that does it for me. you can join me again tomorrow at 2:00 and 3:00 eastern time. the news continues, and there is plenty of it right now with my friend and colleague louie richard. it is a saturday. hello everyone i'm richard lui at msnbc headquarters in new york city. thanks for being with us. the clock starts 2:30, and brett kavanaugh's accuser agrees to testify. now, they are still going back and forth on some big details potentially. the negotiations over christine blasey ford's testimony. plus, rod rosenstein has

shot down a "the new york times" report that he discussed recording the president and invoking the 25th amendment, but is it enough to save his job? we have great people in the department of justice. there's a lingering stench, and we're going to get rid of that, too. and why politics is really thicker than blood for an arizona congressman seeking re-election. >> the congressman isn't doing anything to help rural america. >> paul's absolutely not working for his district. >> paul gosar is my brother, and i endorse dr. grill. just in to us here the last couple of hours, the woman accusing supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh of sexual misconduct has now agreed to testify next week before the senate judiciary committee, but at this hour, attorneys for christine blasey ford want more time to finalize the details. they requested to talk this

afternoon with senate judiciary staff to do just that. the white house has responded to the latest development in a statement reading this seems like another delay tactic. we continue to see more efforts to change and renegotiate fair terms and blowing past deadlines. this comes after senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley granted ford an extension to decide if and how she will testify before senators. president trump doubts ford's allegation against kavanaugh in a series of tweets reading in part, if the attack on dr. ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed. why didn't someone call the fbi 36 years ago? . last night the president ramped up his support for kavanaugh as well and called on voters to fight for his supreme court nominee. >> he was born for the u.s. supreme court. he was born for it. and it's going to happen. it's going to happen. we have to fight for him, not worry about the other side.

>> let's bring in chief washington reporter for the boston herald, kimberly atkins, white house correspondent for the daily beast, and new york magazine business columnist josh bare r b barrow. you've read the responses that have come from the lawyers for ford here, and what we're understanding is, yeah, she's agreed but there's a lot of details in terms of what will that meeting be like? >> i don't think she really has agreed. that's not how i read this letter. it starts by saying we agree to testify, but it says two key things. it says that she has agreed to provide firsthand -- to provide firsthand evidence or to provide her firsthand account, which is to say that doesn't necessarily mean oral testimony in an open session in washington, d.c. you know, they have offered that they can come to her and interview her in california. that could con receidb this is statement she's going to appear in washington and testify.

at the end it says they still have to work out details. you haven't really agreed to do it if you still are not to terms on key details like whether the hearing will be on wednesday or thursday. they've been holding out for the idea that senators ought to call other witnesses including mark judge to testify. she's willing to testify under certain conditions. they're not the conditions that the republican majority on the committee has offered her. i don't think we can look at this and say she's agreed. they have not come to terms yet. >> still more questions. let's get to that because i think josh brings up a good point here, kimberly. the first sentence does read dr. ford accepts the committee's request to provide her firsthand knowledge of brett kavanaugh's sexual misconduct next week. that is the way it reads. >> it is. i mean, it's certainly an indication that she wants to cooperate against the narrative being pushed by the opposite side that this is part of a democratic scheme to stall this nomination, but yes, there are very significant things that have not yet been agreed upon,

right down to whether or not it will be a televised open session, which day it will happen, who will testify first, whether it will be dr. ford or judge kavanaugh, whether they be in the same room at the same time. we really don't know what the ultimate form of this testimony will come in, but it's clear that this is moving forward to what i think ultimately will have to be some sort of public airing of both sides in this matter. >> locklynn, have we taken a step back or just stalled based on what was released today? >> we're really in the same place we were last week with dr. ford saying yes, i want to testify, and here are my conditions, and chairman grassley saying i'm sorry those conditions simply don't meet our standards for this sort of hearing. the real sticking points are going to be not necessarily the day that it's on, speaking to sources on the committee and folks sort of in the pro-kavanaugh camp, that's a

point they might be willing to cede on if dr. ford's team is willing to give ground on things like allowing judge kavanaugh to testify after she does. there's an idea that he needs to be able to directly respond to the allegations that she makes, and also whether the republicans on the committee can bring in an outside counsel to question dr. ford rather than having the committee members themselves question her. of course, all of the republicans on the judiciary committee are men. that's seen as potentially very poor optics, if this is an open, televised hearing. they would like to bring in a woman, an outside attorney most likely to do some of this questioning, and that's something that dr. ford's attorneys have pushed back on and something republicans are really going to stick to their guns on. >> josh help me out on this. how far apart are they? i'm going to read some of the words. it says they are fundamentally inconsistent, at least the proposal that came from the judiciary committee staff, fundamentally inconsistent with the committee's promise of a

fair, impartial investigation into her allegations. we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process. the language seems like they are pretty far apart? >> yeah, and they've both been litigating this in the press, both in each instance trying to put pressure on each side saying publicly, here's our offer. why won't they agree to this. there's the issue of the day, that seems like something you ought to be able to come to terms on. two of the big things is that question of who's going to do the questioning. you've had people, backers of dr. ford say different things at different times. now it's clear that they want the senators to testify. there have been previously concerns about how rough that questioning got in the anita hill hearings, but it's their clear position that they only want the senators conducting the questioning, and you have this issue that there are other witnesses who may have important information. i think there are reasons republicans may be very resistant to do that, particularly mark judge, he could conceivably assert a fifth

amendment right not it testify. there is no statute of limitations in maryland for felony sex allegations. it could give him some conceivable criminal exposure. i'm not saying i would expect there would be a prosecution of a case this old. the mere th-- what a mess that would be for republicans. >> you're saying that'sless likely, right? >> i think that's why republicans are not going to be willing to agree at this point. on the other hand if she testifies and she and kavanaugh talk at length about what happened that day 35 years ago it might seem more necessary than ever to hear from him. i think if this hearing goes forward it's likely they won't be able to move on and vote. there will be pressure to have additional hearings, more fact finding, more witnesses and that would put a lot of pressure on the kavanaugh nomination. it would become clear it was going to take a lot of time to get the senate to a place they were ready to vote on him. >> let's go to you kimberly. the -- that is something that sits strongly in a lot of

historians' minds when they look back not too long ago, and the composition of the republican members of the senate judiciary committee, and we have a picture of that, and then you take a look at also the composition of the democrats on this committee, and you see very different fabrics, shall we say of those who might be asking. of note, grassley and i believe hatch were also on the senate judiciary committee back in the day when anita hill was giving testimony. you can see the faces here on the right, you see the republicans. on the left you see the democrats. >> right, and speaking from a political standpoint, that anita hill testimony preceded what we saw in 1992, which was called the year of the woman when women were elected to office in historic numbers, including senator dianne feinstein who is now the top republican on the senate judiciary committee. that's clearly a consideration heading into these midterms about what those optics are. i think you're also seeing just how difficult it is, especially

in a post-filibuster senate, to vet something like an allegation of sexual misconduct in a political institution like the senate where it all descends to politics, what we've been seeing as political posturing on both sides in a way that makes it very difficult to get to the facts of actually what happened. at the end of the day, it will be a judgment call as to who do you believe is more credible, judge kavanaugh or dr. ford and all of the political messaging that has preceded whatever we're going to see in terms of a hearing has clouded all of that. i think that's something that history is going to judge down the line. >> as we're looking at modern history, within the last 24 hours, there's been a lot to report on. one is the president now part of the discussion here on dr. ford and a lot of those on the right who may be advising him potentially suggesting don't get in the mid of this -- middle of this debate going on, but the

president has dipped in now. >> really, what it comes down to politically is three people, susan collins, lisa murkowski and jeff flake, the potential republican swing votes if this nomination does go to the floor. >> is corker part of the conversation? >> he may be. i think these are the three that chairman grassley has been focusing on. he's been faced with the challenge of making sure that those three senators in particular consider this process to be fair, while at the same time, you know, we've seen susan collins, especially voice concerns about it being drawn out and being delayed and, you know, potential stalling tactics, things along those lines. that's sort of the needle that chairman grassley is having to tletd, a thread, and these conditions he's put forward. he's been in frequent consultation with these three senators to make sure they feel he's being fair while proving the process along. we're going to see what comes out of these negotiations, but that's what's in senator grassley's mind now is

presenting this sort of veneer of thoroughness while still moving the nomination along at a reasonable clip. again, the breaking news at the top of this hour, a statement coming in from the lawyers from dr. ford in question, in terms of what will happen next. as josh barrow and the rest of our panel have noted so well that they have agreed to firsthand knowledge and to provide that reflection coming from dr. ford, but no specificity necessarily that she will sit in front of the committee. still jury's out on that. kimberly atkins, josh barrow, thank you all three, great way to start. senate judiciary showdown, will christine ford's senate judiciary testimony be a flashback of anita hill's 1991 hearing? our panel discusses that.

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.

misogynist so what's next? dr. christine blasey ford has confirmed she will provide firsthand knowledge to the senate judiciary committee next week. while we don't know the details, her lawyer confirms she will detail an account of alleged sexual misconduct involving supreme court pick judge brett kavanaugh. her agreement to testify comes after a week of conspiracy theories, attack tweets and death threats surrounding the controversy. can we expect even more theatrics as things move forward? joining us now codirector of documented, former deputy assistant attorney general and former chief counsel for supreme

court nominations lisa graves, and also ceo and president of the national women's law center, fatima voss graves. thank you both for being here. you've seen the composition of those who sit on the senate judiciary committee and the ranking republicans do want to have representation to potentially ask questions of dr. ford. on the left you can see the democrats on the same panel, and you can see that there are four women as part of the senators that are representing the democrats on the senate judiciary committee. very different composition here. lisa, should they be allowed to pick a lawyer to ask questions for the senate judiciary committee? >> i think it's cowardly for those republicans to try to hide behind a woman. it's a cynical, manipulatetive attempt to change the optics of the reality of that committee, which is the republicans have chosen to put only men on that

senate judiciary committee, and that committee has other issues. there's recent revelations about a grassley staffer who had a sexual harassment charge against him he's denied and some involvement of a pr firm that's been involved in the dirty tricks this past week we've seen with kavanaugh's friend ed wh whalen. they have a duty to ask the questions in their own name and their own voices and have the american people see that. i was the chief counsel for nominations from 2002 through the beginning of of 2005, so i didn't work on the supreme court but i worked extensively on brett kavanaugh's nomination when he was nominated for the d.c. circuit. >> so you're familiar with him and his case at this moment. >> yes. >> should they be allowed to have representation to ask questions of dr. ford? >> you know, they definitely have an optics problem and a

representation problem, but that is not the solution. surely there are solutions going forward for them to have more diversity on the judiciary committee, but really what dr. blasey ford is asking is to be treated fairly, to have a process that's impartial and to really feel safe, and there are other solutions to that. they could have done an fbi investigation, and they have rejected that. they can demonstrate it by actually having witnesses there. they can demonstrate that they plan to treat her fairly and they plan to be impartial by cutting out all of the bullying tactics they have been using the last few days. you don't need a woman in there to actually ensure that she is being treated fairly and impartially. that's up to them to do that. >> i want to play a little -- you heard the intersection, both of you, on the way in to our discussion here, and that was, you know, remembrances of what happened with anita hill, and i mentioned earlier there are members of the current senate

judiciary committee that were also on this senate judiciary committee back in the time with anita hill. i'll play a little bit of that. this is of senator hatch and senator grassley then and now, then i want to get both of your reflections after. >> judge, there are a lot of things that just don't make sense to me in anita hill's testimony. >> it bothers me because it just doesn't square with what i think is something that doesn't square with what i think is common experience and just basic sense, common sense. >> do you think that any of these claims are legitimate? >> no, i don't. i think this woman, whoever she is, is mixed up. >> if any of our senate employees had a complaint of sex harassment, that individual would not have the same remedy that you had available to you, professor hill, when you were an employee. >> it just doesn't make sense

that she simply told her friends or acquaintances that she was being harassed at work and that's it. that's it. >> fatima, you know, we've heard the term the -- when you look back at those pieces of video and those green tables, it certainly probably brings back a lot. what is your reflection? >> you know, the way anita hill was treated in 1991 still hangs over not only the senate and the judiciary committee, but it really has been a stain and an apartment on our country, so they had a chance to actually get it right, but what they have done this week has shown that they are not heading in that direction. you heard senator hatch talk about how maybe she was mixed up. yesterday you had trump's terrible, terrible tweets asking why she didn't report when she was 15 years old. so you know she's going to go into a situation with the intent to attack her credibility, paint her as either crazy or someone

who is obsessed with brett kavanaugh. it is terrible, and i am grateful for her for continuing to say that she is coming forward, for showing up next week, and for doing it. it matters not just to her, all survivors are watching how she is treated in this moment, and women generally are watching. >> lisa, build on what fatima said there. those who would be critical of the language and tone used then and now would say, oh, that's part of male privilege. folks may not know they're doing that? >> well, richard i think that's right but i think in some ways it's deeper than that. i think it's clear that senator grassley and hatch are out of touch. i think senator grassley was first elected to public office when eisenhower was president. they haven't learned the lessons from anita hill, and they're actually making things worse by insisting on having no outside witnesses to support dr. ford. she's being treated worse than anita hill was being treated by

not calling the relevant witnesses, all of them there including mark judge. she's being treated worse than anita hill by these men and by not allowing there to be a background investigation by the fbi, which would happen as a matter of course. begins she's being treated worse than anita hill by these men, and quite frankly, the american people expect more, and the american people deserve more, and fairness deserves more. this is not supposed to be a kangaroo court. had is supposed to be the senate judiciary committee for the united states of america, and it's supposed to be a hearing on not whether brett kavanaugh should be given the privilege of a lifetime seat on our supreme court for the next 20 or 30 years. i think this is a credible and serious allegation, and unfortunately the senate judiciary committee leadership has tried to make this unfair in almost every possible way. i think she's brave for agreeing to testify. i look forward to her testimony and for the truth being heard. >> lisa graves and fatima goss graves, thank you both for talking about this topic today.

>> thanks. a new bomb shell report puts deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in the cross hairs of president trump and maybe the final straw leading to his exit from the justice department. how do you top mac & cheese? start with 100% clean ingredients. like vermont white cheddar.

then... add bacon, bbq chicken, or baja blend. catering and delivery now available. panera. food as it should be.

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. 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.

concerns mounting over whether this could be the end of the line for deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. a new report from "the new york times" alleges that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein once floated the idea of secretly recording president trump to expose chaos in the white house. "the times" reporting that it happened in may of 2017, that was during a meeting with other doj officials. soon after president trump fired former fbi director james comey. in that very same meeting, rosenstein is said to have discussed recruiting cabinet members including his own boss attorney general jeff sessions and john kelly to invoke the 25th amendment, but the doj is pushing back now on parts of that report saying rosenstein did not even know john kelly, who was dhs secretary at that time. rosenstein responded to the report last night saying i never pursued or authorized recording the president, and any suggestion this i have ever advocated for the removal of the president is absolutely false.

two justice department officials tell nbc news rosenstein was being sarcastic about being wired, but a person in the room for one of those meetings tells nbc he was serious. today house freedom caucus chairman mark meadows demanded to hear more from rosenstein on the matter. take a listen. >> the time is now that we need to hold those at doj and fbi accountable. it's halftime, and it is time that we hold them accountable. >> i think rod needs to come before congress this week and explain under oath what exactly he said and what he didn't say. >> joining us now former u.s. attorney professor at the university of alabama school of law joyce vance and vice president for the national security program for third way, mika alwang. >> where do you think right now rosenstein sits? are we basically, if you will, on the you're fired wait list at the moment?

>> i think deputy attorney general rosenstein has probably been on the you're fired waiting list ever since he appointed bob mueller as the special counsel for the russia investigation. so nothing new there. his fortunes have gone up and down over time. it would certainly be very damaging potentially very dangerous, for the president to fire him because it could possibly have some sort of implication for the obstruction case we're told is being investigated against the president, but i would say that the deputy attorney general's fortunes are pretty much the same that they've been throughout this entire time period. >> and we did hear from the president last night when he was on the campaign trail in missouri, and he did make a statement saying that we have great people in the department of justice. we have great people and then he goes on to be cautionary about those who may not be great people, and what is your thought

here? is this a setup to justify potentially the president making a move? this on -- again, we've seen the reporting over the last month or so aiming towards rosenstein. could this be the setup to justify a firing of rosenstein? >> it's very clear the people are playing a lot of palace intrigue peer with placing the story and trying to get rosenstein in the president's bad graces. when sean hannity says to the president don't fire rosenstein, you have to wonder what's happening. there's been a lot of back and forth and people trying to figure out what's the best way, people inside the white house trying to figure out what's the best way to try ask shut down this investigation, which would obviously be an obstruction of justice, but i think there's some real serious questions about what are the motivations for the people who are putting this story out here at this moment. >> so, joyce, what is next? are we going to see another leak? are we going to see another article come out, then also potentially adding to the quiver

that the may be trying to build so that he can justify a remixing, if you will, at the department of justice? because potentially this could be now sessions who's in the cross-hairs. >> we have seen sessions in the president's cross-hairs repeatedly and with increasing intensity over the last few days. there are reports ranging from the president's desire to do away with his attorney general now, to his desire to wait until after the midterm election, and also people who believe it will be impossible or at least very difficult to confirm a new attorney general and that sessions is safe where he sits. but the president has really had this sort of drum beat of anxiety over the leadership at the justice department. they appear to have been too independent for his taste, and it's a real balancing act that the white house will have to engage in because any effort to act against the independence of the justice department does have

implications for the mueller investigation and potentially if there are proceedings on the hill after the midterm electi s elections. >> i want to read some of "the new york times" reporting that is additive to more developments and more stories coming in. this is about andrew mccabe. drafted memos to memorialize significant discussions he had with high level officials and preserve them so he would have an accurate contemporaneous record of those discussions. when he was interviewed by the special counsel more than a year ago, he gave all of his memos classified and unclassified to the special counsel's office. a set of those memos remained at the fbi at the time of his departure in late 2018. so mika, it could be that we will see more of these memos being leaked, and the question might be who's doing it? that's right, and i think there are many places from which it can leek and you see some of these members of congress trying to get more of the fbi's internal deliberations out there

in the world to try and discredit them, to try and suggest that they are somehow biased against the president. what you see is at every turn both in the white house and the justice department, the president being very uncomfortable with anyone who is sticking through to rule of law. >> you know, when we move on, stay on this topic of the russia investigation, joyce, i want to move into something that happened this week and president trump backing off on pushing for the release of certain documents that he initially wanted to be released, and the question might be who was the fail-safe there? what did you learn from how that all came to pass, come to pass in this past week? >> looks like someone inside of the justice department or the intelligence community was very effective at doing a last minute save here. the president had decided to declassify an entire -- of documents that people at doj had

determined contained information that had to be redacted in order to protect the national security. they were apparently successful in convincing the president that releasing those materials would be dangerous, so at least for now those materials are protected, although the president has made clear that he reserves the right to come back and release them in the future. >> you know, and part of that, and president trump had also -- at least he noted this in an interview with the hill, which you're familiar with, that he had gotten the idea to release the documents from news personalities and this is certainly not the only time we've just were talking about how another news suggesting do not fire rosenstein, also from the stame network, by the way. >> it's really interesting that the president takes direction more strongly from people that he sees on television than people he has hired as his

advisers who have strong backgrounds in legal analysis. when he sees them on the screen, he reacts very differently. >> all right, thank you both. great conversation. both have a great weekend. >> thank you. now to an nbc news exclusive with rob goldstone, the man who helped to organize the infamous june 2016 trump tower meeting between donald trump junior and a russian lawyer. he offered don junior information that would increment hillary and dealings with russia. he was referring of course to hillary clinton. goldstone sat down with our cynthia mcfadden for a wide-ranging interview, and among the topics, how he sees that offer now. >> so do you agree with national security officials, both prior and current, who believe that this meeting was a probe set up by the russian government of the trump campaign to see whether they'd be willing to do business

with them? >> i've always looked at it in a slightly different way. i've always looked at it as a bait-and-switch. >> and possibly a crime? >> and possibly a crime. >> but it was a dirty offer? >> yes. >> it was a dirty offer that they accepted? >> yes, that is true. that didn't materialize, but yes, it's the willingness to accept it. >> and you can watch more of cynthia mcfadden's exclusive interview with rob goldstone monday morning on "today". still ahead, family feud, except this episode may not play out so well for an arizona congressman seeking to be reelected. you've got to see the shocking message his brothers and his sisters have all come together to do for voters in his district. -computer, order pizza.

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

until i held her. managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar. tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients.

don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans.

my name is tim gosar. >> david gosar. >> grace gosar. >> paul gosar is my brother, and i endorse dr. brill. >> wholeheartedly endorse dr. david brill for congress. >> that was the names there, that is a political ad for arizona congressional candidate dr. david brill and endorsing him are the brothers and sisters of his opponent, republican congressman paul gosar. his views on immigration, health care, and the environment have alienated some members of his family as you saw there. several speaking out against him in this attack ad. >> paul's absolutely not working

for his district. >> if they care about health care, if they care about their children's health care, they would hold him to account. >> if he actually cared about people in rural arizona, i bet he'd be fighting for social security, for better access to health care f. >> he's not listening to you, and he doesn't have your interests at heart. >> congressman gosar released a statement that reads in part here, those of my siblings who chose to film ads against me are all liberal democrats who hate president trump. you can't pick your family. we all have crazy aunts and relatives, et cetera, and my family is no different. gosar also noted that none of his siblings live in arizona and are therefore not in sync with what his constituents want. it's not the first time the gosar siblings have publicly disagreed with their brother. in a letter to the editor published in a local arizona paper a year ago as well. david gosar has not -- his

challenger dr. david brill, former head of primary care at the veteran's administration will likely face an uphill battle against gosar. the district is considered solidly republican. and now to a seat that is usually considered safely republican as well, senator ted cruz has had a tight race on his hands though. cruz is fighting off an aggressive challenger from his democratic challenger congressman beto o'rourke. the two going head to head in a debate just last night sparring on issues ranging from guns to immigration. take a listen. >> congressman o'rourke's positions are out of step with the people of texas. >> only one of us has been to each county in texas and would have an idea of what texas values and interests are. >> and that's what congressman o'rourke wants to see the supreme court doing, writing the second amendment out of the bill of rights. >> that's not true.

>> and we are moving on here -- >> how so? >> of course i support the second amendment. >> in what way, in what respect and name one judge you've ever supported who would actually -- >> you may not understand how the house and the senate work, but it's your job in the senate to decide if you're going to support or not support a -- >> did you endorse hillary clinton? did you endorse hillary clinton? >> that has nothing to do with -- >> hillary promised every justice she would appoint -- >> i fully support the second amendment. >> and turning people against the police i think is profoundly -- >> this is why people don't like washington, d.c. you just said something i did not say and attributed it to me. >> what did you not say? >> a little bit of fire works there. we'll have more from their matchup in our next hour. stick around for that. >> up next, how the kavanaugh controversy is reigniting republicans and democrats ahead of the midterms. hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops.

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

girls are not in school because of economic issues and they have to work. at the malala fund, we help girls stay in school. the malala fund invests in education champions who work in the community and pave the way so that girls can actually go to school. to have our financial partner guiding us is very important. the fact that citi is in countries where girls are vulnerable ensures that we're able to get funds to the people that we're working with. when girls go to school, we're going to maximize their talents. we could have a solution for climate change in that girl. that girl could be the next nobel peace prize winner. ♪

welcome back, the sexual misconduct allegation against president trump -- or rather president trump's supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh is sparking plenty of reaction among voters ahead of the midterms. in missouri last night the crowd broke out in kavanaugh chants at

a trump campaign rally for senate candidate josh hawley. take a listen. >> the president said he was going to put pro-constitution judges on the bench, and he has. he has. judg judges, that's right, that's right. wow. >> but despite support from the president's base, it's still unclear how the kavanaugh controversy will influence voters come november. lets bring in communications director for democratic super pac parties usa and former spokesman for hillary clinton's presidential campaign and sophia nelson and nbc think contributor. let's start with you on this, sophia. when we look at the kavanaugh decision, and we're getting a lot of reaction at the moment in

terms of the letter that was released, in terms of dr. ford being willing to at least offer firsthand information related to this entire incident. we don't incident. we don't know necessarily that means sitting in front of the senate judiciary committee on the republican side as you know, all white men. >> yeah. look, richard, this issue continues to rock washington and indeed the nation. i want to say at the outset that i don't see how the republicans come out of this in a good way no matter what happens, so for example if they hear dr. ford and then they hear judge kavanaugh, and then they push the nomination through, regardless of how the public feels about it or the reaction to it, that's not going to bode well for them in the midterms. and if they continue not to get it right from the optics and the treatment of dr. ford and what seems to be a rush to judgment

in the opinion of some, not allowing the fbi time to investigate, i just don't see how this works out well for the gop. every american now ought to go on twitter and look at the hash tag why i didn't report. it will have you in tears. it will have you angry and frustrated to see how prevalent sexual abuse, assault and date rape and those things are in our culture and have been for the last 50 years and even right with us today, and the republicans have to deal with this, and they've got to take it seriously. >> josh as we look towards midterms, reflecting on what sophia was sharing there, who does it ignite more, the democrats or republicans, and there could be more memes or more campaigns before midterms hit us, the voting day. as it stands now, who do you think it energizes more? >> i think there are millions of women across the country already inclined to vote for democrats but when they see republicans in the senate and president of the

united states attacking a sexual assault victim the way that they have been it will fire them up and anger them more and they'll bring it to the ballot box and take it out with votes. that's what they should do. you're already seeing in in other words, kevin kramer who is running a red state is on the defensive because he suggested it was absurd for teenagers who are drunk to be able to be sexual assaulted. and that kind of comment from republicans is going to be heard far and wide and is going to really hurt them in november. they have a lot to be afraid of. >> when we do look at the president, sophia, he is out on the campaign trail and despite comments that had been made in the past and then specifically with regard to dr. ford overnight, and we know senator collins was not in favor of the comment being made coming from the president of the united states, she's a key vote for kavanaugh clearly on this, but when we look at the statements

coming from the president, it seems like it is not effecting still his traction and we saw it in missouri and other states that he continues to visit on t the campaign trail. >> two things. i don't think any of us should be surprised if president trump lost his earlier restraint in the early part of the week and did what he did on twitter. here's a man who is president of the united states, was himself credibly accused by over a dozen women of sexual assault, harassment. he admitted on a tape the infamous tape we all know that he likes to grab women by certain parts of their body, so i kind of dismiss him now which is sad because he is the president of the united states. so i expect him to say the most ridiculous, obnoxious, insensitive things ever. that's the first point. the second thing we have to look at is what's going to happen with the trump base versus the democrat base which as your other guests said is energized. this again, going back to the earlier point, the republicans

don't come out of this winners. judge kavanaugh in my opinion needs to withdraw. they need to put somebody else in for selection and for the senate to review. this is just a mess at this point and it is only going to get worse and trump is not helping himself or the party. >> does the senate here, josh, and has been discussed, watching the political report and other polling out that the senate can stay in republican control despite the developments with the president coming out, making such statements as well as the kavanaugh confirmation hearing, that there's some mathematics that say in the senate that the republicans can maintain control, despite all of the negativities that can come from the latest headlines. >> absolutely. this is one of the toughest maps in history for democrats. we have a good chance of taking the house, the senate is an

uphill battle. polls are shifting and momentum in a bunch of races is favoring democrats. you're going to have close races across the country. if you have another thing to force and push a few more voters over the edge, it helps our chances there are voters everywhere that won't like the image of 11 crusty old white men yelling at her in the senate. that's the kind of thing that can swing close elections. >> there's a statistic i think you know well from the association of american universities, 27% of female college seniors report that they have experienced some sort of sexual assault. you yesterday on twitter also made your own declaration on why

i didn't report. can you share with us that experience and why many voters might be remembering this very idea, and i'm sorry, we only have about 30 seconds. >> yeah. i won't get into specifics. you can read my twitter feed. i was compelled like a lot of women and men by the way who shared their stories because the reality is we don't talk about it. i recently informed my mother and my brother about it, 43 years after it happened. i am 51. i understand the college statistics. i do a lot with women as you know, i talk to young women, work with them. this is something we have to do. we have to talk to our young men, get them to understand the drinking and touching girls and all of that has to stop and that we have to shift the culture and these hearings are going to do that one way or the other. >> sophia nelson, thank you for sharing your story. thank you for being here. our coverage of breaking news continues at the top of the

hour. don't go anywhere. brett kavanaugh's accuser agreed to tell her story to the senate judiciary committee. coming up, what will be a tense supreme court hearing, but still many details to be worked out. more on that at the top of the hour. i'm ray and i quit smoking with chantix. in the movies, a lot of times, i tend to play the tough guy. but i wasn't tough enough to quit on my own. not until i tried chantix. chantix, along with support, helps you quit smoking. it reduced my urge to smoke to the point that i could stop.

when you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix, you may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. some people had changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, or suicidal thoughts or actions with chantix. serious side effects may include seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking or allergic and skin reactions which can be life-threatening. stop chantix and get help right away if you have any of these. tell your healthcare provider if you've had depression or other mental health problems. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. the most common side effect is nausea. my favorite role so far? being a non-smoker. no question about it. talk to your doctor about chantix. your hair is so soft! no question about it. 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.

good day to you. i am richard lui. we start with breaking news for you.