. blazie to know we stand sexual assault

knows no particular party, and we want her to recognize that that we have the back and not to mess with her and not mess with survivors. >> is there a bigger picture here, something you hope will come of this overall. is there a lesson you are fighting for? >> i think the main thing we hope for is that survivors be heard and also be believed. this is an issue that affects everyone. sexual assault knows no political party, no school. it's not just a prep cool problem, so i think it's important that everybody listens ko what she has to say. >> alexis goldstein, i'm sure she has heard you low and cloud. the story and why is this information coming out now? you wouldn't accept an incomplete job

from any one else. why accept it from an allergy pill? flonase relieves sneezing, itchy, watery eyes and a runny nose, plus nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. flonase.

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.

accuser of judge calf gnaws ticks down. they have just under it:30 p.m.

eastern to negotiate terms for her testimony this week. joining me is the new school for -- maya wiley, she's also an msnbc analyst. thank you for joining me. what do you think is the strategy of the legal team here? i think it's fundamentalally about protecting the interests of dr. ford appeared what could be very much a set upin terms of how her story would come out. look, this is a question of what happened but we don't have an independent investigation right now gathering facts. thee already been told what they want to do is something highly unusual. they want to pull in an outside attorney asking the questions. that is not normal procedure.

she has set some guidelines already. three of which we want to look at right now. that kavanaugh has to testified first, ford second, she will not be in the same room with the journal and it has to be a public hearing with limited cameras. give me your thoughts. >> i think the logic is ensure she can get her story out in a way that feeling safe. there's lots of indication that she has suffered trauma from whatever happened. she went and talked to her therapist about this in to 12, in counseling with her husband. mentioned it to her husband in 2012, long before brett kavanaugh was nominated for the supreme court. there clearly is trauma here for her. the idea she would want to not have to testify with judge kavanaugh in the room makes

complete sense. limited cameras also makes sense. here is a woman who's literally had to leave her home and flee death threats. she wants to be protected. i think it's obviously understandable that the senate wants to give brett kavanaugh an opportunity to respond. they could have her testify first, have him toffee first, then she could testify, he could come back. there's many different ways to handle this. the primary way, though, should be an fbi investigation. >> to your point there could be outside counsel, that's something being suggested. why do you think she wants to be queried by the senators themselves this. >> first of all, that's the process. it's the senate that haz to give advice and counsel to the president on his nomination. it's the senate that has to vote, and it's the senate that is the audience. what the senate is trying to do here, particularly the reps who

opt ecly will look very bad. they don't want to outright call her a liar. it's a difficult line they're going to walk between suggesting she may not be telling the truth, but don't want to appear, quite frankly, to be insensitive to the violence that women suffer every day. that's a very -- that's a hard line for them to walk. i think she's right to say it. but this is the process, if we're going to do this, we should do this according to the book. you shouldn't put me in a situation where i'm put in trial, where all i'm trying to do is provide information that should be useful to the senate on whether or not judge kavanaugh gets a job promotion. fundamentally that's what we're looking at here. the state itself has no statute of limitations for rape, do you think it's plausible that criminal charges could be filed against brett kavanaugh?

>> it's certainly plausible. you wouldn't have to wait for completion of this process. in fact, judge kavanaugh has already put a public record that he didn't do it, so it would be hard for him to obviously change his story at this point, but i think there's no question -- let's be clear about one thing. i believe the maryland statute has no statute of limitations for felony attempted assault. so it would be up to prosecutors in the state of maryland to say how they interpret that and whether the facts as they hear the allegations in this case would rise to the level of felony. that's a legal determination that prosecutors would make, and i wouldn't make that for them. there's no question that brett kavanaugh should be worried about whether or not there's exposure for him. one has to ask the question why we don't have an fbi investigation here. because an fbi investigation, this is the normal process, would be to reopen the background check. there's also no questions that

there's peril for judge kavanaugh, because that could become evidence in another case. i want you make a very good point whether all of this would rise to a felony charge versus a misdemeanor or the like. thank you very much. very good to speak with you. >> thank you. the president promises to get rid of a lingering stemplg at the justice department, however after a shocking report about rod rosenstein, and what that might mean, next. 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. 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. ♪ 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. ♪

growing questions in the aftermath of the bombshell "new york times" argue that rosenstein floated secretly recording president trump and discussed invoking the thatth amendment. rosenstein is pushing back in a statement -- any suggestion that i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false. let's britain in cert leena maxwell, joe watkins, former, appeared rick tyler, also an msnbc political analyst. we'll talk about you about use you are former boss in the next seg metropolitan, rick, but first the department of justice officials telling msnbc news that it was just a joe. how seriously should this be taken? >> i don't know. it's questionable. i'm reluctant to doubt the

veracity of the "new york times" story. however, rod rosenstein, why would he even be talking about the 25th amendment. that's something that has to do with an incapacitated president. because all the cabinet members and the vice president would have to agree. so it doesn't seem plausible, but i do think he does have a win here. i don't think he will fire rosenstein. >> and then trump can use this again him to fulfill his dialogue or his narrative that this is all a great witch-hunt. >> how seriously do you think this should be taken? do you buy the idea. we have to keep in mind when this allegedly happened. this was in may within the ten days of fires -- the doj was in

shock. >> absolutely. i do think in the context of not only the time, but also the process through which you would go about getting a wire or invoking the 25th amendment, both those things are complicated, difficult, and require multiple steps and approvals. knowing all of that , and i think we have to nij moment be very vigilant. this is clearly setting up the pretext through which donald trump is eventually fire rod rosenstein, just as rod rosenstein 'sham memo this is the same thing, except that rod rosenstein as oppose to do james comey is on the firing line, so to speak. >> are you thinking a trump support ore leaked the story? >> i don't know who leaked the story. obviously "new york times" has

established they have been working on it for many months, but i think the framing of their particular story and the reporting in it, it differs from nbc news and "the washington post," which has the sort from inside the room as opposed to secondary sources and thirdhand sources that are in "new york times" that it was a sarcastic remark. knowing the process through which you would even get a wire or invoke -- one as experted as rod rosenstein knows it's difficult. >> so, joe, there were some concerns immediately after this report came out that rosenstein could be out of a job by the morning, and rick was addressing where he thinking it will go, but president trump asked advisers friday if he should fire rosenstein, and some of those sought to sway him not to make any decision friday night. how would you advise the white house to respond to this? >> i would advise him not to fire rosenstein. there are going to be reports in

newspapers about things people said, but at the end of the day serum from my standpoint i want to be the mueller investigation go on unimpeded. if rosenstein is fired, it would have implication on the mueller investigation potentially. i would want to see rosenstein remain where he is. he's already offered a strong rebuttal to the argument. whether that stands the test of time is irrelevant. i think for the sake of the mueller investigation, rosenstein needs to stay where he is its there are some voices that are saying the story is a set setup, aiming the president to do just that. do you think that's possible? if it is, who would stand to gain? >> i don't know. that's a great conspiracy theory, and i -- okay, we can indulge in those, but i don't know that it's a conspiracy. i would hate to think that this came from within the fbi or justice, because leaking to the press from that organization is problematic.

i tend to think it came from more of a political source or someone who was previously -- or is no longer associated with the fbi or justice, but you know, setting it up to fire -- they always lead down the rabbit holes. >> what do you think, zeismt erlina? >> i think it has legs in the sense that "new york times" headline really was alarming until you read the text and realized some of the sourcing was second and thirdhand, so i think this is basically a hot potato, appeared the president is absolutely going to take it as evidence that rod rosenstein is somehow biased in this investigation, because he talked about the 25th amendment? he sarcastically talked about wearing a wire, but the president's motives are not pure here. he is the person under

investigation, the family is also under investigation, because we have new reporting out that michael cohen is speaking not only to bob mueller about the foundation and also the trump family business, but he's also speaking to the southern district about those things. so i think that even if donald trump goes forward and fires rod rosenstein, there are other parts of the investigation that mueller has smartly handed off to other parts of the justice department, and so donald trump may think, you know, this articles giving him the cover he needs to get rid of the investigation, but he's going to find out that's not possible. >> joe, quickly to you. a congressman was one of those pushing articles of impeachment back in july, so what are the chances that either of these efforts gain traction? >> i hope there's no pressure on rosenstein to testify about whether or not he wanted to wear a wire or not. i think that's just taken too far. i think the business of

government is far too valuable to get muddled in that kind of an action. certainly again, the implications for the mueller investigation, what i care most about, i think most of us in america, they want to hear what robert mueller has found, we want to see a conclusion to the investigation that tells us what happened. i don't want to see anything that in any way stops that, impedes that. okay. you guys stay right where you are. i'm not quite done with you. we have an sxlos i have been debate, the details on a race that many polls shows is a toss-up in texas. also a female lawyer who clerked for judge bret could you have gnaw with her reaction of the allegations and how much of his past should be relevant in this process.

the contest in texas is heating up. the two sparred over guns, anthem protests, health care and of course immigration. >> we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. congressman o'rourke over and

over again, he seems to be focused on fighting for illegal. >> the alternative is to deposit 11 million people. >> meanwhile, the cook report has upgales from leans rep now to toss-up. so, rick, i said i was going to ask you about this. you certainly know the former spokesman for senator cruz' campaign, do you think that beto o'rourke has a chance for this? >> yes, he has a shot of winning this race. the race is trending towards beto since its inception. i've said for weeks it could be won by beto. it's in the realm of possibility.

>> republicans continue to aliensate african americans and hispani hispanics. you don't have to be a math me 'tis to figure out the future. >> is it all about immigration, rick? >> i don't think it's all about immigration, but there's certainly a debate, and i think both sides are carrying their points about it. ted cruz believes he needs to build and wall, and beto o'rourke has another point of view. normally in texas the democrat wouldn't be expected to full throatedly embrace his point of view, which the right would call an amnesty position, but that's earned him a lot of credit. that's why it's a close race, bought immigration debate. there's no politicians coming up with really sensible, rational

immigration reform. we need reform on immigration. we are a country of immigrants. we should make sure there's a process to do that. right now that's not possible, and the debate is about how we do it >> joe, looking at the polls, very did i numbers coming out this week in the field there. one of the polls shows cruz leading by -- you know what it brings back is the memory of the polls in 2016. how are you making sense of these numbers. >> what it means is this race is a toss-up. it's much closer than any poll is telling you, and what really matters is turn out, on one side of the aisle or the other, and certainly for african-american voters, you have to be listening to what they have to say about the police shootings. a black man in dallas was murdered in his own apartment by a dallas police officers. the response to that is critical

if you are a candidates running for the senate in the year to 18 in texas. how you respond is critical. so black voters i think will be energized. >> you know zerlina, it's only recently that they think a democrat is within reach for texas. what do you think is driving the shift? >> to joe's point, i think the recent shooting of an unarmed black man in his own home by a police officer is an issue that will encourage black voters in texas who may not have even cared about a midterm election, because texas is such a red state historically, will care and go out to support beto, who has authentic talking about the issue, whether senator cruz literally said the victim found himself murdered.

that's a horrific way to talk about the tragedy. and so severessentially what yoe is a change in the electorate, that's what democrats are trying to do, make it more people of color and younger millennial voters, so that the outcome is different. that's what barack obama did so successfully in to 08. so i think beto is one of those politicians who says the unpopular thing, because it's actually what he believes, and we'll see how it turns out, but i think he's teaching -- don't try to be rep, be authentically use, that is going to resonate with voters. all right. team saturday, good to see you guys. thank you so much. waiting and watching. the deadline for christine

placie making up his mind. that's about 90 minutes away. we'll have the latest word on that, next. - [narrator] the typical vacuum head has its limitations,

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. and fearlessly devours piles. 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.

if you're waiting patiently for a liver transplant, it could cost you your life. it's time to get out of line with upmc. at upmc, living-donor transplants put you first. so you don't die waiting. upmc does more living-donor liver transplants than any other center in the nation. find out more and get out of line today. what if you had fewer headaches and migraines a month? botox® prevents headaches and migraines before they even start. botox® is for adults with chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® injections take about 15 mins. in your doctor's office and are covered by most insurance.